Tonight I would like to give you the therapy that goes along with Technique 80. So far in these lectures I've talked to you about theory. Well, this technique combines understanding with actual mechanical running. You can just take a preclear and start him with this technique, but he won't get too much out of it. He has to understand what his goal is.

I want to give you the therapy portion of Technique 80.

Now, if you take any individual or any group of people and you start to work with them and you don't tell them what you're trying to do, they don't do very well; you know, like the government does. Of course, the government doesn't know what it's trying to do. But you as the auditor should know what you're trying to do with Technique 80.

The running of engrams, the running of secondaries, Lock Scanning and so forth, does not apply in Technique 80. In this technique we are not trying to achieve understanding, we're trying to achieve possession.

You're trying to make it possible for this person to be cause on all dynamics. How high you get him up is up to you. Believe me, if you got him up to two, the second dynamic – one and two – you'd have Superman. If you got him to one, two and three and nobody else was using Technique 80, why, you very probably have – oh, I don't know – governor of the state or the president or somebody. I mean, somebody who would just sort of automatically step into that position.

It isn't very necessary for you to put anything on a time track and nail it down hard merely to possess a certain portion of your body.

Don't think you're starting out here with anything light; it's not light. But oddly enough, the technique itself is almost like light processing. There isn't any heavy running of engrams, there isn't any heavy running of secondaries. You should know the techniques of thought, emotion and effort, but it's not necessary for you to get into the beginning of a heavy incident and run it through, because that's not what you're aiming for.

As I have talked about before, the theta body – that is to say the thought body, the thought beingness of an individual – has at remote and obscure points upon the time track been treated in such a way as to make it susceptible to implantation.

What you're trying to do is locate the points of unresolved incident that impede a person from being, and on the other hand, impede him from not being. And, by the way, it might be a new thought to you that somebody could be impeded from not being. Well, it's quite a thought. You ever a little kid and have to brush your teeth, and so on? Well, the little kid wants to be dirty, and he is impeded from being dirty. Well, that's a perfectly good ambition; he wants to be dirty. So?

Actually, this was a very, very routine and mechanical procedure which was followed out with a grim persistency and a consistency which to me today is very frightening, because it's probably all going to happen again, you know? I mean, you're probably going to get somebody all cleared up and so forth, and people are going to start objecting. So a few hundred thousand years from now, why, they'll probably start this all over again. But at least we'll take a breather on the line.

All right. Here's somebody who knows very well that if he becomes a sergeant in the army he's going to lose all his friends who are privates. And so he is trying to not be a sergeant – goes up on the bulletin board anyway. Well, that's upsetting to him – very upsetting. Of course, that type of incident of which I am speaking now is very light, it's very mild, but it's almost funny, the mildness of this-lifetime incidents which impede not-beingness and beingness. It's almost funny; they're just nothing, really.

So here the body has actually been made susceptible – and by the body I mean the theta body – to an implantation of a personality.

If you take some preclear, he's been run over by trucks and thrown off buildings and so forth – terrific casualties have occurred to him. And incidents, heavy physical-pain incidents – they're not what's wrong with him. But here he is, he's got a bad leg and, oh, his eyesight is all bad and he feels horrible and so forth.

Now, actually, these implantations are very sharp. There's one here just within the shoulder, it goes up across that side of the face. There is one here, there is one out here in the wider body, and one out here in the wider body and there's one on the stomach. Addition to that, there's one in the middle.

And you say, "Well, gee, we'll have to run out all those incidents in order to make him capable of being – we'll have to run all those heavy incidents."

Now, that little spot that shows up in the middle of a preclear's forehead – shows up as a somatic – actually is one of these susceptibility implants. You tell a person to move center, and if they move center they quite often feel that spot in the middle of their forehead; they're into their center beingness. Well, you can move a person through all of these points of beingness.

No. This technique doesn't care about heavy incidents at all. It wants to know why these incidents are hung up in maybes, and that's all this technique wants to know.

I might tell you one more thing about this: There's two items there in the middle of a human being. One of them is the genetic-line governing center. That is the line which reaches back through evolution here on Earth to the beach, to the sea, so on. The line that the biologists are so fond of recounting, and which the fellow that draws Pogo did so well in Life not too long ago. I think the fellow's name was Glob, wasn't it? Some such thing, and he spent a half a million years after he got out of the sea just sitting on the beach thinking about it.

It's going to resolve those maybes. And you will find that the real maybes – the real maybes – are very light. There isn't anything very heavy about them. But the fellow has come up against something which has made him halt in a decision between two heavy incidents.

Well, what Glob would be, his personality and so forth, and all the things that happened to him, are on record in this center theta body in the middle of the being. Might sound a little bit wild to you, but that's a fact. That is the emanation point.

Now, you take the "Handbook for Preclears". There's a Chart of Attitudes in there. Across the top of the Chart of Attitudes you have such things as "I am," "I know," "cause," "everyone," "owns everything"; and there should be two additional columns on it – "freedom" and – forgotten what the other column is.

The Greek, for instance, believed that very thoroughly, and according to an E-Meter and according to processing and according to results, he seems to have been right. The resident being of the evolutionary theta body which evolved here on Earth is in the stomach or solar plexus, not in the head.

Female voice: "Win and lose."

Now, up the line, back of that much earlier, goes this enormously long line – enormous, long line – and it goes back there; in some cases it'll register up to 60 trillion years. That is your theta body proper and that has come all the way along. That's really who you are. You're a tenant in this center being's body, which can get very confused.

Yes, that's right: "win and lose." Very silly, I was trying to read the Chart of Attitudes and it isn't printed on there.

I wouldn't tell you about all this unless it resolved cases. I'd keep it to myself and write a book about it sometime which could lie on the library shelves and get very dusty.

Well, anyway, you take those top bands. Now, you take these bottom bands. If a fellow has decided finally – "I don't know," he says; "I just know not, that's all, I'm ..." or if he's decided "Well, I'm dead," that's not very aberrative. But don't get him between "I know" and "I know not."

Anyway, here's your theta line; comes along here, goes through the weirdest and most complex adventures imaginable. And over here on Earth is this genetic line. Little tiny time span, only occupies maybe three and a half billion years, if that.

Fellow says, "I know. No, I don't, I know not. Oh, well, I think I know, but I'm not sure I know not," and he goes this way, bing, bing, bing – rrrrrr.

Now, this body comes along here and gets all developed, and then all of a sudden you come in from somewhere else and take it over, and so on. That happens, by the way, just before birth. And if you audit that incident, your preclear goes way up in tone.

And, you'll find one, two, three or four circumstances in the present lifetime which are sufficient to aberrate the case very thoroughly and inhibit very strongly a state of beingness for the individual. One, two, three or four or five; hardly more than that, usually just one. And it has to do with the fact he received a motion and then he tried to use the motion and then he said, "I won't use this motion." And that's the indecision. You see, that's basically the only indecision there is. "I've received a motion. Now, shall I or shall – I'm going to ... No, I won't use that motion." It's that cycle of action. "Something has happened to me here and I'm going to do something, but I'm not going to do it." And he promptly goes into a maybe.

And now that I've told you all this and you have it all committed to heart, this is just something that you avoid in Technique 80. You don't use it. But it's there.

And you may think you have to take the whole case to pieces to find one of these things. The weird part of it is, is the preclear will give you everything necessary to resolve his case, usually in this technique, in the first session certainly, and certainly within three or four sessions. They'll tell you everything you need to know.

Now, what you want in Technique 80 is first to discover the overt and dependency acts on the first dynamic, and that I would like to give you a little more data about.

The incidents are right there; they'll tell you all about them. They will no more than sit down and they'll tell you this incident. And you say to yourself, "This can't possibly be what's wrong with this case because this is too simple." And so, you take this incident and you put it aside and you say, "Well, we'll park that over here and we'll go in for something – we'll go in for blood over here."

You see, a fellow can commit an overt act to himself. This is very easy, because, you see, he confuses his body with him. A person is not his body. A person's beingness is who the person is, and he just happens to have this body. And I just mention this to show you how many sources of body you've got here – lots of them. There's lots of bodies and control centers, just all thu-thu-thu – and so you start to worry about "Who am I?" or "Where am I?" and you can get completely lost in all this maze of implants and synthetics and entities and ray guns and Republican elections and everything.

No, no. They tell you about it. But the reason you haven't picked up this incident the first moment it showed up is a very simple reason: You didn't pick up the combination of incidents. He gave you one end of the incident, and it was up to you to guess the other end of the incident. But once you know how to guess the other end of the incident, it ceases to be a riddle and becomes a very scientific problem.

So, once you've resolved dependency and overt acts on the first dynamic – you've resolved those and what's a person done to himself, more or less (sometimes you'll hit a gunshot; I mean, you just have to hit anything you can hit in the case to resolve one of these big maybes that I told you about in the last lecture) – you start in, then, with making the individual locate his point of emanation. And then point out to him that any time he senses that he is emanating from a point, he has stood back of that point and looked at it. You see how that is?

The preclear will always give you the wrong side. And he'll give you the side that's in view as far as he's concerned. He says, "You see this? Well, this is what's wrong with me." He'll tell you, and that isn't what's wrong with him. There's an incident down here which matches this incident, which actually is locked together solid, and it won't let this incident resolve. And here's this incident over here. And why won't it resolve? Because there's a maybe right here.

You say, "Now, where are you thinking from? Where are you being from?"

Now, here's incident one. All right, this is an early incident. Now, the first thing that happens on this first incident – it's injurious, the preclear recovers from it. There was some impulse in this incident to use force or do something. There's a little unresolved decision right in that incident.

And the fellow says, "Oh, well, that's easy. Uh ... Yeah, right there. Yeah, right there."

Now, the next thing that happens to him that is aberrative regarding this incident may happen to him any time during the next lifetime. It can be five minutes from then, five years from then or fifty years from then. This incident could coast in just sort of a little annoying little spin sort of a thing. Every once in a while he'd kind of think about it; it wouldn't amount to anything. He'd go on being effective in life, until one day something happens.

You say, "Where are you deciding from that it's right there?"

One day he says, "Here is a motion," and something confronts him about this motion. And the second he's confronted with something that requires him to use this motion, he says, "Well, here I ..." There it is – maybe.

"Oh, I am deciding that from the middle of the head. Well, I couldn't be right there if I am deciding it from the middle of the head."

So, what's happened is he comes along here, along the track, and way up here – all of a sudden here's another incident. There's force involved in this incident one way or the other. And he says right there, "I'm wrong. I ... Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I. . . maybe I. . . But it couldn't because it didn't; I mean, it – but, on the other hand, if I had have ..." What happens is, is this incident moves over – this one moves over – and we get them locked together.

"Well, all right. How do you decide you are in the middle of the head?"

What is computation? Computation is the resolution of problems. Computation is taking the maybes out of existence. So long as you can remove maybes by the process of comparing data and get a situation which balances out yes or no, you are thinking smoothly. But the second that you get a proposition where "maybe it's yes, maybe it's no" – zong.

"Well, that's easy, it's uh . . . back here," deciding the middle of the head.

Well, now, you see this in thought all the time. I mean, people do this with a thought – well, a person has a thought and then he has another thought and then the two thoughts are in conflict. Or he goes up and somebody tells him one thing, and then he goes over here and somebody tells him another thing. And then he gets hung up on a big maybe here in the middle, so he starts thinking about it all the time and he can't think about it all the time, so he eventually kind of goes into apathy about the whole subject.

Now, if you just do that process with a person for a short time, at first they'll get very bewildered. And they say, "Where could I possibly be? Where am I? I'm lost!" But the truth of the matter is that all you're demonstrating to them is they're not a geographic location in their body.

Well, that would be different. What I'm talking to you about here is force, effort – good heavy effort. There's effort in both of these incidents, effort in both of them, so that it is a maybe which is hung up with effort in it.

The first trip, then, of the problem "you are not your body" is effected. You're not your body, you're you. Well, where are you? Well, you see, you happen to be a point of beingness which has neither time nor space, so how can you even exist in that fashion? Simple. All right. You're just you. And you sort of get the fellow at last reconciled to this, that he can be anyplace. All right.

Now, oddly enough, you will find that this effort here has a lot of locks in it; they're little locks. It's all wound up. There are a lot of maybes, maybes, maybes. In other words, this thing can wind into the whole life pattern; it could just pervade all computation. It can become compulsive, obsessive, inhibitive, all sorts of strange things. It gets to be a mess.

Now, the next thing we want to know is such a question as this: "Well, now, let's see, what is the chronic emotion of your body? What is your chronic emotion?"

If a man has this sort of a situation happen to him (as everyone has), he eventually – if you took a look at his brains – mind, rather – and had all of his facsimiles, it would look like an alarm clock some kid had taken apart. It's just all snarled up.

The fellow will think for a minute, then he'll say, "Well, I don't know; I don't get angry very much. I don't get this way very much. I guess I just couldn't decide what the chronic emo ....

Now, there's the computational view. I'll give you a – give you an example. A little kid, he's two years old. Somebody comes in and steps on him – bang. Didn't hurt him very bad, but stepped on him. He's lying on the floor. When he's twenty, the person who stepped on him jostles him a little bit and he hauls off and hits him. Two incidents, both containing physical force.

"Yes, that's it," you say. "Ha-ha, that's it! Run the concept of 'not being able to decide,'" if that's what he said to you, you see? What he's done is try to reach around and describe something, and while he's describing it he names it. Only he names something he doesn't think he's describing. You get the idea?

It just won't work out. He shouldn't hit this other person; he knows he shouldn't hit this other person. The other person didn't do anything, they just jostled him. Well, now, from twenty on, you'll find this man worrying about this. Down in a substratum he's thinking about it all the time.

The fellow says, "Oh, I don't know. I've ... I just ... Life isn't that important to me that I would think about such a thing."

But what's he tell you when you ask him as an auditor "What happened to you in your life?" Supposing this was his uncle George. And he says, "Oh, I'm a wreck because my uncle George did so many bad things to me. All he did was do bad things to me. You know, when I was a little kid I remember going into the store and I had ten cents. And he said I couldn't buy any candy. And another time I wanted to go for a ride in the car, and so on, and he kept my – he kept telling my mother that she ought to punish me. And the whole trouble with my life is George and the horrible way which he acted toward me. And I understand that when I was a little baby, why, he was awful mean and brutal to me.

You say, "That's right. All right, run the concept through your whole body of 'life is not important.' Run it from your center beingness into your body: 'life is not important.' Get the feeling 'life is not important'."

You start to run him, and the first incident he'll present you is Uncle George stepping on him. Is that the incident you want? No! He's not going to tell you this other incident. And the other incident is his hauling off and hitting George. And George – he's a young man of twenty by this time and his uncle George is pretty old. And yet here he is, Uncle George jostles him a little bit, restimulates this thing, and he hauls off and hits Uncle George – bang! See? "I shouldn't be hitting Uncle George, I ..." Well, Uncle George never worried him much up to that time. But to hear him talk afterwards, you'd think that Uncle George was the – well, he was the devil incarnate.

Fellow tries and tries. "I can't get it in my body."

This is what is known as justification – justification. He's justifying, and he justifies by presenting you with motions like this, so that he won't have to face this one. He don't want to face that one. No, that was hitting Uncle George. Oh no, no, no!

"Well, where can you get it?"

Well, you ask him about it, he'll tell you about it. Maybe he's forgotten it, by the way, and maybe not. But if you ask him about it, he'll say, "Yes, well, I did. I hit Uncle George once. I hit him and I felt kind of bad about it, but that hasn't got anything to do with it." Oh, yeah?

"My right thumb."

You say, "Well, it hasn't got anything to do with it, but let's run it anyway – hmm? Shall we just go through this? Just scan this, very ... ?"

You say, "Okay. Let's run your right thumb – let's run between you and your right thumb that 'life is not important,' but run that feeling with your right thumb, 'life is not important."' He'll run it for a moment and oddly enough it'll change on him.

"Well, it hasn't got anything to do about it."

You say, "Well, what is it now?"

"Well, how about just scanning through it just once?"

"Well, it's uh . .1 don't know, I guess it's 'you got to take things easy.' Well, except that's my whole hand. I... The whole hand is 'you've got to take it easy.' That's the way – that's the thing I'm getting now."

"Well, I tell you, it's got nothing to do with it!" He'll get frantic after a while. And you'll finally take him by the scruff of the neck and you shove him into the front end of the incident and you run him through a few times. And finally he says, "You know, that's funny. My back hurts."

"All right, run that feeling, 'you've got to take it easy,' with your hand." The fellow runs it.

"Well, what are you doing now?" you say.

In other words, he just gets this concept, and he gets this concept consistently enough and identifies it as a concept, and it'll blow; it'll actually blow.

"Well, it's this incident. I tell you what the incident that's really wrong with me – I'm lying on the floor and Uncle George comes in and steps on me.

And you get the next one, you say, "Well, now what? Now what, with that hand?"

You say, "Run hitting Uncle George." You see? You see the complete mechanical justification? He's giving you this one all the time, and all he's really trying to say to himself, and he's never even able to say this, is "I had a perfect right to hit Uncle George, because look what he did to me.

"Well, feels pretty cheerful; feels pretty cheerful."

The first thing that you get into when you try to stop a fight between two little kids is this: "He hit me first."

"All right, run your hand feeling pretty cheerful."

Well, actually, it's as simple as that; simple as that.

Now, about this time he'll probably get a somatic someplace; probably over here somewhere – and he'll get a somatic. And you say, "All right, now. What's the concept there? What's your concept of that?"

If you find somebody hating, snarling and writhing about somebody else, find out what they did to that person. If you find a preclear who wants to do nothing but run engrams about how horrible some member of his family is, how much he was abused by his mother and all he'll do is run these engrams about his mother: his mother did this to him, his mother did that to him, his mother did something else to him, his mother did . . . You know, you could waste a long, long time without resolving that case – lot of time you could waste. Because the fact that he's presenting you with all of these incidents and so forth – just look at that in interpersonal relationships, around in life or on the therapy couch, look at it either way, simply that he's saying, "I was justified, I was justified, I was justified, I was justified." It doesn't matter whether he says "So this teacher grabbed me by the back of the neck and slapped my face and so forth. And I was expelled from school. And this and that happened to me, and – and, boy ... Just boil it all down to this: "I'm justified, I'm justified, I'm justified."

"Nothing much with the somatic. What do you mean 'concept with the somatic'?" "Well, what's the thought? The thought of the somatic?"

And it's your job as an auditor to find out just this datum as your opening wedge in 80, just this datum: justified in doing what?

And he says, "Well, it doesn't have a thought. It just doesn't have one. It ... it ... it's, you know, it's – you know, life can be pretty doggone upsetting and so forth when you got somatics ...."

Now, it may take an E-Meter to find it. Actually, they have a tendency to sort of look at an E-Meter and they say, "All right, I'll take hold of the cans" – sort of like "Let's make a little pact here, that you don't ask me any of these questions that are really hot."

"Run that feeling, 'life is pretty upsetting.' Okay, run that with that somatic: 'life's upsetting.' 'Life's upsetting.'"

And you say, "Well, now, let's see. What happened to you?" and so forth.

The fellow – "Ow!" Yeah. Well, it goes away.

And he says, "Well, so, my younger brother kept hitting me over the head with a brickbat and he hit me over the head with a hammer and did this and he did that and did this and did that."

You say, "All right. Now, what's the next sensation that you run with that point where you had the somatic?" And you'll get another one, and you'll get another one, and you get another one.

"Come on," you say, "now what did you do to your younger brother?"

And here's what's happening: In each one of those cases, up the tone scale with the concept. He'll start down here anywhere from apathy on up, and you just keep bringing him up the tone scale. Well, you're not just running ARC to the body. You can run love, love, love, all you want to without getting any action on the body, for the excellent reason that it's way up here, and there's parts of the body that are way down there. And just treat it like this: treat the body and its parts as though they were preclears. Just treat it like it's a preclear.

"Nothing." The needle will go wheww!

And did you ever come up to a preclear who was in apathy and say, "Well, come on, old boy, cheer up. Ha! That's the thing to..." He won't have anything to do with you. Well, here's this right foot that's been feeling put upon and stood on all these years, and it doesn't like it at all, and you come up to it and you say, "Love, love, love. And everything is fine and everything is cheerful," and the right foot says, "Oh, nuts!" You can actually get it saying "Oh, nuts" too.

And you say, "Well, now, you're sure you never did anything to him?"

Now, the thing to do is to pick it up as low on the band as it is and start it on up the band. Now, you're not worrying about going back down the time track to it. Why go back down the time track to something that's there? Why do that? There's no sense in it. It's sitting right there. And it's evidently sitting somewhere near the spot where it's held up or you wouldn't be able to get it that easily, and so you just run it as a concept and you bring it on up the tone scale as a concept. And it's a very simple proposition.

"Oh no, no, no, no." Whewww!

Run a hand, then run two hands, then run the arms, run the legs, run the center of the body, run the whole body if you can. But run it in these various concepts. And each time you get a concept, you'll get that feeling. Make the person describe what the feeling is in words, and then get that feeling and then run that feeling with that part of his body. And then you'll find out that he comes up the scale and he's got another feeling on the same area, and then another one, and another one, and another one, and you're running him on up the tone scale with that body.

You say, "Well now, what about it? Can't you just give us just a little inkling, maybe?"

Well, you see, down here on the tone scale is effect, at 0.0; that's complete effect. And up here at 40.0 is cause. So you can't ask a preclear to be cause – just suddenly say "All right, be cause" – if he feels all subdivided and parts of him are dragging back and other parts of him are low down the scale and this and that and he's not in the least bit integrated. Here he is, he's all over the tone scale, various split-ups and so forth; he's just all over the tone scale with these parts of his body. Well, let's even him up and let's bring him all up the tone scale, and then you will find that it is possible for him to be cause on the first dynamic. That is the essence of the technique.

"No. Hah. Well, of course, there was that business about the kiddie car, but that – that was nothing, that was nothing."

Now, you'll find out that he'll yawn; you'll find out all other sorts of things. And all of a sudden, some preclear you haven't got much on the overt or dependency line on, he'll run one of these feelings and he'll all of a sudden start telling you. Because if he's got one of these down feelings, it's on a dependency or overt-act reason. And he starts running one of these feelings and all of a sudden a picture shows up – a facsimile, a memory shows up. Well, he'll maybe want to run this whole memory out.

"Well, what did happen?"

Well, if it's a physical-pain engram that happened to him, it is not even vaguely important. It means that there is a time when he was too dependent or a time when he was too overt. So you get the physical-pain engram, you find out why it is hung up in a maybe. You knew that he tried to use it one time or another, and you knew that that's the reason why he is so mad at Uncle George; Uncle George did this to him and so forth.

"Well, I ... Well, I don't know. You see, I was never sure – my mother said I was, but I – I was never sure that I did knock him off of the kiddie car."

So, every once in a while, as you're running this technique, you'll get – a section of life will show up. Well, don't worry too much about running that section of life; just blow it on an overt or a dependency line, that's all.

"Knocked him off of what kiddie car?"

Now, you run the body one way, the other way, and so forth. And you're running it with this in view: because you think you are the body, you think you can be aberrated. Well, you can't be. I would like to see somebody catch the central point of emanation, put it in a box and do something to it to make it aberrated. The centralness of you, the core of you, the you that is you, is absolutely incapable of being aberrated. Also, it is cause, even though its power may not seem to be very great to you. It is cause; it is never anywhere but way up here, never anywhere but way up there.

"Well, little kiddie car down the street that I brought in. And, of course, it fractured his skull and he was in the hospital for about six months, and he's never been quite right since. But ...

Now, that's something you've got to remember in running this technique. You get a somatic – it's some sort of some weird cross-computation because of these various circuits and other things and so on. You wouldn't give yourself a somatic, so there's some kind of a lineup here that's wrong. And it's merely wrong because there's an overt act or a dependency which is crossed up. And there are two motions which are crossed – two motions. And you just can't resolve those, so you as you are sort of standing back looking at this computation. You say, "What am I going to do about it? It just goes on and on. What can I do about this computation that keeps running?" What it is, is an overt act and an act done to the preclear, or something like that.

Now, you'll get this type of interplay in any case and it follows some very, very definite rules. It follows some very definite rules.

But "you" isn't involved in that or aberrated by it. It merely is, you are unable to fight your way through this computation. But you even got the sense, all the time that you've got that computation, of trying to fight your way through it and clean it up and clear it out and get it off the road. You know that.

Any time a person is protesting about a motion having happened to him – and this is a hard and fast rule, by the way: Any time a person is protesting about a motion that has happened to him, you can be assured that he has tried to use this motion and has hung himself up in a maybe, or he is merely telling you about a lock on that situation. One or the other.

So, what you're doing now is trying to run out and get upscale to the level of cause every part of the body – which cleans up the first dynamic. It may take you quite a little while to do it, and it may take you a very short time to do it. The point is that when it's done, you are a unity with you, and you should be completely unaware of the body.

Now, any time he gets one of these computational things that won't resolve, his mind is neither peaceful nor clear and his beingness is impeded on all fronts. You can be sure that if he's protesting about any motion of any kind – that something that's happened to him, if he's protesting about that motion – or actually if he's protesting about any motion on any dynamic violently, you know very well that he's guilty as sin of having tried to use that motion and found out it was the wrong motion to use.

You're not trying to achieve awareness of this body; you're trying to achieve complete unawareness. You're trying to achieve it to the point where you are willing to use this body of yours for anything. You can drive this body as no slave driver ever drove a slave. When you are capable of doing that, you are all right on the first dynamic. When you can work for thirty-six hours at a stretch and all of a sudden the body is just going like this, and you say "Come on, let's go," the body says "All right, we'll go." Because, you see, you have the particularly beautiful virtue of never getting tired. But your body does.

In processing a case, if you will follow that thing through, you will see a case start to fall apart in front of you.

Now, if you are sufficiently cause, your body won't even get tired. And furthermore, all these endless incidents ... It's very interesting. And an auditor should know what they are, and he should know where they exist, and he should know what entities are, and he should know how they act and what they affect and where they are and this thought-injection mechanism that's being used and all that sort of thing. But Technique 80 bypasses them.

I dare say there are people who have run for a couple of hundred hours – as much as that, maybe; maybe many more. Nearly all the auditing was merely their justification. They were just running justification, justification, justification.

Sure you've got an implant over here – you got an implant over here and it gives you rheumatism. That's fine. The you that's you wouldn't keep it unless there was a big maybe riding there. Well, what is the overt act or the dependency that made that maybe?

And they're not going to run out of justification – as long as you leave untapped – the incident that they are trying to justify. So, "What are you trying to justify?"

In other words, you're sort of tricked into paying attention to a maybe, and only then can you have a pain. Because it makes you abandon that part of your body and say "Maybe it doesn't belong to me. Well, it hurts, doesn't it? Well, it couldn't possibly belong to me. No, I wouldn't hurt myself. This is silly. So it can't belong to me."

You know the religious world tells you "Repent, ye sinners." They tell you, "You're all sinners." And everybody says, "Yup, yup, we're sinners all right. It's a good thing the fellow up there on the altar doesn't just know how much." But what's sin?

Your ability to take it over, then, is your ability to process the various parts of the body. You ask yourself sometime, "How do I feel?" Ask yourself right now, "How do I feel?"

Well, they seldom bother to explain that; they make a big plaque or something of the sort and they say, "Sin is one, two (not putting a dollar in the collection plate), sin," down the line, they give you a nice long list of sins. Well, there's no reason to list it. A sin is misusing a counter-effort you have received. That's all a sin is. Because every time you do, badly, it'll wind you up in this squirrel-up.

Well, for Technique 80 that's the feeling you run first. Simple, isn't it?

It makes computation, then, very difficult, very difficult, because everything a person is thinking goes over and under and around this and so forth.

You get this technique? It's simplicity itself. You just ask how the fellow feels or how this feels or what's the concept of this – any part of the body – what's the concept of it or what's its feeling, something of the sort, and you'll get an answer. And you run that, and after you've run that, you'll find it's a little higher in tone, so you run that and you'll find it's a little higher in tone, so you run that. And all you're doing is establishing ARC, ARC, ARC, all in a package with that part of the body, and it goes right on up tone scale.

You remember the cartoons of Rube Goldberg about the little man takes off his hat which knocks lever which throws basketball and so forth? Well, that's the kind of diagram you'd have to draw to get somebody's thinking apparatus if he's got one of these things badly in view.

And when you get it up to the top of the tone scale, you'll find, oddly enough, if you go on to the right foot, having done the left foot, and you'll come back to the right foot the next day, and I'll be a son of a gun if it hasn't bogged in too. It says, "Huh." And you say, "Well, I've got to do it all over again." What you're doing is running through successive waves of not-beingness, and you can count on running through many successive waves of not-beingness on every dynamic. But it's rather rapid when it comes down to a final showdown; it's rapid simply because you're not going to waste a lot of time running thought, emotion, effort, thought, emotion, effort.

Now, that's the first thing for you to remember on this. Actually, it's an overt-act proposition, and you know about overt acts.

When you find an effort, a facsimile, that is hung up, that is offering itself to be run, just by asking the body for its feeling in the area where that exists, you're putting the fellow right straight on to the line where he'll tell you about the overt act. And if you're running him with an E-Meter he says, "Well, I've got an awful pain now in my epislumpiglos."

If you refuse to commit an overt act, or if you commit one and are very sorry for it, you will then be unable to remain yourself, but will do, to some degree, a life continuum for the thing you hit.

And you say, "Well, that's fine. Who'd you kick?"

You say, "Bang! I regret it." That means that you go right around here, and that is not beingness on other dynamics; that is being an effect, not a cause.

He says, "Nobody. Well, of course, my grandmother, but ...

There's two ways that this sort of overt act happens to you. One, you're cause and you go along and you're just fine. And you receive a motion of some sort or other, and you've got that back here, and you've never worried about this motion before. But you're being cause. And one day you decide to be cause with violence, so you pick up this motion and you go wham! with it. But just as it's going, you say, "Snnnff!" but it's too late. And you spend the next thirty, fifty or five thousand years trying to pull back this instant of time, which keeps you there on the time track.

You say, "That's fine. All right, let's go on to the next incident." And very often it'll blow just that fast.

Well, therefore, the first entrance into a case with Technique 80 is simply to find out what the fellow is protesting about. And then, of course, "methinks the preclear doth protest too much." And what you get is a justification and you turn that around and find the overt act. Then run the overt act out and you'll find out you don't have to exhaust this thing very much; you just run it just a little bit and it'll unbalance.

This is how you kick things out of restimulation and a technique which kicks them out, not a technique which runs them; it's a different thing, you see? And just by asking the body how it feels, how it feels – "How does it feel about this?"

He'll try to run the earlier one, then try to run the later one and so on; they're all snarled up. You've got a perfect picture of a person trying to run an incident. He's going around and around, first in one, then in the other, first in one, then in the other. They're usually almost to the character of locks. It'll blow; it'll blow.

Now, you want to take the Chart of Attitudes, and you know all those columns on the Chart of Attitudes. Here's "I am" and "I am not." And over here, "be" and here's "be not" (that isn't what it says; it's the same thing). You've got various parts of the body hung up in various places on this Chart of Attitudes. Because this is what you're doing: You're processing by attitudes and you're processing parts of the body by attitudes.

Now, there's another reason why a person will protest: if somebody has tried one way or the other to make him an effect, and this person has worked on him to make him an effect, make him an effect, make him an effect – by being nice to him. And they've practically taken over his whole anatomy just by being nice to him. And eventually he'll get to the point where he'll realize that he no longer owns himself. The ownership of self has moved out from underneath him, and so at this time he says, "I'm just tired of this," so he'll begin to say that this person who is doing nice things for him is doing bad things for him. And there's a big maybe. He's gotten to the point where he realizes that all of these nice things, these nice things, these nice things, for him and his hands and his stomach and his clothes and his time and so on – somebody is being so nice to him. You can't protest against that; I mean, it's just something you can't protest against.

So you say, "All right, let's see ... um ... Are my feet?" Feet sort of say "No." "Well, all right. Let's have this feeling. What's the feeling of 'not being' as far as the feet are concerned?" It's very startling, but very often there'll be some terrific sympathy wave turn up, or the most unlooked for things will suddenly show into view when you start a communication line.

And the guy will finally, if he's ever going to save himself, he suddenly – he suddenly hauls off and says, "Oh, you're hurting me, you're injuring me," and he'll try to do something to the person or do something to himself. And he'll get hung up in that maybe. And that is another kind of a maybe: the protest against nice things.

But what do we know about ARC? In order to get into ARC with an individual, you have to be able to approximate his ARC to some degree, unless you're being cause and just taking him over completely. So this is a method of stringing the line on the existing ARC and then raising it up, because this point of beingness that is you is way up here at the top.

There's the fellow's protest against himself of having slugged, hurt, injured, with thought, emotion or effort – some other being (you know, overt act), which hangs him up in a maybe. But you're only interested in the maybe characteristic of that, you see. He's hung up in a maybe by doing this overt act or his thought of doing it or an emotion that is overt, or a real effort that's overt. He's hung up in that line or he's hung up over here on a dependency line. He's been made very dependent, very dependent.

But unfortunately, it doesn't quite have the horsepower at the beginning to just say – whooo! Well, maybe some of them can just suddenly say, "Wham! Well, I am. That's all. Bang!" And you go off like a rocket from there. Could be, could be. I've never put any postulate in otherwise, even though it isn't true. Anyway...

Continually in this society, you'll find a sixteen, seventeen, eighteen year – old kid is in a high state of revolt. "Papa, Mama – they're no good anymore; they're old-fashioned. They can't understand. They wouldn't be able to understand a woman of the world" (or a man of the world, as the case may be). "They don't have a person's best interests ..."

So, here's your scale of beingness and not-beingness. And you'll find out very often that your preclear is going to be at many parts of that Chart of Attitudes with many parts of himself. Quite interesting.

All they're – all the kid is trying to do there in his teens is simply break this: "You're helping me, you're helping me, you're helping me. I've got to do something about it because I'm getting owned, owned, owned. And I don't own myself anymore. And I'm getting worried about it, so I've got to protest, and I'll find anything to protest against." And the kid, at that stage, will have the doggonedest things wrong with his parents. Oh, he just has terrific numbers of things. The parents have done this and done that, and done this and that to him. And actually, what he can't face is the fact that his mother fed him every day.

When you get the first dynamic processed on this, you'll find out that the body will work for you.

One preclear had a very bad set of teeth, and the bad set of teeth was just in protest of having been fed very well, very long. He knew his mother was tired. His mother would cook special things for him. He'd plead with his mother not to. And his mother would cook special things for him and so forth, and he'd eat them and so forth. And he finally got down to a point where he didn't want to have anything more to do with this, so he got bad teeth. And all of his toothaches went by the boards the second this computation was clipped.

It's a very interesting question on Technique 80, though, to ask the feet "Why won't you work for me? What are you afraid will happen?" You're liable to get the feeling "Work, that's what; that would be bad." Just run that feeling of "not desiring to work" or "tiredness" and so on. So that is your first finish-off on the first dynamic. That is dynamic one – to parts of the body, parts of the body, parts of the body.

Interesting, isn't it?

This isn't the old Effort Processing technique, by the way. Let's not get too confused in them. There we merely felt on "Feel alive in the foot." "How did your left foot feel about it? How did your right foot feel about it? How did your right hand feel about it? How did your left hand feel about it?" and so on. By distracting the person's attention, we got the somatic in on him, and we got the somatic through and we got the somatic run out.

In other words, you can have suffered any quantity of damage. Actually, personally, you can have suffered any quantity of damage without having anything very bad take place – just damage, as far as damage is concerned. The engram that hangs up is the engram you tried to use and couldn't use and restrained yourself from using; you hung yourself up with it – or somebody was too nice to you too long.

This technique does not do that. This technique runs by concepts. And by getting those concepts, when these somatics show up, if the feeling just won't run out – as it usually will – you know, a somatic starts to turn on, he's done an overt act. Now find that overt act and clip it out, and it will usually just come out as a lock. Because if he's holding on to the overt act as an overt act, then there is another overt act that makes him hold on to this one, you see? You just find them and you find the right lock, and all of a sudden the puzzle just falls apart – bang! – and you don't run the incident.

And by the way, if any of you have ever had the experience of trying to help somebody else, you know that it invariably backfires. Sooner or later, sooner or later in trying to help somebody you'll wind up with a backfire.

But you get these most clearly by running these concepts. You can run the whole body up to the top of the tone scale.

Hm?

Then you take the second dynamic. And how do you run a second dynamic? Well, you run it with kids, you run it with future, you run it with any way, shape or form that is pertinent to the second dynamic, that's all.

Female voice: I don't agree with you.

You could consider this, you know, on sort of a basis of going out on a crusade to clear the whole world. You say, "Well, now I'm going to clear me, and now I'm going to clear this one and that one, and so on."

Oh, it'll work out in the long run.

But your first step is like this: You're clearing these various dynamics here – clearing these various dynamics with relationship to you. Now get that as the proviso: You're clearing dynamics one to eight in relationship to you. You clear from two on in relationship to you and your body. That's a difference.

Well, I tell you, whenever you find a preclear whose mom and pop are "no good," suspect then one of two things: They've been very nice to him or he's done an overt act against them. Those are the two things you suspect.

Now, you could consider this: that after you got the first one cleared up, then you were going to go into the second one, then you were going to go into the third one, then you were going to go into the fourth one, and you're going to clear them all up. Well, maybe somebody can do it that way, but right now the easiest way to do it is just to clear you with regard to that.

Now, isn't that strange? Doesn't it sound to you, as I tell you that, irrational? It's perfectly rational, but doesn't it sound to you irrational that a person would get to a point of where he will tell you "My father beat me every day" (his father never laid a hand on him)? "My father beat me every day, and this happened and that happened and other things happened," and so on. Not a word of truth in it. What did happen: his father was too nice to him too long. Because, you see, there's a way of being nice to people which actually is a very insidious way of taking them over. You know, you just interrupt their initiative enough so that they keep getting grooved along your will.

It may surprise you that this business of requiring photons for sight is one of the most interesting of aberrations. You see, you put out a radar sight-wave beam and you see on that beam. And the implant is so strong that when you close your eyes, you say, "Well, that's because the photons aren't coming in and I can't see. Somebody turned the lights off, so I can't see." Nonsense.

It actually is a nice impulse; there isn't anything mean about it really, but it ruins the self-determination of the person to whom it is done. And that is what they're protesting against. They no longer are owned by themselves but owned by somebody else.

Have you ever – any of you, ever been in processing and suddenly found yourself lying there on the couch with your eyes closed looking at the room? If you did, you probably promptly stopped. And you said, "No, no. Got my – have my eyes open. I mean, I'm supposed to do that." The fact is that that's the way you see: You put out a beam and get it back. Bats hear that way, and so on.

In either case, a person will become owned by somebody else – in either case. In other words, if you injure a dynamic badly, you have a definite commitment with yourself to continue the existence of that dynamic. That's the overt act, that's life continuum, of which we already know.

But all of your attention units that have anything to do with seeing, you see, are parked right in back of the optic nerve; they're fixed right there. So, they're supposed to sit there and when something comes over the optic nerve line, they're supposed to see. Oh, it's cute, very cute. I'd like to get my hands on the guy that did this one the first time.

All right, life continuum, the overt act, is simply your moving out of yourself, your disownment of yourself. And you go over and try to be this dynamic and say, "I'm awful sorry, dynamic, I didn't mean to do that. I will be you." "You bum over there," – that's you, see that? You just change it completely. And that's a very bad situation. Or the fellow just works so that people are nice to him and nice to him and nice to him; he'll finally blow up in their faces. And then he says, "I'm awful ashamed for having blown up and I realize I don't have any cause to blow up, and, gee, you've been nice to me all this time so there must be some reason why I'm mad." And what he doesn't realize is that he is being owned, little piece by little piece, first his left finger and his right finger and his left foot and his right ear, until he's all owned over here. And he doesn't like that, and that's what he's blowing up against. His lack of comprehension of it winds up in a computational snarl like that. All right.

Anyway, if you don't believe that, by the way, anybody here want a horrible headache? Well, all you have to do is just run the bunched-up feeling of attention units back of your optic nerve – just run that bunched-up feeling and you're off to the races. But if you do run it, run it out, because very often when people run that, they go blind and things like that.

Now, the reason why it is very, very nice to resolve this very early in the case in Technique 80 is because the case will play all sorts of tricks on you with the additional technique, unless you resolve the overt act and the protest against dependency.

Now, blindness: Blindness is just getting these two groups of attention units off to the side so they can't see through the optic nerve; that's hysterical blindness. Nothing much to it. If you're going to resolve a case of blindness, just get them to run the attention units which should be standing behind the optic nerve, and then find what they did about seeing.

You could say, then, that there's an overt act and a dependency – those two things. If you resolve those (very easy to resolve, they're right there in sight; it doesn't take long), you're then free to get on the road, because for the first time you're processing the preclear's first dynamic. Unless you get these overt acts and these dependencies out of the road, what you're trying to process with Technique 80 will be somebody else.

By the way, blind men usually have burned somebody down with sight, or think they have. Fascinating. And they'll never suspect this one, and you ask them about this, it will show up on the E-Meter and you start to run it, boy, do they protest. But if you run it their sight should turn on.

And that's very disappointing; you've got a preclear there on the couch and you're processing this preclear and you want this preclear to own himself and then finally get out along the line of the rest of the dynamics. And this is all going to be fine, except you worked for fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, a hundred hours and all this time you've been processing Grandma. Well, all you've done is rehabilitate the valence of Grandma's ownership of the preclear. Well, that isn't getting anyplace.

Now, your Technique 80, then, concerns itself with the parts of the body and the dynamics as they influence you all along the line, with attention to the overt act and the dependency situation. And you just run, run, run, and then out in the environment and so forth. And the way you know that a person has come up the line a little bit on Technique 80 is a very, very interesting way. It's when he stops seeing by photons, and realizes that he is feeling by something else besides photons.

So it's up to you to resolve the overt act and the dependency problems on the case. And then, for the first time, you've got him enough inside one so that he can carry on from there. And having gotten him that far inside one, you go on to give him possession of the actual physical facts of his own organism.

Now, some of you, by the way, can do this right now; you just don't realize you can do this. You can look at something and feel it.

The end in view, of course, actually is continually interrupted by new overt acts and new dependencies showing up every time you go out to the new dynamic – the next dynamic, see? So here you are with your preclear and you just get along fine. You get his overt acts and his dependencies very beautifully resolved, and you've got that all nicely resolved, and now we're going into the second dynamic.

You look at this board, and you get the board. I mean, it's just as though you came up in front of this board. You get the board. Well, don't think for a moment that's because photons are bouncing off this and hitting you; that's because you're throwing out a feeling beam that hits the thing and bounces back. You're actually over here at the board, going mm-mm!

Now you'll find out that there's new overt acts and new dependencies on the second dynamic. And now you've got to resolve those again, but they again are very easy to resolve.

One preclear looked at a milk bottle – you know, milk bottles are covered with wax and they're cold and so forth – and he was running on some of this. And he looked at this milk bottle and ... He had inadvertently looked at it hard enough so – to sort of push his face up against it. And it's cold and it's waxy and it's greasy and he didn't like it, not worth a nickel.

Why doesn't he like children? Why is he terribly over-anxiously concerned about children? – whichever way it is. There'll be an overt act or a dependency involving this "maybe" computation. And you find out he doesn't like children. All right, he doesn't like children. (By the way, an E-Meter really speeds this thing up.) You say, "Do you like boys?"

Did you ever look at some very, very rough piece of lumber or something like that and say "Oh, that's bad"? You don't like that rough piece of lumber – splintery. You might say it's "Well, it's because I might get splinters in." No, it's not; it's because it doesn't feel good.

"No."

Now, why is it that a little kid likes his dolls when he's very young and later on doesn't? It's because his beingness is driven out of those dolls. He looks at the doll, actually, and he puts himself in the doll and he feels "doll." And that's what a doll is to him. And so therefore his environment, his doll, the floor, the ceiling, the kitchen table – all these things are live entities. Why are they live entities? He looks at them and he invests them with himself.

"You don't like boys?"

The whole world is a very bright world, he's got it all invested completely, and the days are beautiful and bright and so forth. Why are they? It's because he makes them that way. And after a while he's done something damaging to the day, so he thinks it's damaged after that, so he doesn't invest it anymore. And that's simple, isn't it?

"No, I don't like boys, no. No, particularly little boys. They ... they're bad, they're bad."

Now, all of the dynamics will operate this way. You've got a feelingness out into the environment. There's an actual drawback on these peripheries as a person goes on getting older and older and older, and he draws back, back, back, back, back, back, back, until finally he exists as this little spark. And he's drawn back on dependency and on overt act. He's done overt acts or almost done them, and thought, emotion and effort, overt or dependent, and he's just done these things, done these things, done these things. Finally here he is, sitting way back here, till he doesn't even invest his own body.

"All right, what did you do to one?"

Do you know that many people, you could take their hand, the back of their hand, or something like that, you could actually touch it and it would feel dead to them? It doesn't feel alive at all. That many people have areas of anesthesia on their bodies? A doctor is always fascinated with this. Doctors will find these. They get the patient there in bed, you know, and the doctor gets a nice needle: "Don't feel it, do you?"

"Oh, I didn't do anything to one. Oh no, no, no, no, no. Of course, except that ... Well, I ... I like children."

"No."

And you say, "Come on, what did you do?"

"Oh, good." "Anesthezed area, nurse. Put it down, yeah. Hm-hm." And you turn over, you know, and blood all over the bed, but it's all right!

"Oh, well, it wasn't anything really. It was at this tea party. I mean, this little girl was having this tea party, and – yeah, I was invited over there and it was a hot – well, anyway, I dumped his head in the punch bowl, and he got a bad cut in the head."

Now, there's an anesthesia which is very, very intimate to you. It's on your body, and most people to some degree have anesthesias. And there are very many ways to undo these anesthesias; many of them are much more complex than this Technique 80 method. And Technique 88 does them even more rapidly, but it's dynamite. And Technique 80 is your prelude and lead-up to a use of 88.

All right, run it out. I mean, it's one of these "big, major incidents." And all of a sudden, you'll find out that he – little boys are little boys. And just carry it along like that.

You're doing with 80 an expansion of beingness, an expansion of feelingness, an expansion of livingness into yourself and all the dynamics on out. Technique 80 makes it possible, by these simple mechanisms, to invest, any way you please, any of the dynamics, or invest all of them, and gives you a high level of beingness with you in a body and all right with the world – as far as you're concerned, there in the body.

You'll sometimes find a dependency on a children level. He feels utterly dependent on children. This is a great one, but it's a very simple one. It's usually, a child – as a child, this preclear was taken care of by older children and he's never noted the fact that those children are no longer children now but have grown up. So he's sort of hung there as dependent upon all these kids taking care of him.

Eighty-eight sweeps up and audits with hammer and tongs a method – the various methods which were used in the past to make you have a body; it audits those out and blows you out of the body. But 80 is very good here, and some people are so conservative and so forth that they think they ought to have bodies. Most people have their fingerprints on record that have been in the armed services and so forth, and the FBI and that sort of thing, and they think this sort of should attach them to the society one way or the other. People have a responsibility about having a body. They think they've agreed to have one; that's one of the tricks.

And they tuck him in, you see, and they help him to walk and they show him how to run a tricycle, and they do this and they do that and eventually he says, "I'm not going to be owned like this anymore!" And he flares up and says, "You're hurting me." And you'll sometimes resolve the dependency one by finding that it lead into an overt act.

But Technique 80 should not be put into any wild classification or any wild category at all. Whether or not you believe that you could be able to do without a body with great ease is beside the point as far as Technique 80 is concerned. Technique 80 is an extension of beingness and it works in that direction.

He went in and said to Mama, "She hit me." No, she didn't, but he said so. He'll go in and make up all sorts of stories to protest. So let's get the protest off, then, on the second dynamic.

Now, there's another little subtrick on Technique 80 that I'll tell you about. And that's when the incident shows up, burn it down. It's very interesting. You're the disintegrator ray. And I told you about going over this incident and over it and over it. And why does it erase? Well, you're burning it up. You're not rubbing it out; there's nothing MEST there to rub on. You're just burning it up; you burn it up, burn it up and finally it blows.

Now, we take – of course, women for men and men for women come in on the second dynamic. Well, you get a very special kind of interpersonal relation and a very special kind of overt act – very special, highly specialized – when it comes between a man and a woman who are sexual partners. Procreation in this society is practically an overt act in itself. Boy, that's bad. So you just resolve a few overt acts along that line.

Well, there's no reason why you can't just sort of get mmmmmm-psshew! Now, the fact of the matter is, you take a light lock – take some little light lock that's completely inconsequential and practice on it for a while and say, "How do I burn this thing down?" Get a visio – a visio of something – and just go finally, until you find out how to make the visio go. And oddly enough, if you get the trick rather easily, it will then develop on up the line with magnitude. But, of course, there is an implant on the track that tells you you shouldn't do this, you shouldn't do this. This is bad; bad to burn things up like this, because you've got to have facsimiles!

By the way, you find out that very often they're not very violent, what you're running into, so that you can clear up this dynamic so that you can practice the second part of the technique on that dynamic. Because this is just the half of the technique I'm telling you about here – that's clearing up overt acts and dependencies. You'll find out that they're quite simple to resolve. Something happened to him and he tried to make it happen to somebody else and then he stopped himself from making it happen to somebody else, and he said, "Bang!"

"I tell you, if you didn't have facsimiles, you wouldn't have any experience; if you didn't have any experience, you wouldn't remember how police could get so tough, and you wouldn't remember it enough to do all that labor for us! And so you've got to have facsimiles, and they're very valuable, and therefore let's all study eidetic psychology because a facsimile is the only important thing! Beingness is not important but the facsimile is important, so therefore you got to have pictures of everything you've ever seen, been and felt or heard. Don't go ramming up and down the time track through time, you know, and taking a look in person – not done."

So he's hung up with that, and on the second dynamic those can be very interesting.

Anybody here, by the way, every time he tries to go back down the time track and return to another place, just sort of sits and looks at himself sitting where he was sitting? I mean, he never quite gets out of present time whenever he starts to look at something? Anybody here who does that?

On the third dynamic, of course, we have the same sort of a situation. Very often his first concepts of a group are in childhood. Why Freud had to stress childhood to the degree that he stressed, I do not know, unless he was hung up there on the track. But he did completely overstress it, because when you think of all the childhoods that you can have, all the adulthoods you've had and all the other experiences you've had, this little section – childhood – isn't very bad.

Yeah, he says, "I'm going back to the time when I was sitting in the chair there and scan all that out." And he doesn't seem to go anyplace and he looks at himself sitting in the chair. And he runs it a couple of times and it's gone, but what he's actually doing is he dubs himself in as sitting in the chair and then dubs in the incident that happened to him and then says, "Now, I'll run it out." And so he rubs out what he dubbed in and then he says, "Now I feel better." Well, a facsimile is a little bit different than that. A facsimile is pretty quote unquote "solid."

But you know something about childhood? It's occluded on most people; it disappears from view. And man has an instinctive curiosity, that when something gets buried or hidden from view, he's like a hound dog, he's got to root down there and find it. Whatever it is, he thinks it's there. Well, very often it is there, but quite as often it isn't.

But somebody else would love you to have facsimiles and you don't need any. The less facsimiles you have, the faster you can think. The less facsimiles you have, the better off you are. And yet the second you start to rub out the whole bank – and if you were to suddenly say "I'm going to take all of my memory banks, and I'm going to wipe them all out – psheww!" Oh, you say "O-o-o-oh, no. No, no. No, because that's me. Hm-hm. Yep, yep, all those memories, they're me. You see, I don't exist anywhere, so those memories are me. So if I wiped out any of these memories, of course, I would be gone. Yeah, I need those."

The reason childhood gets barred from view, by the way, is a very simple one: everybody owned you and you didn't own yourself, so therefore you don't own your memories. And these memories just sort of disappear along with the rest of you. And your childhood is full of overt acts and full of dependencies, both ways.

You get people who have this so bad, by the way, that locks won't blow. And that is the principal reason why locks won't blow on some preclears: because they've got to have this memory bank because this memory bank is them. Actually, it is not them at all. They are a vital spark of beingness. And that vital spark of beingness happens to be cause, and it happens to know, and it can know anything it wants to know instantly. And it's a wonderful little gimmick and it's the one that does all of your thinking for you anyhow.

Very often you can spring a whole childhood into view by merely solving a couple of little minor overt acts that happened in childhood.

But an implant can be put on to you to such a degree that you've agreed that this and that is the case, so the best thing for you to do is to go back and look at the facsimile or go back and remember what you were taught in school or go back and do something or other, and then think it all out and then get into present time again and then say "Well, I remember it." Oh!

I remark one of about a five-year-old girl. She kicked her mother in the stomach, gave her mother a bad stomach ache, and there went childhood. Gone, right there. She just – "Poor Mama," and so on, and she just buried all that. Big overt act. Blew this one into view, and so forth, there came childhood. There it was, all lying out perfectly arranged in order.

It's nonsense! There is no knowledge worth knowing that's in your memory bank. All the knowledge that's worth knowing is outside your memory bank – in complete and perfect contact with the beingness that is you. Seems hard to believe, doesn't it?

Gives you just exactly the mechanism of how things get buried from view – just exactly. And that is the mechanism of how they get buried from view, too.

But, actually, you can understand completely how an automobile drives by being the automobile. You can slide in behind the wheel.

All right. You go out to the third dynamic, you'll find out that in a gang of kids, in a classroom, something or other, this preclear of yours has done a betrayal – an outright betrayal – one way or the other, of a group, or has hurt the group or has been very villainous on the subject one way or the other, or later on has become so entirely dependent upon the group that he hates the group.

Maybe sometime when you were a little kid you could do this before some grownup grabbed ahold of you and said "Ooh, oooh – no, no! No, we have to teach you. And we're going to teach you now. Now, let's start in at the beginning and let's not try to run before we learn how to walk. Now, now if you learn this thoroughly, we can get you feeling mighty stupid, and then, then we can get a lot of work out of you when you grow up."

And you realize with that, that we've moved right straight into the modern economic system?

But there have been times in your life when you suddenly looked at something and you knew it. And then maybe a question came into your mind; "Well, how could I possibly have known it, because I didn't have access to it?" Well, you were it for a moment, so of course you knew it. And the whole business of knowingness is beingness. If you can be something you can certainly know it; if you know something you can certainly be it. There's no trouble with that, but it doesn't have anything to do with time – nothing to do with time.

Why do people hate people? As far as the third dynamic is concerned it seems inevitable that they would, because the dependency of each on the group has been magnified to be so great. Oh, everybody teaches the kids this, they teach you this, they tell you this all the time: "You're dependent on the group, you're dependent on this social culture, you're dependent on this economic system, you're dependent on it." And then they never bother to tell you that this economic system, without you as individuals, wouldn't mote... – it just wouldn't function.

Now, after you have learned to be along all the dynamics, expansively all the way out, in relationship to you as a body, then you can start very adequately to be all the dynamics, so that all the dynamics can clear up, so that all the dynamics can come up tone scale. And of course, when you finish that project utterly, there will be no universe left. But that's all right; that's all right. Somebody by that time will have gotten into such shape, I'm sure, that he can think a couple of thoughts and there will be one again.

At this tone level of the society, they have a little sign they like to hang up in stores: "If you think you're so necessary to existence, go on down to the cemetery and take a look; they thought they were too." You know, cute. In other words, they say, "Here's this group, this mighty group here; it's all – important and you're not important in it."

All this universe is, is a thought.

If you don't believe this is what happens, look at the number of votes that get turned in, in a presidential election. Probably very few people here tonight believe that their vote is very important in a presidential election. You say, "Well, that's just one little vote, and it doesn't amount to anything." Oh yes, it does.

That's why some people get so very careful about unthinking things. They say, "I mustn't unthink this, because something is liable to disappear around here." They have that definite feeling, "I mustn't unthink." You'll run into that.

Far as the fourth dynamic is concerned, you get some very, very interesting overt acts and some very, very interesting dependencies.

But as you go out along the line with Technique 80, don't be afraid of skipping – don't be afraid of skipping around if your preclear just suddenly starts to head out over something or other, and you know he's not quite ready to soar yet. Don't worry – he'll fall on his face; he'll come back to where you think he should be. So let him go.

A man fares better because he's a man, because the rest of man helps him. But every degradation of man, as a form, actually lies on the fourth dynamic.

But let's not have any of this, with this technique, of the guy suddenly saying "Oh, beingness: to be, to be, to be, to be, to be. Yeah. Now I got the postulate. There I am. Now the whole world is it, now that's – that's that; I'm Clear." Because if it could happen that fast, there would be lots of guys I know who wouldn't be here tonight. It just doesn't happen that fast.

Every time a person himself acts badly, unethically, degrading himself in some fashion, or is degraded, he has immediately the sensation that he is degrading the whole race.

And let's not have this sort of thing: The fellow is sitting down, and you say, "What are you doing?"

Think of what war does, by the way, on that. Here are the bodies – because the fourth dynamic, as far as we're concerned as we go up these dynamics (we're on Technique 80, which has to do with bodies) – and on the fourth dynamic, out on the battlefield, they throw the corpses around with a wild abandon. Anybody who has been through a war comes out the other end feeling a little bit degraded.

"I'm being."

Natural. In the first place, he's lived like a dog; in the second place, he's committed overt acts against other groups, which are antipathetic to the fourth; but most important of all this, he has acted, himself, disgracefully so as to degrade the form and the physical being of man. And that, all by itself, is probably your strongest level. You would say automatically that, well, you don't think very many people would have offenses against the fourth dynamic. Oh yes, every single time you've not acted with a high level of ethic and pride of race and have yourself deteriorated in any degree or become less, you recognize that you were offending on the fourth dynamic. Because you have a certain face to keep as far as the fourth dynamic is concerned, and you consider it a very sacred trust. So look for those degradation points. They are what are important on the fourth dynamic.

You say, "Brother, you went too far! Come here, come here. This is where you ought to be, right here."

Far as the fifth dynamic is concerned, that's very easy. Again you get the overt act and the dependency. There's a lot of dependency on animals but we don't seem to mind it. We don't seem to mind it too much. Where we get it is the overt act.

If you find people being very careful about being, too, that's very interesting. But just for your own edification and just to illustrate for yourselves some understanding, you should make this little experiment tonight, tomorrow, of looking at a rough object and being the surface of the object. And look at a smooth object and be the surface of that object. Just try it a few times on a few objects and a few things, and you will all of a sudden sense that there's more there than you knew what of. And that will give you just a little touch of reality.

Now, a person can get so bad – a person can get so bad, so wicked, so... so ... just mean – that they eventually come to a point where they are utterly, mawkishly, stupidly saccharine about animals. But that's the cycle.

Of course, that will come in automatically as you clear along these dynamics; it will come in automatically the second that you get the first dynamic cleared up, or halfway clear, but you should try it out because it's quite an experience. You see, you don't need to be the effect of sound, sight and so forth to be, because you can be the sound, be the sight; you can be the source of the sound and the sight, you see?

You see somebody who is super saccharine on the subject of animals or a type of animal and so on: "What did you do, fellow? What did you do?" Because his sympathy for all those animals, and this and that and so forth, is his protest that he hasn't done anything to them. "Here's this nice kitty. I haven't done anything to cats; look how nice I treat this cat here. I haven't done anything to cats. You see, the cat likes me. Well, I haven't done anything to cats. You know, men are no good, but cats are all right."

This unnecessarily complicated world into which you are born this generation has indulged in a little too much search for randomity. Too many people have selected too many people out for too many kinds of randomity. That is to say, we've gotten too high a level of individuation.

Well, the truth of the matter is, every time you get this pushed way over – the sympathy on the line – find out what he did to a cat.

Engrams create individuation. Dickens' characters are very great individuals; they are walking engrams. All you have to do to take an individual of this characteristic and spin him round and round and round is just key him in a little bit stronger, because if he's that (quote) "individual" (unquote) he's on the thin edge.

And it's a little act, it won't amount to much, it'll blow rather rapidly. But, boy, will you have trouble getting him to run it.

Actually, your sense of individuality is much, much higher than that as you go up the tone scale. You become more and more sensible that you are you, even though you can be elsewise. Something you should realize.

Now, the thing he did to the cat unfortunately has to be preceded by something a cat did to him to really be a bad louse-up. But usually what the cat did to him was somewhat accidental – didn't amount to much – and he took it out on a cat but that was wrong to take it out on the cat, so he hangs up in a big maybe.

Another thing here that I should remark on is the fact that all this is perfectly safe to enter upon, particularly since the ethic value of the individual increases as he goes up the tone scale. He cannot indulge in this technique without going up the tone scale. And as soon as he begins to, his ethic level rises. His ability to be cause, then, is very stable and it becomes good cause. Good cause.

As far as the sixth dynamic is concerned, our concepts of MEST (matter, energy, space and time) do not allow us to recognize what a good, solid overt act against MEST can be.

The other thing I should remark on here is that you are going to hit apathy on the line as you run this technique. And if you hit something on the line that makes you think you have been put in a printing press and binding press and so on, very solid, if you hit a somatic that is just – all of a sudden an incident that's just thaaah, you just can't move it or anything, don't think that it is some present-time activation or something of the sort, or you've suddenly been sailed in on by an entity or something: It's an apathy incident.

We build cars that are guaranteed to last upwards to two years. We build houses – well, they'll be all right in fifteen. Oddly enough, we build skyscrapers – fine, proud, sweeping skyscrapers – and they're designed on the engineering blueprints to last twenty-five years.

Apathy is almost solid matter, and apathy has a timelessness about it. Apathy is very hard for some auditors to run because they won't recognize it for what it is; it's almost matter. Well, you just plow on through the thing, you plow on through it, and you plow on through it. You don't have to run it so much with the emotion as you have to run it with a disintegrator pistol – prrr! And the next thing you know, why, you've burned up the apathy.

We're really temporary. Maybe you didn't know that.

But, also, don't be too disappointed if you run an apathy incident for three weeks, because an apathy incident is so timeless that it takes quite a while to run them sometimes.

What fools them is the Flatiron Building is still there and so is the Woolworth Building. They were built to last a little bit longer. But the Chrysler Building – in another fifteen years, watch out. Somebody will have to go in there with skyhooks and pick that thing up, because it's not – you know, the marble facing on it is about that thick. They got a real thin saw and made real thin slabs, and they glued them on it. Great stuff.

Many of the somatics that go around and pass for 1.5 somatics on the tone scale are actually apathy somatics. And you get the distinguishment between the two and they'll resolve, but if you kept trying to run them as complete wholes they won't resolve. All it is is a complete not-beingness with a confusion. And if you get a complete not-beingness with a confusion even about that, the fellow just – thaah. And he'll get some nasty somatics. And because they don't run out right quick, he thinks he's stuck in a chronic somatic.

Well, this temporariness permits a deterioration of MEST. Actually, have you ever noticed how a Negro, in particular, down south, where they're pretty close to the soil, personifies MEST? The gatepost and the wagon and the whip and anything around there-a hat. They talk to them, you know? "What'sa mattuh wi' you, hat?" They imbue them with personality. Well, you don't do that very much anymore, because as you go down tone scale you don't do this. Because, actually, all that MEST is, really-you might consider it in the same range and the same band as solid thought. But it's, by aesthetics and other things, molded up by man into being what it is.

Well, the thing might be running out; he might have been running it out for the last year or so, but you can speed it up a little bit as an auditor and he'll go through the thing fairly rapidly. But you're going to run into a feeling of apathy here and there. And all it is that creates apathy is unresolved problems, so you can get an apathy up without running it.

And an overt act against MEST: you're going to find that people will treat their MEST very, very badly – very often treat their MEST very, very badly. Car: Well, they go on driving it and driving it and driving it. It knocks and it spits and it snarls and sniffs and jumps, and they just go on driving it, although they really know that if they don't get a little thing fixed on that car that the next thing you know the car is going to start getting a pyramid of things happening to it.

And if you find somebody sticking too long in an apathy incident, get him without running it.

Well, this again will give you an oddity; they have a dependency incident or an overt-act incident – one, two, three, four, five incidents – on the subject of MEST when they do that. And they've got this one on the sixth dynamic.

There is an apathy about knowingness. There is a plant on the track which, every time a person tries to know, he goes into apathy. You know how to resolve that; it's very simple. It's just all the times your preclear tried to keep somebody from knowing. Very simple. Don't bother to run the apathy. Then all of a sudden this shows up and "I'm not to know," it says, and the guy is just stuck right there.

Now, you say, how would you possibly make an overt act against MEST?

Don't bother to run it as a feeling or a concept so much, because it's clear down here on the tone scale and you'll be three or four weeks running it. Just skip it and say, "Well, let's get all the times when you kept somebody from knowing," or so on, because it's an overt act, you see? And the guy has had a maybe on it, and he knew it wasn't right to keep people from knowing but he did anyhow, and that wasn't right. And after all, he was dependent on knowing, himself, but he didn't let the other fellow know and so therefore – so on. And you start running off, you'll find a chain of locks will spring off, on this. Second they spring off your apathy incident should blow.

Nothing easier. You could have them way back or just recent and so forth. You know that wrecking a car is a heck of an overt act against a car.

Because apathy is at once the whole bottom of the Chart of Attitudes. And any time you get one of these concepts that shows up at the bottom of the Chart of Attitudes, you can either run it as a concept clear on up the line or you can find the time that the individual on that dynamic enforced it. You see, "I am not." You get "I am not" and the fellow starts running – oh, he runs this terrific apathy. Ohhh, his chest feels solid and so on; he says, "Oh, why did I ever start into this Technique 80? I'm practically dead."

And you say, "Well, I shouldn't have done that," and so forth. But you say very often, "Well, it wasn't a very good car anyway and the insurance will pay for it. I don't want to look at this car. Yeah, well, it's just a car. Doesn't matter." Well, a boy has to get pretty bad off if he gets to a point where he says "Well, this car ..." Little while before that, he liked it. But now he's got to demonstrate that, well, it didn't amount to much, so the overt act can't be very much.

Your auditor, if he's very sadistic, says, "Well, let's start in at the beginning of it and run it." The guy will probably only run it for three or four years; that is, if he lives that long!

Compare that with your feeling of possessions when you were maybe three, four or five years of age.

What you want to do, you see, is to spring the overt acts on "I am not." How many people has he tried to convince that they were not? Or how many children did he try to convince they were not? Or how many pets? Or how many times did he try to convince MEST that it was not? You know? Beat it down, beat it down, beat it down. Because you'll find then that the other incident will spring, spring with ease.

What we should have used childhood for, in researching in the field of psychotherapy, was to find out how good things could be, not how bad they can be. And if you find a child: a possession, an object, a piece of MEST – they personify it, they take care of it. Of course, they are very forgetful; they leave the doll out in the rain and so forth once in a while, but actually they don't do it on purpose until they're taught to – until somebody takes their MEST away from them.

And if you're an agile auditor, if you understand this technique, if you run it on the basis of running the feeling long enough to get the overt or the dependency, you got a very rapid technique here. If you're running it with an E-Meter, particularly, it becomes a rapid technique, because then you're spotting. Nobody can lie to you, and they'll lie, lie, lie, when it comes to telling you about what they are justifying.

The little kid, at first, he doesn't pay too much attention to MEST, he's not very careful about it, but when he has it he likes it. Well, you're not supposed to be too careful about it, but when you have it you like it. And if you like it a lot, well, you kind of take care of it and you keep taking the rag doll to bed, and you take this and that and so on.

They won't tell you about the time they took little Agnes down and held her in the mud puddle for minutes and plastered her face around and broke her left leg. No sir.

Then all of a sudden somebody comes along and says, "Dear, put your doll away."

So here we go on a speed-run up to the top: Get to the overt and the dependency acts, and run it right up the top with overt and dependency acts – spotting them, spotting them, spotting them with an E-Meter. Getting them into sight, getting them into sight, running them – dynamic, dynamic, dynamic, one after the other.

"Don't wanna."

All right, that's fast; but it's as fast as the auditor is agile. Any auditor will get there someday; any auditor will get there someday, so that I can't tell you this is a fast technique really or a slow technique until I see in whose hands and with what equipment.

"Go on, put your doll away."

Now, if he's running without equipment, it's going to make it longer; it will make it considerably longer. And if he's just going to run the feelings all by themselves, it's going to make it a lot longer, but he might even have a better job in the end if he ran it with all the feelings. You don't know.

"Why?"

But if you're going to run it just long enough to find out what it is or run it up the tone scale a little bit – preclear gets the feel of it, you've spotted it on the meter, you knock out the incident, you go on to the next part of the body – it could be a very rapid technique. So I would say at a conservative estimate, it takes anywheres between twenty and five hundred hours. And I want to make that precise estimate for you, so that you will know exactly how long it will take you to go through Technique 80!

"Well, if you don't, I'll beat the hell out of you!" (They don't say that.) Well, after that has happened a few times, you see, the child has the idea that it no longer owns this doll, and has moved away from beingness as a doll. So it won't take care of the doll.

I hope you've at least been restimulated somewhat by these talks these last three nights! I wrote down some very nonsensical lines there and put them on a piece of paper. That's really just horseplay, but I thought some of you might find it amusing. There's also some clues to 88 in there. [See the "Dianetics Jingles" in the Appendix.] But I thought you might find it amusing on that handout tonight. And please don't frame it or anything. And don't tell anybody who wrote it!

And at first, a little kid is delighted with clothes. "Oh gee, clothes." Gets them dirty, not too careful of them, but clothes, gee. Nice frills, ribbons – little girl, you know? Little boy, you give him a Confederate hat, put it on his head, something like that – boy, that's really something. He really likes that.

I want to thank all of you for being here. And I hope that the organization here can be of service to you, and I hope that we've at last, at least come into the lower points of our objective, and that Dianetics can sail on from here with a little less upset than it's had in the past.

All right, what happens to him later on? Why does he sort of get a strange idea about hats and frills?

Certainly we have the muzzle loaded, double-charged weapon now of techniques which work. We've got handbooks that work better and do more for people than auditing did two years ago.

"Dear, why don't you brush your shoes? Take care of your shoes." "Don't walk through the mud puddle." "Don't get anything on your pants." "When you're eating at the table, don't spill things upon your shirt. Mother has to work and slave and wash and wash and work her fingers to the bone so that you can stay clean."

And we've got a lot of technology, a lot of technology. We got a lot of validation. It's the kind of validation you don't even have to write down. People around the country now know Dianetics works. The old surge of invalidate, invalidate is sort of passing by the boards. The only reason they invalidate now is they're kind of scared. Well, I don't blame them. Here I am telling you about Technique 80. On June the 15th, I'm going to start in teaching a professional class here. And there's going to be a summer session I think on the 23rd, and the week of the 23rd I'm going to talk about Technique 88.

And after a while – and after a while the kid's convinced that he doesn't own any of these clothes. They're not his, so he moves out of the beingness of clothes.

Here we are talking about a technique which does the most dangerous, horrible thing that could happen: It deprives people of bodies to put to work and it lessens police power. And that's pretty bad. So don't tell anybody about this. In the first place they probably wouldn't believe you – unless they stopped and thought for a moment and thought how many times they stepped in and out of their body every day anyhow.

Of course, before he's very old in this aberrated society, he will have moved out of the beingness all the way down the dynamics including his clothes and his own skin. Now, you see, there's the reverse process. Now we're trying to take him and put him back in his own skin and then give him back these things. Well, you go on up the line.

You know, if you want to know whether or not you can get in and out of your body, have you ever been out of valence? Have you ever, by the way, been so thoroughly out of valence in present time that you were sitting looking at yourself all of a sudden? It can happen; it can happen. Well, don't think that there is any difficulty in getting out of your body at a low level on the tone scale; the real difficulty is staying in, and that's why you're worried about it. You're on a complete nervous anxiety and almost worn to pieces with trying to stay in this piece of MEST. And we can either resolve that anxiety with Technique 80, or we can just let you abandon the whole thing with 88.

Overt acts against the seventh dynamic are much easier than you suppose – much easier than you suppose. Because, actually, it's an overt act against aesthetics, which is the key on the seventh dynamic. There's where it shows up mainly, because aesthetics are mainly manifested on the seventh dynamic. And so you get this way up the line there, aesthetics.

And by the way, people who do run 88 have to furnish their own coffins! We won't furnish those here. You also have to leave a suicide note for the police. And you also have to promise me to do me one favor.

You've all had your aesthetic values and interests and so on pushed around pretty badly. But there's a dependency and there's an overt act on the seventh dynamic – aesthetics – that you should hit. There's nearly always one there. If the beauty of the world has disappeared for somebody, and he keeps saying so and he keeps saying so, find out where he killed it for somebody else.

Well, I want to thank you very much for coming down here to the groves, and I do hope to see you again in later series of lectures.

And you find that lock and his beauty will turn on again. And I don't know anything else that will turn it on. In other words, if the world is not beautiful to him anymore, find out where he killed it for somebody else.

Goodnight.

That is a very, very nice way to get into the seventh dynamic. There are other things on the seventh dynamic if you've been fooling around with mysticism.

And then we get to God. Well, now, I haven't had any conversations lately in that department. I always more or less ran on the theory that you couldn't do much injury to something that was that big and that vast, but you sure can injure yourself in doing something to it. And here again we have the two facets: overt act and dependency. That person who has gone on being dependent on the subject of the eighth dynamic, of course, he gets to a point where he finally says, "There is none! I'm not going to have anything more to do with it. No. No, no. Anything that would own me that thoroughly must be bad; therefore, I'm not going to have anything to do with it, and I'm going to throw it overboard, nearest possible line." And he becomes a professional atheist or any number of things. And oh, he goes through a lot of mad gyrations. But, you see, there's actual overt acts against that dynamic.

Processing an entity one day that had come from the deep, dark vastnesses of Siberia, and had been a perfectly valid being up to the moment when this entity had foolishly robbed a church.

That was an overt act many centuries ago of such great magnitude that it had taken this thing down from any status at all to just zero – sheww! Hit that one – bang! Came right back up again. This, by the way, is in Entity Processing.

Now, there's an overt act of a highly specialized kind, but you start asking the preclear and you'll find out that there are many overt acts against the eighth dynamic- many of them, many of them, many of them.

It depends on what the individual believes the eighth dynamic is. He's told what the eighth dynamic is: "God is everywhere, God is everything, God is in everything, God is outside of everything, and it's in everything, and it watches you, and the watchbirds are watching you, and God is watching you and everybody's keeping his finger on you ...." And the first thing you know, the fellow is going to say to himself, "Hm-mm, there's something wrong with this. I wish I had a little privacy." And this is hard on him.

So if he's accepted this – this concept or this description – which is perfectly true; I mean, God is everywhere; he isn't watching you, you are it. Anyhow, perfectly true, maybe, to him, that God is everywhere and he'll do something which he knows would be very offensive to what his concept of God is. And he knew that God was watching him, so therefore this is an overt act against God.

And do you know you can pick that up out of almost anybody that has ever been infected – I mean, ever studied Christianity.

Now, that is so deeply buried, by the way, that it takes considerable digging sometimes to make your preclear find this one.

The dependency one is easy; everybody knows you depend, depend, depend, depend. But on the other side, that is not as easy to find. When did he do something that was an overt act to God? But it's one that you have to solve on the case or you'll never get him up here where he'll play God. And by the way, that's a terribly hard thing to do – terribly hard thing to do – unless you happen to be completely, ravingly insane and merely are playing God and nothing else, which doesn't count.

Well, as I've shown you this, you go on up the dynamics one right after the other until you have found your overt act and dependencies in the preclear on each one of these dynamics, all up the line. And you don't find very many of them on each dynamic – one, two, three, something like that. You don't have to run them very much, just sweep them a few times, take the charge off of them. All of a sudden he'll recognize them and suddenly begin to compute on the subject.

And there, every time you start this process of 80, your first step is to clear up the dependency and the overt act on the dynamic you're working on. And then you use the second part of the technique.