This is October the 14th and the morning lecture.

[Clearsound version splices in the "This is" in the above sentence.]

This morning I want to go into something very interesting, which - I hope you will find it's very interesting and - has to do with the lag of the MEST universe - the lag index.

We can get into this - we can get into randomity much more thoroughly than this but I'm trying to add it up against cases and against living.

Now, when we speak of communications in Scientology we are speaking of the transfer of a particle or a motion from one part of a space to another part of a space or from one space to another space. That's all we mean by communication. That's the reductio ad absurdum definition of communication.

There is a very interesting process which is a - merely an investigatory process. You have somebody be in one spot, you see, and ask a question and then have him be in another spot and answer the question.

We have a pencil at one corner of the desk and we move the pencil to the other corner of the desk - that's communication. Because why? Because one corner of the desk has now communicated with the other corner of the desk. That's the reductio ad absurdum of communication, definition.

Now, when I say that, I don't mean do it with his mind. Should differentiate this very carefully.

If you understand how absurdly simple this definition is, you'll understand all about communications. Communication doesn't have anything to do with one corner of the desk demonstrating the volition which moves the pencil to the other corner of the desk. Do you understand? You're not interested, then, in the volition if we're interested in communication.

You give the preclear two chairs - don't get off into psychodrama. That's a - that's a bunch of bunk. That's just an opportunity to dramatize an engram without being criticized.

If there's going to be any motion at some time or another, somebody at least set up some form of automaticity which resulted in an arrangement whereby you got a communication point from one point to another point.

You put him in one chair and you say how - and you have him say, aloud, "How are you this morning?" Then have him move to the other chair and say, "I am fine, thank you." And while he is sitting in that second chair, you say - have him say, "What is wrong with you?" to the other chair. And then get into the other ch- just that phrase, by the way - and have him get into the other chair and have him not answer.

An anchor point which, severely defined, is not in motion - that's theoretical, but theoretically and for our purposes so far as practical considerations are concerned, the corner of this room up here is not in motion. You see, that's a practical consideration. But your glance between one corner of this room and over to the other corner of this room is your communication with two corners of the room or the communication of one corner of the room with the other corner of the room. Follow this?

And then have him get into the first chair again and say, "But what is ailing you?" And then get into the other chair and not answer. And you will work out the valence problems of the most violent schizophrenic you ever had.

One corner of the room is the source and the other corner of the room is the receipt-point of a what? Of an attention. So there's been communications between the two corners of the room. It didn't require any volition on the part of either corner of the room. But there is always volition involved wherever you look in this universe.

The only thing wrong with a mind is that it is there. I hope we can really learn that as we go through this. The only thing that's wrong with a mind is its thinkingness. The mind is the substitute of predict.

Whether the volition was a long time ago or right now or whether or not it runs on an automaticity or not - this is beside the point. Any automaticity has a causation of one sort or another. And the causation is no different than thee. And it's not just even the same order of beingness - it's thee. And your level of communication, then, between these two corners of the room does have a double.

Now, a person goes too low on no-predict and then he can't look and see what is going to happen, he gets into a situation where he figures what is going to happen. And he's pretty good at this. He can use his past experience and so forth.

If you said "There is a communication between one corner of the room and the other corner of the room," and you have not made a communication or dispatched a particle or given an intent between these two corners of the room, you'll still have the "prime mover unmoved" causation even though it is now running on an automaticity. You get the idea? Any interchange, then, is a communication.

But, let's get exactly why he does that. A preclear can run this as a concept quite interestingly: "I don't know what's going to happen. I'm looking around to see what's going to happen." Those two levels, see? The first level, "I don't know what's going to happen." And you will have him run through all sorts of thought things.

But we don't have to have the second corner of the room replying to the first corner of the room to complete a communication. We don't have to have any meaning or reason in the communication.

You are not trying to solve very much about how the mind is thinking. The mind will think all right if its problems of randomity are solved. Exteriorization and motion through space solve problems of randomity much better than thinking about them. The fellow will suddenly throw out tremendous quantities of circuitry without even looking at it if you just teach him that he can move and that he can make things move.

So, let's just sort out this whole thing of communication because it's obvious that the wordiest and most wonderful letter which you ever received in your life just had reasons all through it, actually had no reason at all in it.

Well, of course you've got to bring him way up scale before he can move anything else. But you teach him he can do this. And you teach him that with a drill, just like you would teach a soldier or something. Not to make him obedient but to show him he can move. And you move him from one corner of space to the other corner of space and you move him here and move him there. And have him move mock-ups while he's there and blow up mock-ups and change mock-ups.

The circuit case asks you consistently and continually, "Why did God make this universe? What was the cause of this universe? Why was it made?"

You see, explosion is beautiful because, boy, is that making a lot of particles move in a lot of space and - in a very short time. Boy, that's real good, see! Gee, that's real good. All right.

Well, we're coming close enough to it when we say cause and effect and attention.

Here you have a condition in this universe as I told you yesterday - the perception lag time of the universe. If you see by use of this universe's perceptions (waves) something will happen and then afterwards you will find out about it, because sound traveling at eleven hundred feet per second arrives with you sometime later. See? So simple. It arrives with you sometime later. Well, damn it, that's a condition of no-predict!

Why? Because these things are observable, terrifically observable. Does there have to be a reason for attention? No, there doesn't have to be any reason of any kind at all for attention of any kind.

But it is slightly desirable. Don't ever overlook the fact that it's slightly desirable. It is desirable, really. I say slightly and you could take a lot of this. Of course, you've got practically nothing but a spotlight.

Now, if you don't think this is true, did you ever hear of a false arrest? Of course, the reason in there for the arrest is the fact that somebody has made a mistake. But actually, when we talk about an arrest, what is the reason behind an arrest? It is the impulse of life to duplicate and copy and it is the police impulse - reductio ad absurdum - of life imitating the MEST universe "having to stop something." That's all. There's reason behind it - yes, stop. So, we're very up close to the surface on reasons when we go into things like start, stop and change. And when we say, "What is the purpose behind all this?" well, you just can say "communication" and you're all set.

Now, this gets keyed in on speech this way. You go in; the person that you're talking to is apparently in good spirits. And you go ahead and you say, "Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And a beautiful morning. And the birds singing. And everything is going along."

And this might sound very wise and a circuit case can go off and figure-figure-figure and he'll come up with the right answer which is the fact that it's communication, even within his definition.

And the other person simply says, "To hell with you!"

A religionist can come in on this and he can say suddenly, "Why, yes! Well, how wise! How wise! That's true. Because you see - you see, it was set up so that God could communicate with each and every one of us. Isn't that wonderful?" And he can play beautiful sadness and sweetness and light on this and he's quite happy with it. The truth of the matter is, there's not this much reason in it.

"Jesus," you say - baaahhhhh!

I don't think God wants to communicate with anybody myself I'm - some people I know, and so forth - I know some of the things I have to say - I don't think he would want to communicate with me. I know an awful lot of people that, boy, he'd run if he thought he had to communicate with them.

You go in. You just made 82,672 dollars in a terrifically clever way and it didn't spend any of your future at all. And you've got all of this money, you see? And you say, "You see?" And tremendous enthusiasm. They don't admire it at all. But you look at them. They look like they're going to admire it. And they say, "Money is the root of all evil."

So, you see, it's in essence simply an interchange. And it's quite a trick to have any space at all. And it works out very nicely for anyone if you simply explain it to them on terms of communication.

People who do this are in two conditions. They, one - neither upscale nor downscale actually; they are both aberrated conditions. They don't have enough randomity so they - they just don't have the capability of making any randomity. See? That's kind of what they've lost. They don't have enough randomity, so they try to make it with speech. Or they're deathly afraid to admire anything you've got because it might set up some randomity. And they can't be predictable! And there's a center pin.

But remember what communication is - communication, reductio ad absurdum.

They don't dare be predictable. That takes care of both cases. The back of both cases is that. And both cases have this: The environment is dangerous.

There is some attention in any piece of MEST. It might have been - the MEST might be representing an automaticity. You see, it might have been attention set up to run it.

They have been hit, not spoken to. They have been hit often enough in the MEST universe where they didn't know they were going to be hit. That's all it takes.

By the way, a wonderful button is setting up something to keep on going without attention. You double-terminal that damn thing and you'll find yourself being cursed more often and so forth. The fellow who set up this universe to run this way actually wasn't a fellow. He wanted the universe to run this way more or less because it's a good test of randomity. It makes lots of randomity.

All it takes, actually, to shatter the morale and spirit of a small boy or something like that is, without any causation in his environment, no - no ability to predict it and so forth, without any change of relationship, with no guilt or any of these reasonabilities that are used for prediction and so forth, and without his seeing the forewarning motion of preparation for the blow, have him standing in front of you and then just suddenly hit him very hard while you're smiling. You'll shatter him. And you'll find incidents like that on a case. It's an actual impact, see? He's been hit without warning.

Man versus the universe - that's a good fight. A beautiful button in this universe is "I have to have enemies. I must have enemies."

Now, don't think that the automobile accident, then, is the tremendous trauma. Birth isn't the tremendous trauma. This is just a slow grind. It's hit without prediction. The automobile accident was only a severe automobile accident if the fellow was driving along the road and then he wakes up in the hospital. He's hit on an oblique angle. He never saw the incoming car. And you'll find this is what they complain about in the emergency wards: "But I never saw it coming. I never s-." If you find anybody who is in a terrible condition, terrific psychic shock, that's what he's saying over and over. And the other thing he's saying, "Where am I?" or "Where was I?" Locational, you see? Both of them are the same thing: is "What the hell was I doing there?" And he's trying to look for some future method of predicting such an occurrence. See, he's got to have a better answer. He knows it now, because he can't predict. And he's just shattered.

You see a lot of these people running around - hate, hate hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. They're just saying, "I must have enemies." They've got to have them. They'll make them any way, shape or form.

And then all of a sudden he'll begin to find out he can predict things a little better. How do you teach him that he can predict things?

Well now, that, very high on the scale, is simply, "I must have randomity. I have to have something to interchange against what I am putting out to interchange with."

You say, "What is the realest thing in the room to you?"

See, so you have this problem if you get no motion without randomity. Simply moving a particle from one corner of a space to the other corner of a space is not in itself randomity. It just is moving from one corner to the other corner and it'd be very happy if all we did was move a little particle from one corner to the other corner and then move it back again and move it around into another space and then move it back again and move it around and move it back and shove it around here and there.

"Oh, the ashtray."

Sometime, if you want to have a good time and understand what I'm talking about, find a pool table or just take your desk and take a match. And as you sit there over the pool table or over your desk with a match, just move the match from one corner of the desk to the other corner of the desk. And then move it to another corner and then move it to the center and just go on with that for a while.

"All right. Reach over and touch the ashtray."

I'm serious. You really ought to make the test so that you get the emotion. There is actually a reaction to doing that. It's always best not to predict a result but I say you ought to satisfy yourself about this.

And you will find that these people very low on the Tone Scale will wait a long time before they touch the ashtray. Why? They're not sure it will be there when they arrive. They're not sure that it won't move. They're not sure that it isn't a billiard ball that is going to be struck in some mysterious and invisible fashion.

But you think you know what boredom is, well, do this for two hours. Just force yourself to do it two hours. Of course, it's not quite fair because you have a reason for doing it.

There is why people are very upset in this universe about religion and God. They're upset about hidden things, invisible things. And that's why they use, continually, the hidden standard. In all their arguments and everything else, you'll - they work on this thing called the hidden standard which I'll go into. Remind me sometime, I'll tell you all about that hidden standard. That's a really tricky one. It doesn't belong in this morning's frame.

But let me assure you that if you had two matches or two pool balls which is much better - why I introduced the pool table in the first place - you can actually spend a lot of time with two pool balls making one go around and hit the edges of the thing and bank and hit the other pool ball and billiard on it and so forth.

You've got to teach them that they can be there when something reaches them and that when it reaches them it won't kill them and that they can reach something which will remain there long enough to be reached because these people don't think their environment is going to be here two seconds from now. And that's the condition of mind they're in.

You put three pool balls in or three billiard balls and you've got the fascinating game of billiards. And even if you just use your hand and you just kick the ball around and it hit the other two balls and so forth, there is a nice satisfying click-click and they roll in various directions and when you hit one, it rolls off at an angle. It never goes away exactly straight. Hm! You've got your first definition of randomity.

If you want to understand the mind of a psychotic, that phrase will do it for you. They're not sure that any of this or you will be there two seconds from now; that you're either going to be here, which accounts for the collapse of the line, or you're going to be gone, so forth. And they live on this kind of a perpetual level. So we get again this technique called comparison - corner for corner. This corner stayed there while he looked at that corner. That's the first thing a psychotic will notice. And that's the first little jump up the line he will do.

People have trouble understanding randomity and this is the series of experiments which you make to demonstrate randomity.

"Look! The corners stayed there ha-ha-ha!"

Your first randomity is with two particles. Now, you can take one pool ball and throw it around the banks but then immediately, every time it touches one of the banks, you have to realize that at that point it was touching another particle. To get any other action isn't an automatic characteristic of space. You wouldn't just throw a pool ball around inside a space. It would just fly out of the space which you had demarked if you weren't - because it would just go on making more space because the second it, as a particle, moved outside the plane of any of the four particles of the side, you would have a fifth particle and you'd have more space. It would become an anchor point for that space. And it would just make more space.

I've actually had one laugh just like that, I mean, terrifically relieved, see? He didn't dare look at any of that stuff because it wouldn't be there by the time his gaze reached it. Oh, this is real low, real low. You find it - you find yourself stretching your imagination a little bit to embrace how low you can get on something like this.

This, by the way, is a basic game - making more space with one particle. You can make various shapes of space and so on. It becomes very interesting.

And the other one is, is something has started a long time ago which is going to hit me any second and it's traveling at a speed which I can't see. And a fellow gets that in space opera and that's why space opera is so deadly.

[Note that in the following, the clearsound version has phrases carefully chopped out from the middle of some sentences where Ron is stumbling around a little bit.]

Going faster than the speed of light, an object reaches you before you see it, if you're using MEST universe perception.

All right. Basic space, by the way, I call to your attention, is

You're going along just as nice as you please and everything is just swell and there is a dull feeling. The body isn't there anymore. And very often they didn't even find out what hit it. Do you see why this universe forms - if a person is in it too long - forms too much no-predict?

& three particles, not eight. I beg your pardon,

But the only thing really wrong with a case is your no-predict and your automaticity, if something must be wrong with a case. It's his level of randomity has been violated - plus or minus - been violated. He expected this damn thing to get to him last week and now it's this week and it isn't here. Now that's a no-predict on the slow - the minus side.

- four particles, not eight. I'm giving you three sides -

You take some fellow who has customarily been waiting for somebody else's decision and the guy is kind of batty. The ultimate in "too slow" is an absolute nothing. It never gets to him. That's the ultimate in "too slow."

& what I was trying to say was that space is three sided, whereas three triangled

Don't, because of the drama in it, assume that an impact is all there is. There's that nothing, too. But what is the best thing to aberrate a nothing? It never arrives and there was nothing to arrive. That's the worst nothing you can get.

- one, two, three, four triangles is the basic space, rather than four squares.

"And I didn't see it at all and I didn't know when it hit or what it was!" is the other one. But you don't have to add "what it was," because that's just form and an aesthetic.

& I'm having a rough time here. I was trying to go back over dimentian geometry instead of just figuring it out, and then just giving it to you by looking at it, and I finally looked at it. It would be six. That's interesting as a trick. All right.

Now, for God's sakes, solve this in a case that's having trouble. Any one of these factors solves, but solve this little one I'm going to give you now in a case that's having trouble: "Who done it?"

You just take these - this match and you move it from one corner to the other to the desk, and you'll eventually get bored. Why do you get bored? Because you can predict exactly where it's going!

I know that sounds idiotic but we're dealing with Homo sapiens. And we'll soar right now down from anything that will embrace the whole track to something that applies immediately and intimately to Homo sapiens is "Who done it?"

Now, you take two matches and by moving one against the other, you don't have enough to make much of a pattern. You can make a T or an L. But you don't have much to make a pattern with and they're not mobile. But with two pool balls you've gotten your first step of unpredictability - no predict. In other words, to have interest you must have a condition whereby there is a no-(hyphen)prediction condition.

They read detective stories, not because they like detective stories or their acceptance level of "baby murdered" and so forth - a lot of explanations if you want them - but it's, who, who, who? Who was the fellow? And you just ask - you just put - preclear on a case-and I want you to do this today while you're processing - just put it on the dial and just ask him, "Now, who did it?"

Instead of getting mad at this universe, let's look at that: No-(hyphen) prediction is a very definite necessity in the field of interest.

And those that are very wary and very differentiative and so forth will ask you coolly, "What are you talking about?" You see.

Now, putting it this way, we've got it in terms of motion rather than in terms of thought - putting it this way, in terms of motion rather than in terms of thought.

And fend around, "Well, who was responsible?"

And if you just think about this, this is obvious and you can philosophize on this, which is to say just think about it and so forth. But if you set these things up in terms of motion they become immediately visible.

And your other phraseology will kick it because they're carrying one like that right in present time. There's hardly anybody who isn't. "Who was responsible for it?"

Now, why did two pool balls form a no-predict? That's because when you slam one pool ball against the other pool ball, it'll carom off slightly. But you can get pretty bored just throwing one pool ball against another pool ball. What you need is two pool balls. Three - two pool balls, to throw one pool ball against. And these three pool balls, then, will get into a situation where the new pool ball will itself interact all by itself against the second pool ball when either or the other is hit with the first pool ball. There's a possibility of an interaction. And that's your first automaticity.

But what you want to find out is not "How did you place the guilt?" The actual identity is the one you're looking for. And they have fought identity so long that identity has gotten awfully important to them and it's why the guy is hanging on to a body. The fight with identity. "Which identity was it?" You see? "Which - which - which was it?"

Your first automaticity takes place, then, on a higher no-predict. In order to have interest we must have a no-predict.

And so they'll cling on to this identity because identity has gotten very, very scarce. How'd it get scarce? Because he couldn't acquire identity? No. Because he didn't dare acquire identity? No. It's just because those that operated other particles in his vicinity were not identified. And that's terrifically specious and spurious and it's very low toned.

& I'm talking against this traffic noise, a different position of the room.

What the hell difference does it make who pushed the rock? The fact is the rock was pushed. And your preclear who's having a hard time has to come into some kind of a recognition of this: that the "who"...

All right. What, then, are the conditions of interest? The conditions of interest are no-predict and enough particles communicating one with the other (which is to say, hitting and clipping and going the other way) to form an automaticity. This is - I'm sorry but these two things which we condemn so hard are the first and second levels of interest. You see how that would be? You've got no-predict and then you've got automaticity.

You'll find that the trouble with the "God complex" is simply the trouble of "Who is God? What is his name?" You might... You see, it's - this is the reductio ad absurdum. There's no sense in this. And you'll never find any sense in it.

You wonder why your preclear is bored sometimes, why he doesn't want any processing up above a certain point. He gets scared. He's afraid you're going to take away from him his no-predict and you're going to take away from him his conditions of automaticity.

All you have to tell somebody is, "God is a fellow by the name of Caterwump and he lives on Mount Sputtergut." Gee, if you say it loud enough and with enough conviction and so forth, you'll have an enormous religion going immediately. That's all you have to say, you see, because of this terrific anxiety of "Who done it?"

The only thing wrong with him is that he himself has become a particle and he has no volition. He doesn't have hold of one of those pool balls. He isn't objecting to the numerous other pool balls on the table. All he's objecting to is the fact that he doesn't have a chance to bat one of the pool balls.

So we get this thing, "Who made the universe?" And what have you got there? You've just got the ultimate of uncertainty. Obviously the thing is made, so they want "who" made it.

When he doesn't have a chance to bat one of the pool balls, then he is the effect of all of the no-predict and all the automaticity with which he's surrounded.

Well, when you're asking for who, you're finding nothing because that's an identity. You see? You haven't solved anything merely by saying, "This is a lighter," if you're talking to a Swede. You've solved nothing.

And when he is the effect of the no-predict and the automaticity around, he becomes very, very unhappy. He could tell you various reasons why he's unhappy. But I am telling you the highest echelon that you'll get. It's just there's - it's utterly impossible for him to predict anything. And all the automaticity can use him for an effect.

He says, "Who is this?" And when he's saying, "What is this?" he means purpose. But if he were asking "Who is this?" and you said "Joe," he would be satisfied. Why the hell should he be satisfied? Well, that's so he could say "Joe" next time.

Well, if this is the case, then he is in a perilous situation, he considers. But the main peril is, is that he's not interested. And that's really the only peril.

Well, I don't know that anybody is really excited about God today the way they used to be. But they all have the feeling like they're going to meet him or something and they'd like to know what name to call him and this is very - this is very upsetting to them. And they want to have enough - this who is simply - and they want to have enough responsibility hung on this person so they can go and look this person up and have some randomity.

So, there is a, what we might call, a critical point on a case or any case. And this critical point is that point at which the preclear considers - you've got level of tolerance of randomity, it's in the Axioms, look it up in the Axioms there. Everybody has got a level of tolerance of randomity.

You'll find out some person who is really fixed on "Who done it?" is – “they just haven't got enough reason to punish and it runs right off into reason to punish." So that's the next thing you run on a case. You get a drop on the meter, "Who done it?" Then you run "reason to punish." See? Just do it and you will understand a lot more about it than I'm telling you right now - "Who done it?"

Randomity is the introduction of no-predict and automaticity into the motions of particles in a space or in many spaces. See? It's a simplicity itself.

Your preclear finds that it is enormously and horribly important to have a name. Here he is a poor little defenseless baby and someone comes along and hangs the name "Aloysius" on him. He's utterly defenseless. But this is it. This is a thing. This is a particle. It's a valuable particle of some sort or another which can move around and he can do things with and so on. Terrifically valuable particle.

Now, his tolerance is merely his consideration.

Why is it so valuable? Well, it identifies him. It gives him an importance. When you don't have an identification you don't have an importance.

Now, you'll find men are postulating the weirdest kind of an impossible situation with regard to randomity and no-predict. They say, "I want to get some farm with some orange groves and sit down and just let the oranges grow and that will be all I have to do."

I want you to subjectively examine that because your preclear is very often not hanging on to his body. He's hanging on to his name. Hm - boy! That is the third stage removal, you see, in terms of thought. You can't hang on to a name. You can't get attached to a name. You detach him from his name and he can detach from the body.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. Uh-uh. Nunca, nunca! Those oranges are being put out automatically by the trees. And there's probably not going to be enough wind around to even bother them. His goal is to do that. But he would be very, very upset indeed if there weren't a few worms; if there wasn't a little wind; if there wasn't a drought and a fight with the irrigation company. You see? These things have to be. If they aren't, he'll go.

One of the ways of doing this with a child - this is the simplest process in the world. Kid comes in, his name is Johnny Jones.

But if he gets to a point where the irrigation company is always right and the worms are always victorious, he is immediately in a situation where we have him the effect of the no-predict and the automaticity. Now, you see that?

You say, "Say 'Johnny Jones.'"

So, what's the - what's the criteria here?

He says, "Johnny Jones. Whatcha talking about?"

He doesn't want too much self-determinism, which is to say, self-determinism is the right to push one of the balls that will interact amongst the other billiard balls - that's all. That's self-determinism. That's the right to throw this billiard ball into the midst of other billiard balls or at least, when a billiard ball is rolling along, to alter its direction slightly; but to predict you are going to alter its direction and which way.

You say, "Say 'Johnny Jones' again."

Now, if you depend exclusively upon the MEST universe to gain that effect for you, you have again entered an automaticity which is too great.

And he says, "Johnny Jones. Well, what are you talk - getting at?"

You say that a rifle bullet coming in through the window and hitting a cotton bale, here, will stop. And it will stop exactly so many umph-umphs deep into the cotton bale. And it will stop at a certain heat. And you know all this. And already there's the cotton bale sitting there. And you don't pull the trigger on the rifle bullet. And just - you know any rifle bullet that comes in through that window is going to hit. You've entered an automaticity in, real heavy There's nothing ever going to go wrong with that cotton bale. It's just sitting there. See?

"Well, just sit there and say the name Johnny Jones now twenty-five times. I'll count them."

And you, by the way, I'm sure would not sit there for many hours, many days, many years, looking at that cotton bale. It won't hold your interest because the MEST universe itself by a basic law inherent in the universe is doing your stopping for you. And it's always going to stop the bullets and it's always going to stop in exactly that fashion and you know this will keep on happening forever. And this is real dull, isn't it? Real dull. It's not interesting.

He says, "Johnny Jones, Johnny Jones, Johnny Jones, Johnny Jones..." All of a sudden he'll say, "Who am I?"

You're up against again a no-difficulty in predicting. You're up against the other thing: a complete predict.

You've shaken him into his first questioning attitude on the conviction which has got him beautifully nailed down.

So a complete predict and a complete automaticity or a no-automaticity and a no-predict are amongst them, all undesirable.

You actually can take a preclear and practically exteriorize him on that. He's nailed down by his name. "Who am I?" he will say. And then he will start to find other names. He's got to find a lot more names now. To hell with that! He's him! And that's the first thing he's got to learn.

So, let's get these things arranged better. No-predict goes with automaticity, which is working against one, and complete predict working with no automaticity make setups. And you work these things around and you push these factors around into various shapes and you can get a tremendous number of answers. In fact, you can get all the answers there are.

He only asks "Who am I?" when he loses his own sense of identity. He only loses his own sense of identity when he identifies himself with space. He's got to go back through and be perfectly willing to identity himself with space. And then he won't have to be space anymore. And then he won't have to have a name, because he wants exterior designation that says, "You're not nothing."

You must have the right to put out and stop the particle or change its course, change the course of particles. You must have the right to do that. And you must also have the right not to have it do that all the time.

Now, what do you do after that? "Desire to punish." There's one more step instantly, immediately following.

And when the MEST universe really gets pinned down and one of these super-machine-age societies is really rolling, boy! It has taken away from you your inheritance from God himself. You're surrounded by full automaticity. You know, after you get a house fully automatic-oh, but fully automatic-it's automatic at every hand. It does all the heating and it does the water softening and it does the air conditioning and it does the cooking and the washing of the dishes. And it does all of these things automatically. It draws your bath and pulls down the sheets. It doesn't even pull down the sheets - it just turns on the thermostat exactly right in the blankets. Oh, boy! You got this house all set and then you put somebody to live in there, see?

You've got, "Who did it?" Then the "desire to punish," that's the first reason that shows up in the thing. And then you've got desensitization of name and this flies apart on "the right to be nothing." You'd better run that. See, you're moving him closer and closer to reaching it - the right to be nothing. And this is run with concepts, brackets, matched terminals and so forth. That's one of these a - haaa sort of a technique.

Will you please ask me why? Why don't you just make a doll, then, that is automatically running continually and forever and just have the doll in the house? And then go off someplace with the satisfaction that you've put together a fully automatic arrangement which fully automatically takes care of a fully automatic being. And you've done it. And you are no longer interested in it.

Okay. Will you please investigate this and look over its subjective reality. I don't expect you to integrate all the theory I've been giving you this morning in a lump sum. But there are ways that you can use it and you should figure out there are ways that you can use it.

I think God left sometime back. He just shoved off. He couldn't take it. This universe is really in a beautifully automatic condition.

"I don't know where it's coming from" as a concept will put a guy immediately in a - into thousands and thousands and thousands of engrams. I mean it's the little handy jim-dandy one.

So, when you get too much automaticity and too much prediction, your interest alike fails.

But just recognizing that you are on a mission of demonstrating to somebody that the universe is predictable to some degree will do an awful lot for you as an auditor when you're auditing Homo sapiens. And if a person is terribly bored, showing him that it's not predictable in every way and shape and form. And those are the two sides. It's not entirely predictable. You're really not going to be here for the next seventy-five years keeping this house, missis. There are other things going to happen.

When you get a complete no-predict and no-automaticity, you fail. See? See what aberration is? Aberration would be a complete no-predict on some subject in some place of the case - a complete no-predict and a no-automaticity. See why that would be?

Well, all these things resolve by exteriorization because it's motion of particles through space and moving particles in space. See why exteriorization works out as your ultimate therapy.

There'd be two things wrong with a case then: Either the case had everything all nailed down so beautifully, so gorgeously, that there was nothing else to be done for it or about it, or, on the other side, had everything agin him. Because if nothing is automatic for him, he has no opponent or he has to do it all himself which is the same thing. And if it's a complete no-predict - if he can never tell which way anything is going or even begins to approach the theoretical absolute of never tell which way something is going - oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, this is a real, real dumb deal.

Okay?

So, what's our problem, Mr. Anthony? Our problem is a very simple one. Any case that is in trouble is somewhere out of the area of what he considers optimum randomity for him. You can't tell exactly what optimum randomity is for a case because it will vary from case to case. That fortunately is a variable. It's really the one variable in the problem. I mean, this is real grim to have just this.

We've got let's see, now if we did the assigning yesterday and so on. You grabbed a brass ring last night I understand, Bill. De Young. I understand you grabbed a brass ring last night. I trust you have been in your body very thoroughly all during this lecture. (...) Well I hope you have, it's a very serious lecture.

So, what - what would you do? What would be your basic theoretical therapy? Basic theoretical therapy is just merely to change the level of randomity of a case. Give him more or less automaticity, more or less prediction than he now has.

I think probably the sickest person you would ever meet is one who had a total prediction. That would be the sickest person you'd ever run into. And yet you don't think of that ordinarily. As we process here, you don't think of that as being an undesirable state, because we're all below the level. We're too close to no-predict. We're closer to no-predict than we are to complete predict.

Male voice: It would have to be a level of total predict with the additional postulate: There's only one universe to predict in.

That's right, of course. But what you've got to do in any case is take a look at it - if you're looking for basic aberration - just take a look at it and size it up to this degree.

For God's sakes that is why people in Dianetics and Scientology are actually lousy preclears. You should understand that instantly. They're just terrible preclears. For all the damning and howling which I do occasionally about auditors and auditing and so forth, we're not up against a tough problem here. That damning and howling is just adding some randomity into the picture.

It becomes very obvious why, then, a case which is deeply interested in the problems of epistemology - one person in Dianetics and Scientology will be tremendously interested in epistemology. He's just thinking too hard about knowledge and so forth. But actually, boy, he really gets revved up just on the subject of thinking. It in itself is a randomity. See? He's thinking about it without looking at it and all he would have to do is look at it and, gee-whiz, if he just looked at it, why, it would blow up on him as a - as an epistemological problem! He has to kind of keep from looking at it.

He's using his preclears and himself for basic randomity. There's absolutely no reason why he shouldn't. See? He should, but he makes a lousy preclear because he immediately starts playing a game with his auditor. He knows the answers and so he's - although he's below optimum randomity - you can't be in Dianetics and Scientology very long or even get audited very long in a coffee shop. Coffee shop auditors, even those today, can do such things as take away these cruel and punishing chronic somatics. They can. They blow up. So nobody who is really working with the field is in any real trouble - not today. That was true two or three years ago but not now. They're not in any real trouble.

Their real trouble is the fact that they have fixed upon and made a postulate about their future randomity. Their future randomity has to do with their own case and the cases of those around them. They don't want these things solved. If you solve these things you'd get a predict.

You'll find every once in a while an auditor getting quite frightened at the idea of solving a case. He knows that he can get a complete predict. He could get a complete predict with a case. He wouldn't even consider it desirable or super-desirable. Therefore, he has a tendency to go toward the cases that are in the most trouble. These, for him, furnish the most randomity.

Now, fortunately we have a great big universe here which in itself was set up to provide an enormous amount of randomity. And fortunately you get somebody up into motion - the tolerance motion of this universe - and he can actually find it; high level of randomity. So, let's realize that this condition of mind, that attacking the problem of attacking the case as a randomity in the field of Scientology is intensely spurious. That's very bad. That's quite, quite bad simply because there is so doggone much randomity available which is not yet perceived.

Did you ever really get excited about organizing a party? Did you ever get real excited about, oh, I don't know, really, really violently excited about some terrific project or other in its original and new stages? Did you ever get that feeling you can recall of "Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!" See? Zing, zing, zing, zing!

Well, optimum randomity for this universe is well above that point. Man is running way, way, way, way below the normal. Man is running so close to a no-predict complete automaticity again him that he's having a hell of a time for himself.

And every time these condemned societies build a little more automatic car, they seek to add to the happiness of all of us, you see. And gee, it just bogs somebody down a little further. He's got to have this car and it's got to do all these things. It's very nice to free up all these hours for him, but as the Chinese said, "He saved two minutes on the trip, but what did he do with them?" The only thing he can do with these two minutes is simply get two minutes more of some other kind of randomity.

When you've wiped the whole society out and you've got safety campaigns on every hand and side; when you have cops on every street corner; when you can't bump anybody off - actually you don't even dare hit anybody in this society - boy, they're - just got it reduced down and I guess they are trying to make a lot of new particles, is about as near as you can figure. They just must be trying to make a lot of new particles which themselves could be pushed around. And that becomes very grim.

It, by the way, is no-it's no accident that there are less people in Scientology than there were in Dianetics. The less isn't very much, but it's there. It's because we're really pulling away from the level of motion of the rest of the society. We're pulling away from their level of tolerance.

They've got an educated tolerance level. They know that cars should be driven, really, at 35 miles an hour. They feel comfortable at 35 miles an hour. They do not feel comfortable at 180. They're not at all comfortable. And yet randomity for an automobile would be about 110. That's good randomity. You're liable to hit anything. And you wouldn't quite predict which side of the road you would be on because of the structure of the automobiles to hand. And you wouldn't be able to predict a lot of things about it. So you've entered a bunch of no-predict.

When you've got a car going down the road at 35 miles an hour, complete, new, good tires, excellent condition-nothing wrong with it, I'm afraid that you get into this strata of boredom. In fact, drivers have been known to go to sleep at a wheel in such cars.

What's it got to do with communication? You want to change the communication level of your preclear is what you are trying to do. Communication level is simply his ability to move particles or move as a particle from one part of space to another part of space. So it's basically motion, isn't it? You're trying to increase his motion.

Well, if you can just move him from one part of space to the other part of space and demonstrate that he can do this and demonstrate it often and conclusively and convincingly to him, believe me, his level of motion and his level of communication are going to come up!

The reason he doesn't move out of his head is because he's got too much no-predict and too much automaticity. It's all being done for him. He has terrific dependencies on all sorts of things. He's got dependency on the body. He's got dependency on the MEST universe to hold out anchor points. He's got dependency on all kinds of things. Basically, he's got dependency on the MEST universe to hold out his anchor points for him; he doesn't have to hold out any anchor points.

Fellows by the way-cases will crack just on this: "Do you know that you don't have to hold out all the anchor points there are around you?"

And the fellow says, "What are you talking about?"

You say, "Well, compare one arm of the chair with the other arm of the chair." You watch him, he'll be like a bird dog, like a pointer. He'll look at that chair comparing one arm with the other arm. And you move over to a bookcase and you say, "Compare one corner of the bookcase with the other corner of the bookcase." He'll look at that and he'll compare those two things. "Now, get the slight differences between them," you say. And he'll take his attention off of that carefully And they look over to the window and you compare one corner of the window to the other. He'll take his attention off of that a little less carefully. And he'll look back at these things every once in a while.

Well, you'll get cases at this level and you want to know what you are looking at. That guy thinks that he is holding apart these two corners himself He doesn't realize that it will be done for him. He's got his own universe and the MEST universe completely, completely coincided, you see, too much so that he still thinks he is in his own universe or has to be and he hasn't differentiated between his own universe and the MEST universe.

Well, how do you get this differentiation across? Very indirectly. He finds out all of a sudden, usually, and then the process, by the way, becomes useless when he is completely convinced of this: That that corner of that desk and that corner of that desk-table are going to remain apart whether he puts his attention on them or not. Those two particles are going to stay in position.

In other-in other words, he-you are showing him that the MEST universe is nailed down and that space is made that way and that the space will stay space.

He isn't sure that the MEST universe won't collapse. He has gotten to that point.

Now, let's look at communication lag and let's look at this very carefully. Your case which is in a level of "be a body" has bought large quantities of automaticity. Everything is being done for him through the body. Emotion is being made for him. And everything is being done for the body by automatic gimmicks out through the society. See, we've got this automaticity set up.

But we have factors around him whereby he is educated to believe everything should be ethical and good and sweet and noble. The school does a good job on this. I mean, the . . . And the fiction of the country-a writer can't sell reality. He can't sell this universe. He's got to sell a terrifically fictionized version.

The stories in Collier's magazine compare with when knighthood was in flower-real sweet. It's all real sweet. Heroes are heroes and they're honest and they are noble. And the women are usually-they have become less so in fiction lately-but they're usually virgins, and so on. I mean, it's got no bearing on reality at all.

And we take this kid who is supereducated by the movies, by fiction and particularly by his school which taught him he must be honest, he must be kind, he must be merciful, he must be all these things, he must be, you see, terrific restrictions, and not to be strong and not to use force. That's what everybody's got everything convinced with.

You can't have any randomity before you use-unless you're willing to use a little force. What's force? Force is just a change of a particle from one corner of the room to the other corner of the room or one corner of the universe to another corner of the universe. And that's what force is.

And you say to somebody, "You mustn't use any force," and by this you may mean one thing but he interprets it to the fact that he mustn't use strength.

Just try and build a bridge sometime without using any force. Hah! It would be an interesting thing. A fellow would walk a tightrope of thought from one corner of the chasm to the other corner of the chasm. Well, the last time I saw anybody try to do this he fell in.

So, the main difficulty we have then with your preclear is the fact he's got a no-predict on this level: He can't tell what people are going to say to him or otherwise because he's been sold, first, on certain conditions in the society which aren't true and then having come out of that educational period, is abruptly confronted with the fact that the universe runs some other way. And he's been taught in this fashion. And then he experiences in another fashion. And his education being intensely artificial does not then permit him to predict his fate.

Therefore, you find fellows who leave school in the third grade and can't read, very often being fabulously successful in the society and very happy and extremely sane. It isn't how much they've studied. It isn't how much time they've sat in a chair or in a schoolroom. It's just the fact that what they've been taught is false! This is another method of entering a no-predict.

You tell the fellow, "Well, the best way to be admired is to crawl around the floor and say, ‘Gah-gah, goo-goo-goo' and be naked and don't control toilet activities." This is the way to be admired. Obviously.

And then, then you teach him that this is all frowned on. Well, that's what happens to every kid. He goes through these stages. All of a sudden they start toilet training him and he finds out that's not good, that's not good at all. That's not admired.

Education could be said to be a superevaluation of what will be admired. In other words, what will vanquish force. Well, how do you get the force that's opposing you vanquished? See, it gets very simple if you look at it.

Education enters a no-predict by teaching a fellow one method of prediction and then letting him experience in quite another series of randomities.

Now, here is a better example of that. You take your billiard ball and you teach a fellow very carefully that all these billiard balls are resilient. They bounce, you know? And he throws his billiard ball down the billiard table and it hits the other billiard ball and it bounces and they go crack. And they spring apart beautifully and ably and they bank against good beautiful rubber cushions, you see. And they come back together again-crack-crack-and there's lots of motion. It's all so smooth, so-so nice.

And then you say, "Now that we've trained you to do this, now you know all there is to know about that. Now, there's your billiard table over there."

And he goes over to this billiard table and of course he finds one billiard ball is made out of cast lead and the other two are made out of putty. And one bank of the table - one bank is made out of steel and the other bank is made out of cotton. And the first time he throws that ball down there something goes squash! He didn't learn that. And he sinks into an apathy. You see how you'd do this?

Now, the funny part of it is (and this is quite heartening to realize) if you had given him his own pool table in the first place and said, "All right. This is your pool table. You're going to form randomity with this thing," why, he would have made these basic errors and he, right away, without any experience, he would've said, "That's the way a pool table acts. Putty and steel and you have to kind of watch out for it." And even if you fixed it up so that every other game or every few games, why, you switched the character of the banks and gave him two lead balls to hit and a putty ball to throw with - if you did this to him a few times, he would merely form the opinion that he was up against a situation which was altering and that there was a certain amount of no-predict in it.

But if you've taught him that there is a complete predict, and then you lowered the level of predict on him, even slightly, he has a tendency to drop down Tone Scale.

Actually, you could train somebody so that the pool balls would shift without warning in character so that you could never tell which pool ball was going to be made out of putty, which one out of lead and which bank was going to be steel and which one was going to be cotton, and what do you know? He'd say, "Well, this is the way pool tables are!" and he would establish it at his own level as the randomity which he would have to embrace. And he would go ahead and embrace the randomity because he hasn't been convinced!

What he's convinced of now is, "My God! Is there an awful lot of randomity here! There's no automaticity. I have to do practically everything there is done on this table! After I've hit the putty ball, I have to reach down and put it back in shape again," and so forth. He has to do everything on the table. There isn't an automatic resilience which brings it out into a sphere as the case with another ball.

You see how simple it gets when you take a good solid look at what randomity is, what prediction is and what education is.

Now, you take a fictionized society and we know in this that "all communists are bad." We know they are all bad. And then we send this guy to Russia. And we get a book of dull, surprised amazement, such as that written by the late Wendell Willkie called One World.

It startled him to find there was a similarity between Russians and Americans. And he completely missed all the finer points, merely because he'd been supereducated into the idea that Russians were beasts. You see? And Russians aren't quite beasts. So he just omits the "aren't quite" in their own civilization and he goes all out on the other side of the fence and they're saints. And so, you - well, practically - "They were just American businessmen handling their economics in some other fashion," if I remember it correctly. A commissar was just like anybody else that you find in a factory management position. There was - of course, he was under a little more pressure: If he didn't make the town run - if I remember the quote from many years ago - if he didn't make this town run well, turn in his quota, he'd be liquidated. Which meant according to Willkie, well, he'd be fired or maybe even shot as an extremity. But he knew this was what would happen to him and it was all routine and just like in Keokuk, Iowa!

You see, he was trying to do a predict on the Russian scene against his other level but he had been told that you couldn't predict this and he'd found out a level of comparison where he could and so he was real proud and so that made the Russians good. Perfectly good line of logic, you see, except it doesn't happen to form a prediction level for anybody else.

All right. What's this - what's this lead to then? It leads to the fact that unless you've torn up some of the convictions of your pc with regard to his ability to move and make move - you know this "live and let live"? To hell with that; that's apathy. What we want is move and make move!

"Stop and make stop" is the game the cops play. But it becomes a very dull game when nobody's moving. You know, playing cop is a - playing cops and robbers is a very interesting game. Little kids play this game. But playing cop depends upon there being criminals. And if the cops get too thorough on the thing it all becomes automatic. The fingerprints find the man, the - everything else. And the educational system prevents him from stepping out of line and so forth.

And I'll bet you - you know, when I say, "I'll bet you," I know cops quite well. I've sat around with cops and actually detected these long, drawn-out sighs on the subject of "There ain't no crime - no crime." I've seen cops training, training, training to fight criminals, you see, and there's no criminals. This is a hell of a note.

It's like telling this guy that, boy, this is, you've been trained, you know, and by fiction, they believe that there's nothing in that pool table, you see there. They've got a pool ball which is intensely subjectable to pain. And they're going to throw this ball around against balls that are made out of prickly pear spines and this is the life they're taught. And then they get to the pool table, see, and all they can find to hit is just empty space. And people have got them fighting nothing. There is no randomity there. Cops go kind of psycho because their efficiency has reduced their own level of randomity. They are still playing the game hard. That's what happens in any game. Somebody starts playing the game real hard to win! I don't care what you define win as. Win is just hitting a couple of the balls, see. And predicting them sometimes a little bit. And that's winning.

And so, pang, down goes the cop against the table of crime and he simply swamps up all the other balls and there's no balls on the table which leaves him nothing to fight - he wins. He predicts them so well that he vanquishes them and he gets better and better on his prediction.

I think people who play expert pool must be terribly bored with the game. Willie Hoppe, when he shot that cue ball down into the - in pool - and shot it down into the triangle of balls and pocketed this one and that one and the other one and the other one and always pocketed them and so forth - well, he would get some admiration for this, but if he were - that's introducing another - another factor for his interest.

But as far as they were to go, if you were to put him all by himself in a house someplace with a pool table and he had nothing to do but that - uh-uh. His randomity comes about with showing somebody else how to do it and then their tremendous amazement and his interest that they can't. That's his randomity; it's exterior to the game.

So, what are we trying to do with a preclear? Well, look at the shape he's in. He's either in too damned much randomity for him; he's fighting on too many fronts in life or he isn't fighting on enough fronts.

You can process a juvenile delinquent and you will know immediately that there's another kind of case. He isn't fighting on enough fronts. The guy's front or opponent saturation point has not been reached. And a person will get to a point where he will actually run around and be the opponent. He will go around - he can't get anybody to fight him, so he'll go around and fight himself He gets tremendously involved in this.

In arguments you will see people doing this. This is not an uncommon manifestation:

"You're a dog! You're just no good!"

And the other fellow stands there and he says, monitoringly, you know, kind of quietly, he says, "Well, really, we shouldn't get - we shouldn't get upset about this, and so forth. We can talk this over quietly."

"Oh! You say I am raising my voice, do you?"

You get the trick? He didn't get enough bang back! He didn't get enough reaction, so he's real upset.

Now, you've heard - you've heard women do this around the house. Well, their level of randomity is quite poor. They stay home and the husband goes to work, the house is kind of empty. They have to straighten up this house. It's the same house, you know. It's always been the same house for the last ten to fifteen years. The same pieces get out of line. The same meals have to be gotten. The same butcher is bought from. And they get to a point after a while where they just do this. They've got to put randomity into life. They can't stand it!

And you will actually see preclears who are just practically going through their roof! They just can't take this little level of randomity.

Now, I've had preclears show up who wanted an engram run. Was anything wrong with them? No. They just wanted something else to fight. So, you showed them this engram and they come up with another engram. Well, the hell with this. You run that engram and they come up with another engram. Boy, this is all right! They've got randomity.

Now, you take somebody's imagination. It's when these factors get extreme that they become very important in the society because a guy gets convinced. You take a lot of people down here in the insane asylum. They just started onto this line of insufficient randomity and then they just ran it into a hole. Now they've got - Western Union has wires plugged into their brains so as to inform the government of what they're thinking. And there are people going to shoot them through the window any minute and so on. They've just overdone the danger, you see, and they can no longer control this level.

But what is the pitch there? The pitch is a complete mock-up, a complete mock-up, of no-predict. I would say offhand their life became enormously predictable. Their life became too predictable. All right.

When somebody is trained then - somebody gets trained in one direction and then life gives him another pool table.

You'll find if you want to uproot the past lives all the way up and down the track, you want to uproot the whole track on a preclear, you just work with this principle. And what is the principle? It's just shifting pool tables. Every time he turns around, somebody gives him a new pool table.

And I'll tell you, that's why space opera hangs up so fabulously in this completely dull society. I'll bet you no space opera was keyed in at all here a hundred years ago. You could always go out West and get shot or shoot somebody or be run down by a bull elk or... You could always get into trouble, always. And the police, boy, were they inefficient! No telegraphs to amount to anything and they have no fingerprint files and Bertillon, I think was - about then - was just starting to struggle up with something, if not a little bit later.

Then you just shaved - shaved your head a little bit different and you wore a different colored tie and you go into the same police station that arrested you yesterday and say, "I want a job as a cop," and they'd hire you.

I mean, life - life - you could change your identity. Well now, this society has got it rigged so you can't. If a guy finds a no-randomity situation in this society today, he is hung with it because he is hung with his identity.

You can make a preclear just happy as can be by saying, "Now, let's see, what restaurant do you go to regularly? Oh? What do your friends call you? Oh? Where - where do you live? Oh. Well, now I want you, one, to patronize an entirely different restaurant. Oh, you say one of the same kind? No, no - no. Patronize for two weeks a joint, just a joint. And make your friends call you by another name. And move."

The guy says, "There's nothing wrong with the house I've got now. It's a beautiful house and I have - I have a lease on it, so..." Well you say, "Move."

That's what we're talking about in the first book when we said shift environment. That's the factors of shifting environment. You change his level of randomity, you see, some way or another.

There are two things that will be happening in that environment: He'll either be hit - be hit too hard and too often or he won't be being hit enough.

What's happening to your preclear? Well, you'd better adjudicate which one it is. It's an either/or. This is quite important what I am telling you. You'd better adjudicate which one it is. This guy during his life had too much. This guy during his life had too little.

But past is not as important as present, ever. So, all the question you need ask is the pertinent ones. What are the real factors with which this person is surrounded?

Psychology gets hung up on changing environment and things like that merely because it doesn't resolve within itself this problem: Is it either/or? Is it plus or minus randomity? Plus randomity is simply too much.