The overt act - motivator sequence - the most important mechanism in which you will be interested as an auditor, and which, if it could be solved, would make the "wellest" pc, and which basically a Theta Clear comes mostly out of; is the overt act-motivator sequence or the DED-DEDEX sequence.

Thank you.

This is a mental mechanism. It stems originally from the association or identification of self with energy. Now, probably the first and greatest mechanism to which a thetan is subject is just this one mechanism, denial of self. That means also, irresponsibility for the products of self. He makes it, then he says, "I didn't." Denial of self or the products of self.

Well, today we're going into something that we'll probably cover in a large hurry and you'll catch up with it in two or three years. Now, I'm being flattering because man didn't catch up with this in two or three million. So, I'll show you an entrance point here of observation and you'll get so you can see this and spot it and handle it very, very well.

Now, this is all very germane to the overt act-motivator sequence. "That which I do will be done to me" is probably the first great civilizing (ha!) postulate. "That which I do will be done to me."

The subject is mechanisms of the mind. Mechanisms of the mind. It's a very vast subject. Psychology, nineteenth century psychology in its total entirety, and nineteenth century psychiatry in its entirety, did not reach any fundamental mechanism in the human mind. And every time you try to use that information as itself you get into trouble.

Person starts to believe this, he's had it. But the funny part of it is, it doesn't get serious or out of his control until it gets into an identification of self with energy. "I am energy." Or an identification of thought with energy. "Thought is energy." Or an identification of mass with energy, which the physical sciences went into the moment they leaped into nuclear physics. They said, "All mass is energy," see?

Wherever I have gone astray in Dianetic research, and later Scientology research, it is because I have used some data out of the nineteenth century that I had no business using. That's interesting to know. I just give it to you as a research datum. When they said it went this way and then went that way, I finally found out that you could count on it having been the opposite, or the datum was entirely irrelevant to what we wanted.

Now, identification in any form stops being useful and starts being insane when it gives the individual so much trouble that he can't operate. Up to that time, identification is perfectly reasonable. You do identification all the time with words; this is one of the primary identifications in a society.

Now, this is not condemnation. I'm trying to give you solid research material. Basically, in order to view this subject at all it was necessary to compartment life in order to know what to look at. I did this rather heroically. I chopped life up into big chunks on this basis: What had benefited man and what had not benefited man?

In fact, the whole Know to Mystery Scale is an identification proposition.

Solely and completely along this line. Was the civilization using such-and-so body of knowledge successful or unsuccessful? That's a very wide sweep, isn't it?

The identification of words with objects is your best idea there of identification. Say "radiator" to you and that's a radiator. When somebody totally spins in, why, r-a-d-i- a-t-o-r is a heavy object which generates heat. No, it's not. No, it's not. It's just a series of letters strung together, and a word, and it's not the thing.

This is why you occasionally find me sarcastic about Christianity, because the first one to be pushed aside as a subject we didn't have to study was Christianity. Now, why was that? Is it because one was an atheist or one had prejudices or something? I'm afraid not. I'm afraid not. Everywhere I have looked I have found Christianity and insanity with a similarly high incidence.

Now, the whole of general semantics, an activity which was very widespread in the first part of the twentieth century and not a bad activity at all, tried to get people over this idea of identification. But general semantics was so thoroughly messed up with "ideas are energy itself" that it never quite got off the runway.

Now, to do research you have to be cold-blooded. You have to lay aside a lot of preconceptions. And it doesn't matter whether I said my prayers when I was a little boy or not. That has nothing to do with it. When you're trying to look at the wholebody of life in one sweeping look, and isolate out of it the fundamental data on which life operates, you certainly have to get rid of certain bodies of knowledge in order to look at anything at all. Do you see the procedure? A procedure by elimination, in other words.

Now, I'll give you an example of this: One of the things that was taught in general semantics was that nobody could ever understand what anybody else was saying because each thing meant something different to everybody. Ah, boy, don't try toteach a subject that you open up with a communication break of that magnitude.

Well, Christianity went. And there's one particular action in Christianity which went out the window further than general Christianity, and that was Christian Science. Because a check-up in mental hospitals showed a greater number of inmates had belonged to that faith than any other faith. You see how cold-blooded this look was?

You see, they avoided a thing called "knowingness." There is a thing called "knowingness" which is above all mechanics. A person simply knows, you see? He doesn't know because, he just knows. And knowingness is not energy, knowingness is not space, it's not time, it's not a lot of things - it is just knowingness. An individual simply knows.

In other words, if these are contributive to insanity, then they must be on a reverse vector as a body of knowledge. There must be something wrong in that body of knowledge which downgrades sanity and we were trying to find out what was a fundamental. So having swept aside certain bodies of knowledge of this character, we still found certain bodies sitting in view.

Now, there could be a very pure brand of not-knowingness. Individual simply not- knows this thing that he knew. See, it wouldn't ever trouble him if that was as far as it went. But that isn't as far as it went.

Well, the one which sat most plainly in view was the science of physics. And physics, oddly enough, has several fundamental laws in it which are mental mechanisms.

General semantics tried to teach us that the thing was not the word and that two things couldn't occupy the same space don't ever tell a thetan that. A thetan can always occupy the same space as something else, you see. So there were some lies strewn into general semantics that made it relatively unworkable.

Now, for physics to remain in view was perfectly simple because evidently a knowledge of the mechanics of the physical universe or physics (which is physics) - where it appears, we have superstition, fear, illness and other things dropping out. Do you see that? So this becomes then a body of knowledge which is well worth studying because it evidently breeds sanity.

Two things can occupy the same space, two spaces can occupy the same space; pretty easy. If you don't believe it, why, just make a space in this room. Occupies the space of this room, doesn't it? So therefore, two spaces are occupying the same space. Oh, but you'd have to make a third space to say both spaces were occupying that space and there'd be three spaces in the same place. You follow me? A thetan can do anything. He's wonderful.

But here were some other subjects...and somebody will clobber me with this someday or another and say, "He doesn't believe in Yahwah," or something of the sort. I believe in more gods than anybody you ever heard of. And I certainly know more personally than any minister in the business. I'm very far from an atheist. An atheist believes more ardently in God than anybody else. He does because he has to protest against him.

So there's no such thing as "can't," you know? There's no such thing as "totally unable to," you know? Those are the lies; those are the lies. Individual who says, "Under no circumstances will I..." the next thing you know; finds himself doing it.

Now, Christianity must have had something in it that wasn't good for people and physics must have something in it that was good for people. And several other bodies of information examined in this character also began to exclude two bodies of knowledge - really three - psychology, psychoanalysis and psychiatry. These were all three nineteenth century developments. They are not twentieth century developments and actually nothing to amount to anything has been added in the twentieth century.

"Never, never, never will I become a grenadier - where's the uniform?" It's almost inevitable that a person who is identifying thought with energy finds himself pulled into all of the things he resists.

I'm not just being sarcastic. This is true. Psychoanalysis was at its high peak in 1894, and there's been nothing been added to it to amount to anything, except that essay that was written by Freud about 1920 that said it was unsolvable and interminable. I've forgotten the name of the essay. I've read it. It was the cry of a heartbroken man - twenty-eight, twenty-six years after his announcement of the libido theory.

This is one of the first things that happens when a thought becomes identified with energy. Thought is not energy, but energy can symbolize thought. You can take a sheet of paper that's got words in it, it's symbolizing thought. But this doesn't mean that thought is symbolizing it. But you could have a thought over here which says "sheet of paper" which symbolizes the sheet of paper, which says something, which is a thought. You could do that. A thetan can do anything.

Now, with that we could dismiss sex as the primary thing, because a concentration on sex and researches in sex exclusively had not brought about broad sanity. See, it didn't work. So we just didn't have to examine that at all. You see, your shortcuts. This is how we got this much information this fast, you see? Just by these compartmentations, shortcuts, looking it over, condemning a whole body of knowledge; say we'll look at that later. You know, that sort of thing.

There are no inflexible rules the moment that you depart from knowingness and not- knowingness. All other rules become flexible, limited, matters of agreement and so forth.

Psychology - psychology could have been born out of physics, but nobody in psychology knows physics or knew physics. Natural philosophy and psychology were considered antipathetic to a very marked degree.

But this great civilizing postulate requires the identification of self with energy, so that an individual will get it in the teeth every time he hands it out to somebody in the teeth. And then we have a very reactive civilization. And not a very good one; not a very good one.

Psychology got off to the - on the wrong foot, in I think it was 18... I used to know the date extremely well -69 or 89, something like that, when Professor Wundt said, "All thinking is matter." Only he didn't say it that way. He said, psychology is a study of physical anatomy. It is the study of brain." And it has followed that line ever since, it hasn't made anybody well and hasn't done anything for anybody but quite the contrary has downgraded a tremendous number of people, because we find people who study psychology are not very processable. They have made their beingness totally a mass of gray matter and it's very hard to unstick them from it. So we could dismiss that one.

An individual has to believe this on any one subject before he goes around the bend. The proper method of sending somebody around the bend is to teach him absolutely, conclusively, inevitably and incontrovertibly that that which he doeth will be doneth. Inevitable.

Psychiatry never succeeded in making anybody sane - never did. It alleviated the condition every now and then. So we could dismiss that.

Now, one of the ways you get people to practice this is, "When thou hast received a blow on the port side, turn hard to the starboard and get it on the other."

You see how we could go about this? So this leaves us with what? This left us with the fact that every country which did not have a good, fundamental knowledge of the physical universe and its laws went into a decline, its people became very degraded, it developed caste systems, terrific inequalities - India, for instance, is an example.

It's all going to inflow. That's almost a lost point on the track. "What. ever happens, it will become an inflow on me. I am totally the center of all effects that will ever occur." You carry this all the way down, you'll find an individual would be in total, total, total sub, sub, sub, sub-Tone Scale, total self-effect.

So we come back to this and we find basically the fundamental mechanism which differentiates these huge bodies of knowledge and brings one up as better for man than another one. We say, "better" for them - well, he survives better and he dies easier and he gets born easier - you get the idea? He has a better time of it, you might say, and is conquering his environment more successfully.

Now the communication formula is what invites the overt act-motivator sequence. Now, all things that are disorderly are preceded by order. So is the overt act- motivator sequence preceded by the very orderly thing called communication.

And we look this over and we find order after all these years. It isn't that physics is true, it's that physics enforces a certain order upon people. It runs pretty good 8-C. When you fall off a cliff you hit the bottom, every time. There aren't a lot of maybes in this subject, you see? That's basically what's right with physics.

Therefore, communication itself can undo an overt act-motivator sequence since it is the communication that permitted the overt act motivator sequence to eventually congeal and counteract and act on the individual.

When you - when you hit a pool ball - you put two pool balls together, and when you hit this pool ball, why, that pool ball will roll away - interaction. When you fire a gun it kicks you in the shoulder just as - with the same force that it kicks a ball out of the nose. Because the ball is smaller, it has greater penetration power and there you are. That's the laws of interaction.

Let's see how this works. Bill says to Joe, "Hello," and is actually a little upset if Joe doesn't say, then, something to Bill. Got that? He insists on this interchange. Insists on the interchange! The interchange -absolutely necessary! Now, all they've got to do is identify thought and communication with energy and avoid the fact these things can exist on the plane of knowingness, see, and insist that there's an identification between thought and energy.

There's no maybes about this. You're living in a very fine universe. It has order.

When Bill hits Joe, Joe will hit Bill. See, it's just one downgrade. We go into energy, exchange of, from communication, exchange of; see?

Now, when people begin to study this order and find out how orderly it is, they themselves evidently become more orderly. And up to a certain point this much order is very good for man.

Now, Bill gets very upset when he says, "Hello, Joe," and Joe doesn't say, "Hello, Bill." See, he gets very upset.

Now, that certain point is a point where he becomes obsessed of looking inside things he has already looked into. In other words, he begins to attack the physical universe, he begins to try to expose the physical universe in some fundamental laws which it doesn't have, and he begins to worship the chaos on which all the order he thinks is built, and a number of things. And you get a nuclear physicist and they're nutty as fruitcakes. They're strictly fruitcake. You could serve them up for Christmas dinner any day and they'd never know the difference.

Well, why does he get upset on the total reverse? He hits Joe and now he gets upset because Joe hits him. This upsets him. We could say that he's inconsistent or that he's inverted somewhere on communication, right?

That's not a bitter statement. You should meet some of them. I'm talking about, now, your high-ranking theoretical boys that are plunging off the end of nowhere. But amongst these crew, the great giants of the subject, very hardly any of whom are around now - Einstein and the rest of them - these fellows - these fellows also had an orderly look toward life.

Because in the first instance, he says, "Hello, Joe." And then he says, "What's the matter with you, Joe, why don't you speak up when you're spoken to? I've said hello to you, why don't you say hello?" See? Big growl. We didn't get a two-way flow on the hello.

Well now, it isn't that the physicist himself as a super-specialist is terribly good for man, because he's about to blow him up. But the subject itself, its orderliness, the orderliness of physics does appeal to us, because people are better where man recognizes the physical universe for what it is. And the basis of that is order. It doesn't interject very many maybes.

All right, now let's just downgrade this into energy and mass and impact. Now, Bill walks up to Joe, hauls off and hits him in the jaw. Joe turns around and hits Bill in the jaw.

I'll tell you, if you lived in a universe when you started to walk out that door, you emerged at the back of the building; if you lived in a universe where it was twenty minutes from now a half an hour ago, and Joe was at two o'clock while you were at six in the same town; and you had tremendous numbers of maybes and uncertainty, you would not be feeling very well, let me assure you. You would have what?

Bill says, "What do you mean hitting me in the jaw?" Well, the explanation is, immediately, according to Joe, that Bill hit him in the jaw, so therefore he should hit Bill in the jaw, you see? Explains it, doesn't it?

Uncertainty.

The parts of communication are something that you should know. And you should know them well, because the more direct and accurate communication of which you're capable, the more control you have over the fundamental which eventually becomes an overt act-motivator sequence!

So we get a fundamental mechanism of the mind is first, order. Order is positive. Chaos is more or less negative or something that you can neglect. You can pay attention to order and bring order with impunity, without any vast consequence to yourself.

Now, it isn't that communication is to blame. What's to blame is identification. Identification of thought with energy. All things go by gradient scales, another mental mechanism. All things go by gradient scales. Well, the gradient scale is from knowingness into spacingness into double exchangingness into energy is thought, you see? And about that time we've had it.

But if you start bringing about confusion there is a consequence. That's perhaps the most fundamental of mechanisms. That's why 8-C works when run by a good auditor; it doesn't work when it's run by a sloppy auditor, you see? The good auditor has got regularity there; he's got duplication of cornmand; he has insistence, intent on the thing being carried out as a command. You get the idea? In other words, there's - it's a smooth performance which is what? Predictable. Predictable. A predictable pefformance as an auditor, then -duplicative, announced, bridged and so forth, brings order to the preclear.

Now, this still - this still wouldn't make any lasting effect on anyone. No, you say it'd certainly knock a tooth out now and then. Yeah, well that was all it would do. People can go through life without a tooth. If people didn't insist that thought was energy and insist on copying each action and keeping in suspension a mock-up of the overt act-motivator sequence interchange - now we're just into mechanics, into basic fundamental mechanics.

Now, it's a very funny thing that all you would have to do is do anything well in an orderly fashion with a pc and you could improve his health. That's a fundamental mechanism.

This is almost the same as for every action there is an equal and contrary reaction, don't you see? And perhaps that's how the law in physics got there. It isn't true - it isn't true that for every action there is an opposite reaction.

Now, every time you try to bring order you blow off residual confusion. If there's confusion in an area and you enter order into the area, you are going to blow off some confusion. Now, please, just make up your mind to that as an auditor and recognize it as you go as a fundamental, and stop protesting because confusion comes off of a pc. Where is it going to go? What are you going to do, just dam the whole thing up?

In the first place, you'd have to at once say 'order of magnitude'. Because once in a while some physicist gives you the example, "When you stamp on earth, earth stamps back just as hard as you stamped on earth. And when you stamped on earth, you moved earth out of orbit some tiny degree..." I don't believe it. You've heard them say that, though. That's silly though, it's not true. Earth didn't move because you stamped on it, believe me - order of magnitude.

Well, this pc starts to scream. Well, you haven't introduced disorder into him. He started to scream because you started introducing order. The thing to do is to introduce some more order and he'll scream more. And now introduce some more order and some more order and all of a sudden, why, he's got it taped. And he stops screaming and he's squared around and he feels much better.

Now, if you stamp on a tennis ball, it stamps back at you in the same order of magnitude, don't you see? But the stamps are of order of magnitude. So you've got to have something of order of magnitude before you have "for every action there's an equal and contrary reaction." See, you've got to have an order of magnitude.

Now, this mental mechanism you will not find in any of man's studies - up and right until now - Scientology. But out of observing tremendous masses of information, subdividing all the information that man ever had into groups, studying it and so on, we finally arrive with this conclusion. I've only given you a very rough idea of how we arrive with this conclusion, but you can observe this happening.

A building falls on you, you sure don't fall on the building as hard as the building fell on you. That I assure you. If you don't - I don't advise you to go out and put this thing to clinical proof. You won't make any dent at all in the building so don't try it, see? It's not order of magnitude.

Now, you start straightening out an organization. You take a small organization and as an auditor you start sort of auditing it and straightening it out. And what are you going to find? You're going to find that all of the confusions which are residual in the thing are one way or another going to blow out. You're putting order into it; confusion is going to blow off of it. And before it finally becomes totally ordered, you're going to see a lot of confusion arise.

But if you walk up to a person your own size and hit him in the jaw and then he turns around and hits you in the jaw, or you walk up to a girl your size and pull her hair and she pulls your hair, you've almost got a physical law in existence. And probably it's this fact which makes that law manifest itself in the physical universe, because the physical universe follows the laws of a thetan, a thetan doesn't follow the laws of the physical universe. You see this?

One of the first things that happens when you start to straighten up an organization is those exact points where the most disorder and the least understanding exist, those exact points will practically blow your head off. They'll come right in and they'll say, "No, we can't do this. We can't follow that order. We couldn't possibly accomplish this and it's not possible, and there is no way by which we could bring this about" and so forth, "and we can't. We're - and really... And I've just been sitting here" or "I've just been sitting here all day and I can't do anything because I just don't understand the executive order which you just handed me." Get the idea?

You've got this silly thing called an overt act-motivator sequence, that's all we're talking about. You see, it's manifestly untrue that if Bill shoots Joe dead, Joe then gets up and shoots Bill dead, see. That's obviously untrue, isn't it?

The executive order said that all red plates should be stacked on the right and all blue plates should be stacked on the left, see? Boy! That's order, see? You come in and you find all plates stacked behind the person. And you say, "No, on the right, on the left, on the right, on the left. That's all."

Now, if some swami, witch doctor, bogus saint comes along and tells you, "Now, you've just stored up some karma for yourself son, ha-ha. You've fixed yourself up. You have been guilty of a sin. And you've been guilty of a sin against your fellow man and, therefore, one of these days you're going to get shot just like you shot Joe." Ah! It takes this new thought added to it to make it true.

"Yeah, well, I couldn't see any purpose in it," and apathy and so on and so on and so on. Well, don't give up. Show him again, go on to some other point in the organization. Come back, show this guy again. By this tirne he's got all the plates; he's got one third red, one third blue, one third red, one third blue stacked up on his head, see?

Therefore, we find a somewhat barbaric race like the Tartars never suffering particularly from a lot of the things they did. Wasn't held to be wrong to wipe out villages and so forth - this was not held to be wrong, generally.

You say, "No." You say, "One color goes here, one color goes here. That's it. That's the way you do it." You get them all stacked up. Show him.

But we find a nation where it is totally held to be wrong, and where there's terrific emphasis on the overt act-motivator sequence: "That which ye have done, ye will have happen to you, son." When that one goes... This nation gets so they can't even wave a feather. The individual citizen couldn't even wave a feather at another individual citizen. Nobody must act. Get the idea? Because if they wave a feather, the other person will wave a feather, too. You know? I mean it gets to be total pat-a- cake, you see this?

Don't be surprised if in a few days this fellow comes in to you and he says, "I just - just realized that if all one color is stacked in one place and all the other color is stacked in the other place, that you can count them and find out how many you've got very easily." All you did was blow off confusion.

Well, both of these things exceed rationality. Going around and doing things to things continually and forever and chewing everything up and ruining everything and smashing everything; well, obviously that's pretty wrong. Obviously. It's at least uncivilized.

Now take a girl - take a girl from an ordinary business office and put her at a typewriter in a very orderly organization. Let's say the tapes she's to type come in a basket, and they're brought by a messenger - they're brought in a basket. They go through a certain exact procedure. Letters emerge at the other end. And the tape accompanies these letters and they go back and they're taken away on that side.

But that ought to be obvious. You shouldn't go around and chew up everybody's mock-ups just because there it is, you know. They build a building so shoot it down. You know?

She'll almost blow her brains out.

England's got some museums and theaters and so bomb them! So we have a political disagreement between communism and whatever the United States has now. And that isn't a good enough reason for either country to start wiping out the other country. See? It's not a good enough reason, unless they're totally bogged down into this silly thing called overt act-motivator sequence.

Now, you could produce the same phenomenon of confusion blowing off by having her touch her typewriter; just sit there and touch the typewriter, touch the desk, touch the typewriter - and she feels giddy; touch the typewriter, touch the desk, touch the chair, touch the floor, look at the walls, look at the window, touch the typewriter, touch the desk, touch the floor. She feels confused. She'll have feelings of apathy and confusion and other things coming up. Do you see that?

That which I do will be done to me. That's actually a DED-DEDEX, we call it technically. Overt act-motivator sequence is that an individual gets kicked in the teeth, so he kicks somebody in the teeth. That's basically what it means. Actually, a truer state of affairs for any thetan is DED-DEDEX. Without any reason he kicks somebody in the teeth and then by some slip of the fist or something of the sort, or slip of the heel, he got kicked in the teeth. And after a while he begins to believe that if he kicks somebody in the teeth, they kick him in the teeth. Get the idea?

There's an exact co-ordination then between the action of processing and the action of doing the job. And the more order the person is capable of, the less confusion comes off. And the person that has the most confusion will receive at first the least order, and the most disorder comes off of.

So that he keeps himself warned about this - he warns himself about this by keeping it mocked up! That's really fascinating. But how does he do this? He doesn't want to know the other person's pain. That is the whole crux of the bank. That is the whole thing in the bank. He doesn't want to know the difficulties he has caused. He should be able to experience anything, he says, but here he has caused something that he is not willing to experience.

It's a very remarkable thing, but you get some preclears and you start processing them. and they suddenly start to sweat or they start to smell bad or the - or they start to shake or various other wild, weird things occur.

So if we have "not willing to experience," we've come down at once to confront - remember the scale, Reality Scale? Ah ha! Now we're getting somewhere with this overt act-motivator sequence which is the designation we use to cover all this phenomena.

Well, don't worry about it. That is unaligned or misaligned, contrary, upset, unestablished, mysterious, uncertain data, motions and so forth. These things are just - they just start coming off of the pc. It's the most remarkable thing you ever saw.

That means that when Bill hit Joe in the teeth, he did it to conceive an act - he conceived an act which Joe wouldn't like and which would make Joe flinch, so that Joe would not then come up to him again, you see. He sought to teach by punishment. So there's a big, moral rule that there's not a one here that won't agree with me instantly and immediately that there's something wrong about punishment. Isn't that true? There's something wrong with it. There's something wrong with the philosophy of punishment. Well, there certainly is. Bill wants to teach Joe a lesson.

So man could be said to be at his best when he is a creature of order and at his worst when he is disorderly. That doesn't mean particularly you should protest against disorder, or take it on for your randomity. You can actually neglect it.

Does he use reason? Does he use knowingness? Does he explain anything? No, he puts it on the duress line and he hits Joe in the teeth because Joe said or did something that Bill said was wrong.

Now, here's another odd thing. The only time you ever got into trouble was when you neglected order and totally fixated on disorder. When you did that, you were in trouble. In other words, the difficulties of man stem from an exact reversal of this state of affairs.

"Civilize them with the sword." Now, unfortunately the sword never civilized anybody. It only bred a whole bunch more overt act-motivator sequences. It only bred a whole bunch more reality. What essentially has happened here? Bill hit Joe, but then Bill did something which narrowed his perimeter of observation for a moment.

This foreman who rushes around all over the place trying to straighten up every piece of disorder and never once issues an orderly order or straightens out anything fundamental, will be found merely to stack up more disorder in his zone of influence. He'll just bring about more and more disorder. And the very next thing you know, you're hardly able to do anything.

You see, he. did it because he wanted to do something which the other person couldn't confront. So he has put at arm's length from him something that can't be confronted, which is a punch in the teeth. You see that clearly? He's got that right in front of him right over here, he's got something that mustn't be confronted and that's teaching by punishment.

Now he has to wind up, usually, doing the whole thing himself or something like that. Any job that's to be done around there, he has to do it - why? That's because all the disorder snapped in on him and the only person you could bring any order to would be the foreman, you see? And you could try to bring some order to him, but that would be about all. Because he'd no longer be capable of really bringing any order that he himself didn't have right up here.

Teaching people by showing them there are things they can't confront - Oh, boy! Look at this, look at this, look at this - to get somebody to know by showing them they can't know? Well, isn't that it? Huh? Isn't that it? Ah, walk up to me and - thetans sometimes play a wonderful game called majesty; deity; offended deity.

Now, that's what's happened to most thetans. They've attacked disorder and attacked it and been subjected to it and thought it was important and bowed down to it - the "god of calamity" and the "gods of chaos" - to a point where they're totally governed by chaos or disorder.

Joe walked up and spoke familiarly to Bill. And Bill says, "Whooh, you can't know me that well. Hhoowr-hoowr." Thud! So, it's a reduction of knowingness, isn't it? Well, where does knowingness go, by rule, when it reduces? Hmm, goes into energy, doesn't it? Small particles and then bigger particles and then masses and then inverted masses. Look at the Know to Mystery Scale. See?

And we get another mental principle which is: confusion and the stable datum.

So he lowered his knowingness. He taught him by punishment. When you teach by punishment, you of course teach not-knowingness. See that? You teach non- confrontingness. Ah! But all knowledge is, is familiarity. So you're going to teach somebody by making it so they can't be familiar?

Now, an individual will assume a stable datum in order to get out of the confusion. Now, the way he normally did this was in order to look at random particles at all, he had to assume the viewpoint of one particle. I spoke of that the other day, do you remember this? They had to ass... he had to assume a beingness of some sort in order to see these other particles. Well, when he then becomes afraid of these other particles and says, "Their disorder is so tremendous that I cannot even vaguely stand all of that motion and disorder", then he clutches solidly onto this one particle, which is apparently motionless.

Now, just look at this - look at this pile of illogic on man's part. Look at - look how silly this thing is. This individual has got somebody in his environment and he hits him. So, on the theory that the individual doesn't want to confront being hit - but, but, but Joe did it because Bill rigs it up that he can't tolerate being hit. Bill -he, Bill, can't tolerate being hit. So therefore, Bill at once loses his pan-determinism and drops into self-determinism. You see this? He's go can only be on one side of this duo now because the other side is being hit. Ah, he can occupy just that much less space, can't he? He can occupy just that much less perimeter, can't he, hm?

If you throw a bunch of paper up in the air, by the way, all particles of the paper look disorderly, right? Well, now if you threw the same batch of paper out in space, without the reference of the walls or floor, they would again all look disorderly, wouldn't they?

He doesn't want to be on this other side being hit. And if he made a picture of it, which he is - sort of conditioned himself to do, he mustn't even look at the picture, because the picture is of somebody being hit.

But if you took hold of just one and saw all the others from it, regardless of what this one was doing out in space, it would look motionless and all other particles would look in motion. Do you see that clearly? All particles, then, could be viewed from all particles minus one. See, that's a simple mechamsm.

Now, it's not that he was or wasn't cause, it's that - the fact that he can't be on both sides of the communication formula. And we get into obsessive cause and mustn't be effect. See? The individual is now unbalanced on his cause and effect. He mustn't be over here at effect, so the only place he can be is cause.

Well, he gets an idea that something is motionless or something is orderly and views all other particles as being in confusion and being disorderly. Got the idea? And then stacks up because of fear of disorder or fear of violence or something of the sort.

And when somebody's really going up the spout, when they've really sent for the little boys in the white jackets, it's because an individual is obsessively at cause and can't be anyplace else and doesn't know where he is because he can't even receive a sense message from the walls and so can't even orient himself. So he's totally surrounded with demons and things that go boomp in the night. Get the idea? He doesn't know what's out there. He couldn't know what's out there because he has to be here at cause. What would be the penalty of being anyplace else but cause?

Everything is bad, then, except the one thing he is holding on to with a horrible clutch.

Getting hit in the teeth, getting shot, getting chopped with machetes - get the idea? Getting zapped, being cut to pieces, being tortured, see?

Now, he'll freeze on to this one datum in order to withstand the conflision he is surrounded with. In other words, that's the most order this individual could have, is simply the apparency of motionlessness of one particle while all other - while all particles actually are in motion. Get the idea? Well, that's the confusion.

Now, it's not that he did those things; it's that he has surrounded himself with those things. He surrounded himself with things he mustn't be. He mustn't be hit, he mustn't be shot, he mustn't be chopped, he mustn't be zapped. You got the idea?

Now, the - all particles minus one in motion is the confusion to this person. And the one particle he is viewing everything from, whether it's a piece of paper or a head or a grain of sand or a drop of water or a spinning airplane or anything else, that, he says, is motionless; that is solid. He attributes various virtues to this thing, you see, and assigns all order to this one particle.

Now, he holds out just so long before he does a flip, because he's run out of space. If he continues to mock up all these things - and you will see in a moment that creation itself is both the curse and the boon of a thetan - without creation he could have nothing. There wouldn't be any universe, no game, nothing to be interested in or anything else. At the same time his creation has extended over into making pictures of everything he has done and then rubbing the pictures out so they aren't really rubbed out, but so he can't suffer from them.

Well, as soon as he does that he's lost.

Now, it doesn't matter whether he's on the Moon or on Earth, he's still got the picture three feet away. So he goes to Venus, so it doesn't matter if he's on Venus, he's still got the picture three feet away of Joe being hit in the teeth. Got the idea?

We get into the subject of randomity that we're not terribly interested in. You should look over the axioms of randomity; plus and minus randomity, how much a person can tolerate in terms of exterior motion. Now, there's both too much and too little, but it's according to any man - it's different. Almost any person has a different answer to how much motion is too much motion. And almost any person has a different answer to how little motion is too little motion.

This mustn't be confronted. If it mustn't be confronted, I assure you it can't have any time. Can't be observed, can it? So you wouldn't know what time it was in. You'd have to look at it - somebody would have to give you a hand locating it on the time track. If you mustn't look at it... Yet he did it with the basic intention - and here we come to a very major thing - the intention of the action.

I used to know - a person - I used to tell this person I was going up and sit down. And they'd say, "What are you going to do?"

Now, the intention to punish is the intention to not have something experienced which a person must experience because one intends that it's to be experienced - the thing that can't be experienced. You see what a ball-up this is. And his intention sticks. Ah, but his punishment usually is something that's supposed to last for a long time.

And I'd say, "I'm not going to do anything. I'm going up and sit down." This person every time I would say it, he would almost faint.

No kid ever got spanked without being told, "Now, let that be a lesson to you." Which means what? Which means he's supposed to remember it from here on out, right? So the intention is that the other person shall continue to have a kick in the teeth or a blow in the mouth, you see, from there on, so as to teach him not to confront the deity or something that has hit him. You got the idea?

"Well, how long are you going to sit down?"

But whose intention is it? It's the person who did the hitting, isn't it? Now, the picture, the creation, the obsessive copying of everything that happens all adds up into this nasty sort of a situation that it mustn't abate. The person's mental image picture of this sequence of hitting Bill mustn't abate - or hitting Joe mustn't abate. Don't you see? Bill's intention that the lesson must go on and on and on and on - that's all wrapped up in Bill's engram.

"I don't know. It's a couple hours till dinner time, I'll just sit down. That's all and..." "Oh, then you're going to wait for dinner?"

Now, listen, Joe's intentions could never hurt Bill, but they could hurt Joe. Bill's intentions could never hurt Joe, but they could hurt Bill. Well, let's look that over. The only thing in the mock-up is knowingness. He knew what was in the mock-up, right? Well, he couldn't establish perfectly what the other person's intentions was, but he establishes perfectly what his own intentions are.

"No I'm not going to do anything. Nothing! Just nothing - not for two hours. Haaaah."

That's the biggest piece of knowingness and the biggest piece of order in it, and the order always precedes disorder, doesn't it? So he knew what his intention was but he didn't know what the other fellow's intention was. So he keeps his own intention on the track which is that the - must persist - the lesson must persist. You get this kind of a lock-up where the individual, every time he did something that he himself must not experience, he did it intending that it can't be experienced. You see? He said "This act that I am doing must not be experienced by the other fellow." And then he made a picture of this occurring. And because the picture can't be experienced by the other fellow, nothing can erase it. So, he doesn't erase it either - the fellow who made the picture. You look this over and you'll find some fascinating things with regard to it.

Aren't you going to read a book? Aren't you going to think? Aren't you going to do anything?" You see? They couldn't - this to them - this to them was really super minus randomity, you see? This - too quiet! You know, it's fabulous.

Now, as soon as we get into overt act-motivator sequence, we're into the subject of mental image pictures, we're into the subject of flows. The only pictures that ever hurt you are those that you couldn't take responsibility for. Supposing now you're totally trained to believe that it is very evil for you to do anything to any other living thing. You mustn't do anything to any other living thing. Now, if you're totally trained to do that, then you are trained that each one of these pictures is something that socially you can't take responsibility for. So therefore, you don't ever as-is the things that you cause which are bad.

Now, you go out to the racetrack, you take hold of one of these cars that some of the boys drive and you wrap yourself around the steering wheel; and you're going to get it up, going around the track, to about - if you're not experienced at this - you're going to get it up to 35 or 40 miles an hour and you're going to say, "Boy, we're traveling. We're really going". 35, 40 miles an hour.

Well, the individual gets hedged around by these mental image pictures of having beat up this one and killed that one and poisoned somebody else. By the time he's been seventy-six trillion years on the track, why, he's got quite a few views. He erases these things, he says, but he never does.

After all you're in an unfamiliar area, you're in a rather narrow track; tracks are not nice and smooth like turnpikes. There are lots of things wrong with racetracks from the viewpoint of the average driver. You'd say, "We're really going." Also, racing cars these days are rather small, low to the ground, and so on. They're a little bit different than passenger cars. And you'd say, "Boy, that's really going."

I had a psychoanalyst tell me one time who was - I was processing and who was undergoing processing, "Oh, the death of my mother has all been handled. Yes, that doesn't hother me anymore." I was trying to run this person's grief charge, you see. "Doesn't bother me anymore."

Well, that isn't really going to a race driver. He doesn't think he's gotten her out of second gear until he's going about 80. And he really doesn't start getting any sensation of speed until he's going something on the order of 100 to 125. And then he says, "Well now, this is about right."

I said, "Well, let's sort of pick up the moment when you first heard your mother was dead and run it on through a few times anyway.

You'd have to take this boy up probably to 195, 215, something like that until you got plus randomity. But you've got plus randomity at 50. Got the idea? I don't say you would get plus randomity at 50, I'm just saying that's the way it is.

"Oh no, that's all been handled. It doesn't bother me anymore. "Well, let's just pick up the beginning of this anyhow."

I notice - I know one time - one time I went down to a little kiddie racetrack and they had little two-and-a-half horsepower cars; and they had little tiny wheels and they had governors on the things so they wouldn't go any faster, I think, than 12 miles an hour. And they had a very small track. And I got to talking to the mechanic and - that I had known up on the speedway. And he says, "You ought to drive one of these things." He says, "It's pretty wild, you know," words to that effect. "It's pretty crazy."

What was I doing? I was taking the not-is off this grief charge. See, I was taking the obsessive "isn't there." The way this individual had handled it and the way a therapist had handled it was simply make it non-existent, more non-existent, you see? I think they had undone a guilt complex and the therapist had conclusively proven to this psychoanalyst - another psychoanalyst had proven to this psychoanalyst that at no time could this person have done anything to her mother. So there was no reason for a guilt complex. You get the idea?

And I said, "Well, I couldn't even get in one."

Well, we started to run this engram and we just didn't get much of anyplace running the engram but we certainly got an awful lot of times when she pinched dimes and left her roller skates on the stairs and made her mother work too hard and so forth. And all we could pick up on the thing was obsessive bad cause on Mother. And we got a lot of that out of the road, why, then we spilled a lot of grief off of this thing and all of a sudden, the individual was not not-ising this death and did come up to PT. She looked at me very brightly and says, "You know, I guess we didn't handle it with psychoanalysis after all."

And he said, "Oh yes, you could. If you stick your knees up in the air and so forth, why, you can just barely get down there." He said, "Here, let me take the governor off of one of these things, and you take it around the track a couple of times." He says, "There's no kids here right now."

Now, every time you have an occlusion or, in its very extreme case, a "super-grouper," you just have a total not-is, which means intentions that this must not be confronted so the individual himself, of course, following his own rules doesn't confront it. And we get black screens, we get invisible fields, we get dub-in - at the lower part of the track, you get nothing but super-substitutions. Every time he tries to get a mock-up of Mama, she gets a mock-up of a dog, you see, or something like that. Never can get Mama - always somebody else or something else. That's a dub-in reality. Why? Because the person has done something to Mama which mustn't be experienced or faced. Why? Because it will happen to them.

Well now, the wheels on that thing were not more than about a foot in diameter, if that, you see? You know, those crazy little cars would go about 40. And there's nothing but bumps. Thing is uncontrollable. Man, I took that thing up to about 30 miles an hour and that was 550 as far as I was concerned. I was... That was plus randomity, that's all. It was just the circumstances of things.

Natural conclusion, you see, is the individual has to stay on this side of cause because if the individual got on to effect where Mama was concerned, bad things would happen, which by definition, must not be experienced.

So actually, the miles per hour doesn't mean anything. It's just what you consider in terms of speed and security and a whole bunch of considerations go into this sort of thing.

Now, here's the wildest thing about an overt act-motivator sequence. Now, I'll just give it to you straight from the shoulder. There is nothing, nothing in this or any other universe that a thetan cannot experience. A thetan can experience anything, anywhere. That's a terribly big maxim in processing.

So you could have too much motion or irregularity or too little motion or irregularity, don't you see? And nearly everybody has an optimum. Some. where in between too much and too little, he's comfortable. He's very comfortable.

You get a total reality on this and, boy, you will have it made. You won't be stopping halfway through a run engram because it's just too upsetting to the pc. There is nothing a thetan cannot experience! There is nothing too painful to be experienced, there is nothing too horrible to be experienced or confronted or anything else. Now, that's the truth.

If you notice on long trips that your concept of the right speed keeps going up. You notice that? Till finally you consider the right speed probably up there around 65, 70, something like that. That doesn't seem very, very fast to you. But if you've been just driving to work every morning or something of that sort, why, you'll find out that the right speed seems to be about 40. And when you first start out on the trip, why, cars are going by you at a mad rate, you see, on all sides. And you're saying to yourself, "My, they're certainly traveling fast." And then you condition yourself to this upper randomity and you're all set.

But the consistent intention behind punishment is the intention that this mustn't be experienced, and then do it. Get the idea? "You cannot stand a spanking," and then spank. Get the idea? All experiences - which is attended by the postulate "cannot be experienced," of course, cannot be experienced. Because what's senior here?

All right, that's a mental mechanism: plus - minus randomity - how much motion is too much motion. Therefore, the definition of confusion - definition of confusion would be, really, too much motion for anybody.

Postulates are senior. They monitor everything. So if the postulate in the incident says by intent that this cannot be experienced, that's the only experience that can't be experienced. But it isn't the experience that can't be experienced, it's the postulate that can't be experienced. Get the idea? That's the only thing there that can't be experienced, but that can be experienced too, so it's a damn lie. All you've got to do is get the individual to sit here and say, "This must not be experienced." And he'll get whap! And he'll get pictures and he'll get blast guns going off in his hands and he'll get spaceships running into things. It can all be experienced.

But you could get the same thing from too little motion. Person could still be confused. Individual walks out on the plain, there's nothing moving anyplace - there's nothing moving, there's not a breath of air stirring; there isn't any change in the horizon; and he all of a sudden feels totally spooked. It's too still! He becomes afraid. He has various emotional reactions.

Anything can be experienced.

So this too much and too little combine into an optimum, and this optimum to a person seems to be still. And that's something for you to know.

The - a thetan - a thetan's big problem is getting himself messed up. That's a much greater problem than staying unmessed. But he goes around punishing. They set up the blasters on the spaceship, or they set up the machine gun on the battlefield and they've got it all agreed amongst them that bullets cannot be experienced. You know, and electric beams cannot be experienced, electric shocks cannot be experienced and this - and sure enough they follow right on down the line, they can't experience them.

This will also coordinate with how much order is order; the speed of travel of particles, the neatness of pattern of particles. And you'll run into some mad men, sometime or another, that have to have their hat exactly here and their coat exactly there and their shoes exactly there. They go around adjusting things by the millimeter, you know? And dinner has to be served exactly this way, and so forth.

You already decided that falling under a car cannot be experienced before falling under a car can hurt you. This is one of the weirdest things. If you take a hair and cut it with a pair of scissors - a thing which I seldom do -you will notice the original experiment which unwrapped this puzzle. This is the original experience.

And they appear to be very cautious and very careful about everything, you see? Ah, this individual is probably - probably three quarters around the bend.

How is it that a pair of scissors, no matter how sharp, can cut a hair? How can it do it? "Oh," you say, "that's easy. The jaws come together and..." Oh, but you're just in agreement on the track. This hair must have consented to be cut in order to be cut. Got the idea?

It isn't important. This much order is not order. This much order is just a trial by patience or something of the sort, you see? That's just too much order for most people. But it's just the right amount of order for him - total meticulousness.

So out of all of this we get another mental mechanism which is part and parcel of overt act-motivator sequences - is the person must agree to be injured. He must agree to be sick. He must state that he can be injured, that he can be sick, before he can ever be injured or sick.

How much order is order? How much motion is motion? How little motion is no motion? All of these things are considerations. But we can still handle these things with broad looks.

A person has to have decided he could be harmed before he could be harmed. And that decision comes about mechanically in this way. An individual, obsessively at cause, punishing other people, decides that this is very bad, which indeed it is. He is very right because he lays himself a trap that he cannot easily extricate himself from and couldn't before Scientology. He gets a reversal eventually because he can no longer be such bad cause - the only other place he has to go is effect. Oh, but his intentions are totally that effect can be injured. And when he falls into his own trap and becomes the effect that can be injured - he has said so, you see? - he can be hurt. Even more simply than that, earlier on the track he had to say, "Don't shoot me, I can be hurt." Just part of a game, you know?

Your pc will only be jumping up and down and shaking his head from left to right fifteen or twenty times a second, and will appear to him to be motionless. There's an old process known as, "You walk over to that wall and you hold that wall still," you see? Well, how still is "still" to the person? That's a question that only the person can ask. But your insisting that he make it still is usually your insistence that he make it an optimum stillness for him. And when he can achieve this, he can then have a wider zone of what's optimum. Do you understand me? You actually broaden his randomity. You make him familiar with stillnesses, and he gets so he can tolerate them.

You'll start running early track on some people, you get into some of the most amazing things. The individual gets shot - big hole in his chest, you know?

Now, the whole test here is familiarity. There's no such thing as conditioning. Psychology was mad when it invented conditioning, because there is no such thing as conditioning. They thought that things were piped into some kind of a sub-conscious and went on automatic, and the individual could then do an action.

The other fellow says, "You're shot, you're dead now."

They thought that a musician, for instance, was a better musician if he was less aware. Then how is it that you can make a better musician by making him more familiar with music? But how is it they can never make a better musician by burying it further in his sub-conscious? Here's a question of what was right and what was wrong. Here we're into two opposites.

"Oh, I'm supposed to be dead? What am I supposed to do?"

All progress could be said to be associated with familiarity. Familiarity. A person can do an action so many times that he becomes totally aware of the action and requires so little of his attention to be aware of the action that it appears to be submerged.

"Well, you're supposed to lie down, that's - everybody does that. That's what this game's all about."

He doesn't have to think very hard to do this action, don't you see? So now, in the nineteenth century they made a blunder. They said it's because it's submerged and gone and he isn't noticing it. Now, the best driver is an automatic driver or something like that.

"Well, why am I supposed to lie down?" "You got a hole in your chest."

Now recently - recently, they made a test, and they found out that those people who were driving the most unconsciously had the most wrecks. That I agree with 100 percent. That's absolutely true.

"Well, what's that got to do with it?"

Someday, just for fun - this will throw you for a while - if you have a vehicle of any kind such as a body or a car or anything else, try driving the thing totally conscious of driving it. Drive it totally in PT, 100 percent. Make every motion you make with it utterly conscious. If this is a car, you will wind up almost wrapping it around every - every light pole and every curve and every abutment that you run into.

"Well, you can't breathe, your mock-up's got a hole in it. Therefore, you're dead." "Oh, I'm dead. All right."

But to send that car forward with intention, and to be totally aware of everything you are doing is a vast trial on your nerves. Because you can throw things down into an unconscious action - a conditioned action. A thetan has that ability. But you're just getting further and further from being a driver. Yeah, that's not good.

Watch a bunch of little kids playing, you'll get the same thing. "You're dead."

Or you can build it up into higher and higher familiarity and more and more awareness and you will eventually improve your driving. A person who has an hypnotic implant of the directions to drive, in other words, will gradually lose his ability to drive. He'll drive worse and worse and worse until he gets to be the one you meet in the US consistently - the seventy-year-old person who has eventually gotten enough money together to get the biggest Cadillac there is. He plants it in the middle of the road and drives at ten rniles an hour and you've had it. Driving with total care and then they run over all the abutments and into the light poles and so forth, and it's pretty messy.

"No, I'm not."

Now, you could go in for this: "I must be able to do it without being aware of it." But that is the death of a skill. A skill declines. It submerges out of sight to the degree that it submerges out of consciousness. The direction to go to improve any skill is to push it further and further into consciousness. In other words, be more and more aware of what you're doing. And you'll find out you get better and better and better, and after a while you wonder why this car has a motor.

"Oh, yes, you are."

You can take it and throw it down the road and make it turn the curve and so forth, and you sort of hold on to the steering wheel with one hand and yank it around the corner and so forth. But you're pushing the whole car, you're regulating the whole car, you're totally controlling the car. And you'll find out that if you had to make an emergency stop, you will make it in tenths of seconds faster than anybody who merely has been driving for a long time in an unconscious fog. You get the idea?

Now you have a whole bunch of people and they go out hurtling down the highway and they wrap themselves around a light pole. And a van comes along and loads the dead bodies in and that's - there, away we go, see?

So the direction to go for skill is further familiarity, further consciousness and further awareness. So we get a mental mechanism involved here: The further one departs from awareness or knowingness, the more difficulty he encounters in any sphere of activity.

How come? That's a big puzzle.

This is - this is a rule, this is a law. The more disorder he will find himself subjected to, and the more thoroughly he will have to grip on a stability in order to keep going. That's the direction when they pass out of consciousness, you see? When they get less and less conscious, they're running into more disorder, they're running into more accident, less predictability; they are more and more the effect of the environment.

''Well," you say, "it's obvious, the body can't stand . . . "

This is - this is, by the way, a tremendous thing to know. This is brand new knowledge. See, because you'd find-you'd find the nineteenth-century psychologist can test this with oh - with torts and retorts and ink would be flying in all directions and the mice would be squealing, you know? It'd be a terrible mess. He'd almost go around the bend if you told him he had to be conscious to be better.

Who said the body couldn't stand that much impact? I don't know that you couldn't take your body and bounce it off both walls like you would a volleyball or a tennis ball. And have it come right back to battery.

Now, the whole subject has been departing into unconsciousness, so that today the psychologist is to some degree lost to the Scientologist. The Scientologist makes some effort to bring him up to date, to rescue him, to do something about him professionally and so on. But you're at once in contest with this one thing. He says, "conditioning" and you say "familiarity." And you're talking about two different things which are the opposite poles of each other. And the direction you're going: toward greater consciousness, greater awareness, greater familiarity, as the lesson to be learned; and he's going toward less consciousness, more automaticity, bury it from sight, hypnotize them a little bit further. And you just come to no agreement whatsoever because he cannot now observe what you show him. That's the pity of it. That's the horror of it.

Tell me why injuries persist if they can be healed rapidly by Scientology processes? Then how is it they can persist? Oh, the trick is, how does an injury persist? And today in Scientology it's no real trick to narrow down an injury's duration by Scientology processes. This is no real trick. The real trick is how does one persist this long? Yeah, that's quite a trick.

This fellow, originally when he got into psychology, he wanted to cure people, he wanted to make them smarter, he wanted to take them apart, put them back together again, he wanted to be able to tell his government how to win a war, he wanted to do all kinds of things, don't you see? And then he gets hung with this answer of less and less familiarity, more and more unconsciousness and more and more conditioning. The thing you ought to do with a soldier is to take him out and make him less and less aware of what is going on and make him more and more of an automaton and cut him down further and further and then you'll have a good soldier and then his country loses the whole ruddy war - boom!

Well, it's by being totally irresponsible for it and saying one didn't have anything to do with it and it wasn't one's fault and naturally automobiles hurt one. Everybody knows that, you see, all kinds of considerations have to go into this thing.

"Oh," he says, "if you don't make soldiers unaware they'll be frightened." What a backwards look! The only people I ever saw scared to death were people who were on shore-base and couldn't look at the enemy. They were being made to be withdrawn, don't you see? And if you look at the incidences of insanity during war, you will fmd that those who were furthest from the combat lines had the highest percentage of insanity. That's a fascinating thing.

Scientologists are always shocking doctors. Poor medicos take a terrible beating. Actually, medicos have their place. They do, believe me. They're very handy to have around occasionally, console people who had - can't be processed. There are various ways and means and usages for medicos. They take in a little bit too much territory, sometimes.

By the way, the Zulu method of curing a soldier - one of his warriors - departs so far from his ordinary practices of witchcraft as to astonish one. Here was a piece of brilliance, surviving from Lord knows where. The witch doctor came along, bound him up one way or the other. They had herbs that grew mold (penicillin) and they tied these things into the wound and so on. And they made this warrior take a stick, like a spear - badly wounded as he was - and poke it three times in the direction of the enemy wbere he'd had the fight, and each time intone something to the effect that, "I have struck you, I have struck you, I have struck you." Now, that's just a little bit advanced. They were running out the overt act-motivator sequence on the overt side. They didn't know what they were doing because they only made him do it three times. See, that's nothing. But it was still contributory. They're making him more familiar with the action of fighting.

But it's quite remarkable how many of them get horribly shocked and then can't believe what they are looking at. Scientologist breaks his leg or his arm or something of the sort - how he managed to do that's the puzzle. And some of his pals come up to the hospital or something like that, and they process him, you know, they run some Havingness on him. Get him to look at the walls and locate where he'd been injured and where it was now and so forth. And the bones go whirr, whirr, click, click, click, click, click, you know? And it's all healed up in a week or two, you know, and it's supposed to be six, eight weeks it takes, you know. Big argument ensues.

Well, this coordinates with modern forces. Those soldiers which are left in the front lines, or in a front-line hospital to recover - recover much more rapidly when returned to their unit; are in much better shape than those who are removed to a base hospital far from the lines. Got the idea? It's fascinating.

"Why can't I take the cast off?"

As a matter of fact, the Indian soldiers, sepoys and so forth, particularly a regiment like the old Guides or something like this, will not permit their wounded to be removed from the front lines. They reserve the rights to stay right there, no matter how badly chopped up they are. Now, I don't know what piece of wisdom has seeped forward or what piece of observation has brought this. They couldn't tell you why this is, beyond the fact that they have the right to. Actually, they recover faster.

"Well, you can't take the cast off because..."

When you remove somebody injured in combat, from combat, you're burying the idea of combat with him, aren't you? Make him less and less familiar with all of this. You're taking him away from it. You're taking him a distance. And the test of it - he heals up much more slowly than somebody who was left right in the front lines. It's fascinating. Fascinating to see these things.

You know, big argument with the medicos because the time span isn't correct.

Of course, when nobody has looked at these things at all, they can't pick one of these data out from another data. They don't know any guiding or co-ordinative data. So we have to know this mental mechanism that, that with which the mind is (theoretically, of course) completely familiar, has lost the power to harm one. Those things from which a person is retreating will increasingly be able to harm him.

Well look, if processing will narrow the time span of healing, why is there any time span to healing? Why couldn't you take a body and totally smash it against that wall and have it bounce back in perfect condition? Well, it would unless something makes the injury persist. But what makes the injury persist? If bodies get well at all, then they would get well totally, right? You can assume that. Well, what makes the injury persist? Ah, that's the mystery.

Similarly, those things of which a person is less and less conscious become more and more able to injure him. It's quite fascinating, but the mechanism is right there as a mechanism.

Well, one, the individual consented to be injured before his body could be injured. He consented to have bodies injured. Two, he consented to feel pain - this is another oddity. People go around saying, "My body hurts, my arm hurts, my head hurts." Nonsense! What nonsense! The next time you have an ache or a pain, please examine carefully what's hurting and I'm sure you will come to this conclusion: you are. You, extended into the arm, are hurting. Well, what - how come you're hurting? Well, obviously, evidently, you're supposed to.

Now, some knowingness, however, is necessary for any communication. Another mental mechanism: Some knowingness is necessary for a communication. Some - doesn't matter how. And the only catastrophes to anybody occur after a communication has occurred.

You start coaxing somebody out of his head - to rip half of his skull off all you have to do is, while he's backing out of his head, say to him, "Now say poor body, poor body, (sympathy, you know) poor body," nyah! Almost tears the body up. It's got to be some sort of sympathy. But the body evidently doesn't have an idea it can be hurt. But the thetan in it has an idea he can be hurt via the body. And then he says that he is the body and that the pain is the body and the injury stems from.... See?

Here's a mental mechanism. ARC precedes all injury.

Get all these vias? Well, you put that many lies on something, of course, you get persistence. Read your Axioms.

Now, once in a while when you have somebody in good condition, he can blow what you might call an ARC break - a severance, a chop of ARC that he's had, and he can audit straight at ARC breaks, ARC breaks, ARC breaks. If he's in very bad condition, however, he can't approach that. He can't blow it. This is called a second postulate. He can't blow the ARC break. The only thing you can audit him on is ARC, ARC, ARC.

So let's look this over; overt act-motivator sequence - the genus of it. Individual creates experiences which can't be experienced. Creates the intention and postulate that things can be injured. Consents to be injured, postulates that he can be injured, gets into the other valence. Gets into the valences of the things he's injured. Doesn't any want to - longer want to occupy this particular cause area. Where can he go? He can only flip over into the effect area because he's stuck there someplace in time. So that practice which catalyzes flipping him is bad for him. You understand? That practice which speeds up or excites the idea that he must be on the effect end will of course drive him insane much more rapidly than any other practice, right? So practices that tell him he is on the effect side of everything will get him hurt, right?

A time -"Recall a time when you were in communication with somebody." "Recall a time you were in communication with somebody." "Recall a time you communicated with somebody," or some such process of this sort would have to precede. And then you get these ARC breaks coming off; because the orderliness here is the criteria.

After an individual's gone this far, these civilizations explain it this way. They say, "The individual who has caused bad things must be made to suffer for them so he will no longer cause bad things and therefore, we have nullified him." But hand in glove with this is "all communication and all familiarity is bad and the only training is by conditioning. And the only way anybody learns is by having it in his reactive bank." You got the idea? And the only kindness or communication there is at the bottom of the scale which is, of course, in an insane asylum. You see how this would be?

The communication was order; the communication break was disorder. The disorder flies off when you enter the order in. You see that? When you revive the order the confusion can come off.

So therefore, those practices which speed up the assumption of this point of injury bring about a higher incidence of incompetence and insanity and so forth.

The universe is upside down as it's been conceived by certain religions, They conceived all was chaos, and then it got welded together into order. Oh no. All was order, and then it got chipped up into chaos. Processing proves that to be the case. Primarily there was order and then came about disorder,

Now, you have to assume that a thetan will never have a kindly impulse, he will never know or be in communication with anything, in order to assume that you must downgrade him into an overt act mechanical sequence before he will be civilized.

Now, what I'm saying right now, then, is that order is always senior to disorder. And what I'm telling you further is: disorder cannot occur unless order has first occurred. You must have had order before you had disorder.

See, we have to assume that he is incapable of civilization, natively, before we punish him into civilization.

Familiarity with anything, then, is the establishment of order or the re-establishment of order. And if that order is re-established, the disorder will depart. All injury is disorder. All discomfort is disorder. All mysteries and problems and superstitions and maybes and not-knowingness these things are all disorderly things. But they're based originally on having been in communication with something in an orderly fashion.

But look, if we have already assumed that he's incapable of civilized conduct, how is punishment going to alter it? Because you have a being that has no capability of civilized conduct. Is that right? By that assumption. That's a plain philosophic point of view, isn't it? If the individual natively is incapable of civilization, how's anything going to make him civilized?

There is nobody quite as mystified as an ex-magician that knew all the answers once. Now man, this guy can get more mystified than anybody you ever heard of!

Try to build an electric train sometime without wire or electricity or train. You're not going to make it. Here's a philosophic fact: that to become a thing, a person must have that thing or must have available that thing to become, right?

The fellow who really gets mystified is the hypnotist who knows all the rules, he thinks, of hypnotism and has hypnotized many people. And then one day he goes halfway around the bend and turns up on your doorstep saying, "Save me! Save me!"

So we have the idea afloat that all civilization and all civilized conduct is super- manufactured by some mysterious way and it's foisted off on beings that are wild, brutal, antagonistic and antisocial. Ah! But the only criminals we have around are people who have been the most civilized.

"What's the matter?"

Well, let's just look them over. You start running - you start running profiles on criminals and you start running criminals on communication and you find out they should be the most civilized people on earth because they've been subjected to the most duress. See? They've been downgraded the most, they've been punished the most and therefore, they're the most civilized. Obvious, isn't it? Only it's a chain of reasoning that doesn't obtain.

"I'm so confused. I don't know what I'm doing."

Now, a person, perhaps, with all of his conduct left to his total power of choice, would or would not be dangerous to have around. But I would say that an individual who had total knowingness in his own perimeter would be safer to have around than a fellow who never suffered when he hit somebody in the teeth, because the individual with total knowingness is going to know all about being hit in the teeth when he hits Joe in the teeth, see? If not - if not, then he would never go to the trouble of not-ising hitting Joe in the teeth. But that's what he goes to the trouble of doing. That's what he always does. When he strikes anybody, when he hurts anybody, immediately his reaction is to wipe it out, scrunch it up! Why does he do that?

Get the idea? Of course, his is the overt act of making people submerged. His is the overt act of putting people into a heavy conditioned state that evaded analytical inspection.

So there's some truth at the top of the line on the overt act-motivator sequence. That which ye do, ye can experience. Simple? What you do, you can experience. That's way up at the top of the scale. But it'd seem to me like people would be awfully, awfully social if what they did they could experience. Hmm?

So you might say the basis of the universe is order. The basis of thinkingness is order. And disorder can occur only where order has existed. Except of course when you simply make the postulate "Let there be disorder." But then, even then, you'd have to have an idea of what order was in order to do it.

And you'll find sometime when your communication level - sometime as you're coming up toward Clear - you'll find a funny phenomenon. Your communication will suddenly step up and very often you will cut it right back down, too. And it won't come up again for maybe many more hours of processing because it startles you. You start to lose control of inhibiting, or inhibited communication, you see?

Now, as we look over this as mentality and so on, we find basically the only thing that is wrong with a mind. The mechanism on which it is built is not necessarily the right mechanism, not necessarily the wrong mechanism.

I remember the first time this happened to me it startled me out of my wits. I was sitting at a table and there was a waxy milk bottle - awfully cold and clammy - sitting on the table in front of me. And I was about a yard or two away from this thing and I kept wondering what this odd clammy feeling I was having, you know, and I was experiencing the milk bottle, as well as the remainder of the room, you see? I was doing a total experience on the room. And that happened to be a very objectionable, cold, clammy milk bottle in a minute, and I objected to it. It's very funny, I pulled my communication lines off that milk bottle. I didn't like it.

Things are only right or wrong for a certain time track and for a certain zone of influence, for a certain set of considerations or agreements. Rightness and wrongness are established by what you want. What is your intention? What are goals? and so forth. If you want an orderly society, of course, wrongness is disorder.

It's very, very interesting to have - when you have something like this happen and you find out that you can experience things at a distance by straight communication, not by being told about it.

Therefore, the time track on which we exist has conceived of certain mechanisms as being senior to other mechanisms. And this basic mechanism of order, confusion and the stable datum, order primary to disorder, the mechanism of familiarity versus forgettingness, you might say, are all part and parcel of this track. The people who are on this track operate on those mechanisms.

I should think that would be a much greater deterent to savage and uncivilized action than fixing a fellow up so that under no circumstances did he ever experience anything. Except maybe to go mad himself from some secret process nobody could understand. Do you see this?

Now, you could invent a whole new universe and start it out with wholly different considerations and wind up with entirely different, let us say, mental mechanisms amongst its people. Do you understand me? But they wouldn't be here. And you would never have them as a pc, because they're not on this track. Got the idea?

Because you certainly wouldn't have many wars. As the young men of the world come up higher and higher, they are better educated, they get aroulid more, they see more things-they're in better physical condition, they have better food, better working conditions, less disease amongst them and so forth, greater longevity. They are in better shape than say a couple of hundred years ago or a hundred years ago. Less and less of them will fire their guns in battle. This is driving the war departments and ministries berserk.

But if you did pop over into some other time track or some other universe which was built on an entirely different set of rules, apparently, to these basic mental mechanisms, you'd still find one that worked.

Sergeant comes along after the battle, you know, and everybody's changing and handing in cartridges and he comes down the line to the third man down the line and he says, 'All right, now I want to - I want you to fill up your bandoleers." And the fellow says, "I don't have to, they're all full." And he goes to the fifth, the seventh, the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, eighteenth man. He hasn't fired a single shot in the whole battle. Everybody else has been pouring out shot and shells like mad. But a lot of these individuals just don't shoot. They put their guns up when they're told to but they don't fire.

Familiarity would bring about skill. Familiarity would bring about ability. You could be at cause over that universe. That law would not be violated and by familiarity you could easily dig out the mental mechanisms on which these people were proceeding. Because no universe could exist without knowingness, because nobody would ever know it was there. You understand that? Simple.

Now, there could be two conditions under which they didn't fire. Way down scale where they didn't dare - didn't dare cause anything, or way upscale where they could experience almost anything, Ah, but we have a world which is teaching us more and more about the other fellow. For years now, they've been having pen pals between the Germans and the Czechs and the Americans and even people in Michigan. Now, these people have been writing to one another.

Furthermore, no universe can exist totally without not-knowingness, because it couldn't have time. The mechanism of time is simply not-know/know, not- know/know, not-know/know, not-know/know, not-know/know. The rate at which a person does this is the amount of present time he has. I see I've exceeded you a little bit.

We have fallen away from a total third, you see, because somebody's skin is a little bit different color or because his nationality is different, his language is different, why, he is something else, somewhere else and has nothing to do with us. You see? We've fallen away from that idea and we've gotten the idea that we're all brothers or sisters under the skin.

What happened to the second that just went by, huh? What happened to the second that just this instant disappeared? Oh, you remember it? Oh, you have to know it again, don't you? But at the moment - this instant, now this instant right here, now this instant - you know, don't you? This instant, see? You have big awareness right in this instant, see? This instant. Big awareness. Hey, what happened to this - heh! What happened to the first "this instant" that I said? Where's its awareness? Well, you must have done something with it, that's all. I'm afraid you just didn't sit there as total effect. If you want to see time go zzzp! and go around a couple of curves on somebody or something of the sort, just get them to run not-know in some old version. A lot of old processes, not-know. "What could you not-know?" And all of a sudden you'll get time speed-ups, slow-downs, jams, unjams; various things happen on time.

Well, when that idea gets abroad, if it gets abroad intellectually and truthfully, not obsessively, you're not going to find very many soldiers firing their guns off in battle. You see? I don't think the general public at all understood war, perhaps, until Matthew Brady and some other photographers went out and took a few shots of battlefields.

Unfortunately, it's too high a process. For years I've been inventing processes that were too high. Gradually these have scaled down. Now you can run the whole backtrack of research from now, back to the beginning, and you will find this consistently going up-scale on a case. Get the idea? Because most research has been directed toward undercutting a case.

That got along and that introduced a certain knowingness into the public ken- introduced it more forcefully because you didn't even have a dead body, you just had a photograph, you know? And individuals began to see war as something pretty bad. And the general consciousness of a third dynamic began to alert to the fact that it was all silly.

Now, what were we trying to undercut? What mental mechanism in the pc were we basically trying to reach?

And then, more and more people learned how to read. And they could learn history, and they could learn that nobody had lost, or won a war yet - that wars were just all lost. You see, nobody ever won a war. That wars were just stupid. That the anger of kings made no profit for commoners. And they gradually began to understand this and more and more, and it became actually less and less possible.

There's a basic rule in auditing and that rule is this: You find something a pc can do - you find some ability of the pc and you increase it. You follow that? Some ability of the pc and you increase it. That is the fundamental golden rule of auditing. If you apply that to a cat or a little baby you'll still get there. Find out something the baby can do and get him to do it a little better.

I think the atom bomb to a large degree was evolved only for one reason. I think they're less and less capable of fighting a war with people - using people on the front lines. Now they have to have something they shoot totally detachedly.

A lot of Scientology kids have a rough time because their parents are always trying to get them to do something a little above what they can do. And the little kids go into apathy. You look around and you'll see this.

By the way, something I've been expecting would happen for fourteen years has just happened. The man who dropped the first A-bomb in the world just went mad the other day. Totally insane. They put him in an institution in Dallas, Texas. He was a bomber pilot, he didn't even know what he was supposed to be doing. But when they - that crew dropped that bomb and looked at the tremendous damage, realized they'd probably wiped out a whole city, they didn't know - a hundred thousand or a million people. I think it was two hundred thousand or more people died under that blast. When the shock of knowingness of what he'd done came through to him, this man couldn't stand up to it. He eventually has gone mad. Nobody knows why he's mad.

And on a couple of occasions now, or more often than that, I've taken pity on one of these little kids, you know, that was being stretched out and they were going to be a supergenius and all that sort of thing. And I've said to the little kid, "Lie in that bed. Thank you." That, by the way, is the origin of that process. "Lie in that bed. Thank you." "Lie in that bed. Thank you." The kid could do it. All of a sudden he'd cheer right up and beam and smile and be happy about the whole thing. Nurse standing around giggling, saying, "Heh-heh! You think the baby can understand you?" you know?

Actually, a Scientologist could make him sane, but this individual went through a great many periods of criminality since he did that. As they go down scale, they become more and more criminal until they go insane. The insane come up scale to being criminals - something for you to remember.

And I'd say, "Heh-heh! What's the matter with you that you don't know babies can understand you?" Silly as this. But the baby could do that, couldn't he? He could lie in that bed. Well, he knew he could do that. Now, do you see what I'm saying now? He knew he could do that.

Now, this individual, of course, had delivered a blow for which he could not personally be responsible, but unfortunately, just on a mechanical basis, that he himself could never experience. You see he could not be a town full of people killed under the withering blast of radiation. Never will he be able to be such a town unless he mocks it all up and so forth. You understand?

So the most undercut undercut there is, is to find something with which the pc is familiar and increase the familiarity. At the same time, if you can undo something he doesn't want to be familiar with, you're really rolling, and you have the Overt- Withhold Straightwire Process. You pick a terminal that he knows that's real to the PC and you improve by knocking out the reasons why he doesn't want to know about it, because he's done things to it - you improve his familiarity with the terminal. You find something he knows and make him know it better. And that's the undercuttest process that you can undercut. No further undercut.

It's one thing to hit Bill in the chops and another thing to wreck a galaxy - because you can be Bill rather easily and it's rather tough to be a galaxy. So you can never be on the effect end of the line.

Now an unconscious person is capable of knowing in a sort of hallucinatory dream world that someone is there. Just like in sleep, you sometimes get the idea that somebody has walked into and out of the room while you were asleep. It's very vague, you know? But that's the highest level of knowingness of an unconscious person.

Solution, go mad. Now there's an overt act-motivator sequence. But there it is in reverse. It can never happen to him. This he can never, never experience reverse- wise. He hasn't a prayer now of ever being on both sides of that line, unless some Scientologist takes pity on him and processes him. But to do that, they better process the burned Japanese first.

You make this person more and more aware of the fact that you're there, and they will eventually become more and more aware and wake up - even people in a coma. But there you - again you've applied the same rule, you see? You found something the pc could know and increased his knowingness; or you have found something the pc could be familiar with or was familiar with and increased his familiarity with that.

Now, when we get to an overt act-motivator sequence then - when we assault or exceed the idea of being able to experience, we exceed the idea of being able to live, you see? And the overt act-motivator sequence is basically based on just this one thing: experience isn't possible. You must not be able to experience this in order to be civilized. Yet the most civilized thetan there would be would be one who was totally able to experience everything. Then he'd know better than to hit somebody in the chops.

Now, it's very simple, you know this in the rough. You know that to start a conversation and get something going with somebody, you have to have some point of agreement. That's why everybody talks about the weather. They all have some familiarity with the weather, they all been rained on or snowed on or something of the sort, you see? So that's a point of knowingness.

This is the basic - the basic mechanism on which most civilizations are built, the motivating mechanism used in all between-lives areas, the mechanism most associated with mental image pictures, the mechanism which keeps mental image pictures in suspension and the thing which is basically wrong with individuals' minds. They have caused things which, by their definition, cannot be experienced. Not being able to experience them, they have to handle them some other way and this makes their whole track blank and finally winds them up in a very bad, second-hand condition.

Now, to expand his knowingness of you or his friendship for you or any other way you want to do it, you start from some point of knowingness on his part and increase his knowingness one way or the other, not too suddenly or painfully, and eventually the individual knows that you are real. And when you become real he considers you a friend.

To get them over this, all we have to do is demonstrate to them that anything can be experienced.

Now, these are the basic mechanisms on which the mind operates and that we process on. There are other mechanisms which are more mechanical, but no less necessary to know and I'll talk to you about those in the next lecture.

But this is the primary mechanism with which the auditor deals. Don't deal with it blindly, because you'll wind up with overt act-motivator sequences by yourself not understanding what you're doing. Be first willing to make somebody well and then there's no liability to doing so. First be willing to experience being well, and then you can make anybody well because that's something anybody can experience.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.