All right, let us continue on this second night here of lectures, this night class, with the Axioms. I call the Axioms just generally the Qs, the Logics and the Axioms.

Now, you will have mimeographed material which will give you much of this, and you will have copies of Advanced Procedure and Axioms before too much more time goes by.

This is the second afternoon talk on the Professional Course. We're continuing a description here of Scientology 8-8008 and the essential elements of this technique.

Now, we have a corollary of the last one I took up, which was gradient scales. Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluations of problems and their data. Gradient scales are more than necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data: Gradient scales are necessary to do anything. Right now gradient scales are the basic soul of processing itself.

We have an overall technique here which is quite embracive. If you think this technique is insufficiently complicated, I'm very sorry. If you think it's too simple, that's probably what's wrong with it — because its elements are very, very simple.

And right with that we have "Any datum has only relative truth."

You take a gradient scale — a gradient scale on creation and destruction of all dynamics, all personalities, all beingnesses with which the person is surrounded, and get this one: all facsimiles which he is bothered with — and you create and destroy those objects in a totally creative manner in his own space and time reference.

Absolutes are unobtainable. Any datum has only relative truth.

Now, this technique does not — repeat, does not — include Straightwire as we know it, the running of locks, the running of secondaries, the running of engrams. It does not handle them on the reduction basis of Dianetics. It is not even vaguely interested in erasing anything by repetition, so on. These are no object.

The truth is relative. We had much material here about Aristotelian logic, about... oh, lots of things. But you know, there's three-valued logic – yes, no, maybe – of the engineer. Those yeses are only relative yeses, those noes are only relative noes.

Now, you should know that an engram can be contacted by an auditor in the preclear and it can be run through several times and, if it is early enough on its own chain, that it will desensitize. In other words, the energy in it will wear out enough so that the engram is no longer effective. This is true also of a secondary. Now, you do that by contacting the exact perceptics in the engram.

Now, you can ask – very well ask – what are they relative to? I can give you this best as an example of the young navigator. You're, after all, trying to find your way through a body of knowledge and it's not unlike navigation. What is the relative truth of the position of a ship?

Now, that is a process. That is a process which got us there. It works, that process — it does. We graduated from this into handling actual facsimiles simply as energy, because we found that the facsimile was on a ridge. All these ridges, they were electronic barriers, you might say, which surrounded an individual or were glued to his personality. You might say they were actual electronic entities — and they were entities too, by the way. The entities you hear about are just these ridges.

Now, here is a ship. And your young assistant-to-the-assistant navigator goes out and he takes this sextant and he doesn't look it over very carefully, but he puts it up to his eye and he measures the altitude of the Sun, and he gets maybe the altitude of the Moon and Venus. And he comes in and he writes all these down and the time all down. And now having written them down, he starts to figure out the position of the ship.

A ridge is a more or less chaotic but solid mass of energy which through its solidness has become timeless.

And he uses the most precise tables. He reduces everything down to the tenth decimal place. He's terribly careful in carrying such numbers as .25314 – well, he's very careful about that four. He never makes it a three and he never makes it a five. That many decimal places out, he's very careful of this number. And he's very careful of his lead pencil, to make sure that it's awfully sharp as he measures out the position of the ship. And he has this tiny point. And boy, he's right there!

The material universe is here and is this solid — because it is so solid, it is so far below apathy that it is timeless. You understand how that could be?

Well, that's not true; he's not right there. There were several reasons why he wasn't there. His observation was liable to far more error than he has given the position credit for. The sextant and his ability to use it made him liable immediately for about a mile error. Then the error in the chronometer, the error in reading and other errors of a practical nature brought him down to a point where he would only have been justified in drawing a pretty liberal circle. And he never would have been justified in figuring everything out as closely arithmetically, everything out to this fine, tiny little decimal place – because the observation doesn't justify it. There is no reason for such accuracy, because that accuracy is being based upon an inaccuracy.

If you'll notice that a preclear who is in apathy has a very sticky bank — very sticky. Well, if it got just a bit stickier it'd be actual matter. Well, this stickiness is made up of ridges, and these ridges can become more and more solid, and more and more solid. Now the more solid and the less free energy is, the less time and space there is in it, so it becomes timeless.

Now, all this amounts to in the world of thinking is just this: You want to tell somebody that you gave Johnny a red bicycle. And they say, "How red?"

A preclear has an incident, one part of which is apathy. You find this incident in restimulation — that is to say, you find it riding in present time with him and having a command value over him. And what is the other characteristic you find out about? You find out that the thing is practically solid. The point where he's stuck in it is practically solid. Well, that point is timeless. It is so solid that it is actually — acts like a sheet of cellophane or a — that would be the best comparison; it just doesn't destroy.

"Oh," you say, "a blazing red." They're very satisfied. That's fine. Now, if you wanted to be (quote) "truthful" about this and exact about this... As exact, for instance, as they would like you to be in the English language. Wonderful what they want you to do. They say there is such a word as accurate. A thing is never more accurate nor less accurate, it is just accurate.

The least destructible material is MEST. It's the least destructible material that we know about and it enforces itself on the preclear because it can't be destroyed. If it exists, it exists, and he can't do very much about it.

Oh, there just is no such precision in the material universe; there just isn't that much precision! A marksman who gets back and shoots a target and plants his bullet in the bull's-eye – the bullet is one quarter of an inch in diameter and the bull's-eye is three-eighths of an inch in diameter, and any time he gets all of that bullet into that bull's-eye he's accurate. But another fellow comes up and every time he fires into that bull's-eye, he just keeps laying them into the same hole, right in the middle of the black of that bull's-eye. Boy, he's more accurate!

For instance, you would be appalled if I suddenly said, "All right, now this is a student exercise for today. You there, I want you to take that chair and I want you to reduce it."

And yet, the person who taught you English said there was no such thing. You see, they have the abstract definition and then try to fit it to the realities of the problem. And you cannot fit an abstract to a gross reality without having a relative error. There must be some error.

The fellow would say, "Well, you can't do that."

You can take a theoretical identification of one piece of string and another, but you have to take it out to a terrific theoretical point, and then you will be unable to find that theoretical point in the real universe. And so it's not a practical truth.

Oh yes, you can. If he was in good enough shape he could take that chair, molecule by molecule by molecule by cubic millimeter by cubic millimeter by cubic centimeter and we wouldn't have a chair.

You want a practical truth, one that you can work with and that will serve within the limits of your problem. And that's when it says all truth is relative. It said you could have a theoretical truth which was exact – theoretical – and you could simply do that this way: "I have a truth here that is exact. It is completely exact. It is exact to an error less than one over infinity. It is exactly exact and that is how exact it is," and nobody would be able to challenge you.

The actual fact of the matter is that energy can form into a solid mass. It can form into a solid mass and, having formed into this solid mass, can then be unformed.

You'd say, "All right. So you've got a truth there that's that exact. That's fine. That's fine. Now apply it."

Now, the material universe has this conservation of energy. I think that's just one of the rules of the game. You're not supposed to destroy something in the material universe.

"Oh, we're not talking about application. I just happen to have an exact truth, that's all." There's no argument with that, because he's talking in an abstract or a theoretical.

And you'll notice nearly every preclear has an awful time trying to destroy things. He usually has an awful time. You say, "Destroy this, destroy that." "Oh, no."

Now we look at the real universe. We look at the real universe of the preclear. We look at the no-less-real (often) universe of delusion. We look at these real universes and we want to know how accurate a truth must be. And it must be as accurate as the problem to which it's addressed.

Now, he's all right. You get him up to a point, yeah, he can destroy his own illusions or his own visions of things. Now, if you were to turn around to him and say, "Here's a breadcrumb, reduce it." Well, he's perfectly willing to take out a match and burn it or go by the rules of the game.

If you're going to run a track for a wheelbarrow from your back door down to your garage, it only has to be accurate within an inch or so, so that you can keep the wheelbarrow on the track. Say your boards are five inches wide. Well, it's all right to lay them down there a little inch this way and an inch that way. You'll still get that wheelbarrow through.

And you say, "We're going to destroy this by a different set of rules and that set of rules is just expand and contract that piece of matter until it turns into free-flowing energy and flows away and disappears."

It'd be silly, but there are many people who would get out there and they would get a transit, they might even get a theodolite, and they would measure with great care, and they would bevel these edges and they would get these edges in perfect condition and perfect alignment and find the exact distance along one edge of those boards to the garage. And they'd spend five days doing this so they could run five minutes' worth of wheelbarrow. And of course, the first time the wheelbarrow goes over all this he knocks it all out to a one-inch error anyhow.

And he'd say, "Oh no, oh no, that's — that's beyond my capabilities." Oh no, it's not.

When we talk about truth, then, we are talking about something which is just relative to a problem or relative to another truth or relative to another fact within the limits of workability. How workable is it? Well, it has to be as true as it's workable.

You're asking him to do exactly the same thing when you ask him to "Pick up a ridge. Now expand and contract it until it's gone." You're asking him to do the same thing on a lesser magnitude when you say, "Pick up this heavy engram, heavy effort engram. Now work it one way or the other, perceptic by perceptic, until it's gone." You're asking him to do the same thing.

And that works the other way around. You say, "How true do you want a datum?" You want it true enough to be workable. Now, you can say, "I want this real true, good and true, very true..."

You're asking him to do the same thing if you say, "All right. There's a secondary, there's a lot of grief or fear in it. Now you just run that through and you run that through . . ." You're sort of rubbing it out, like using the preclear for an eraser. And you're just taking this energy and you're just scrubbing it out. And it's the same way with a chain of locks. There's no difference in _these processes.

You see, "true" is exact; you're not supposed to be able to do that in the English language. When you say "true," you mean an absolute. Absolutes are unobtainable.

The reason why the crumb of bread is fairly timeless is because it's part of the material universe.

All right, we'll say a real truth. Well, that would be a truth which would fit into the reference of your problem, somewhat on the order of "This truth is workable to the degree that every time I work it, it works the same way. I use this truth to solve this problem, and every time I use this truth it works the same way. The result is within the reasonable limit of its application to this problem." In this way you don't go going adrift and astray and expecting everything to turn up in terms of blacks and whites and highs and "How high is high?" Well, it's perfectly true when I tell you the clouds up there are high today.

The reason why a piece of granite lasts longer than a piece of sandstone is merely that the piece of granite has more mass and less time in it. So it lasts forever.

You say, "How high?"

At the top end of the scale we have theta imposing time, space and energy — but time and space. So the theoretical top, top, top of the scale with which we're working at this moment is imposition of time and space and the bottom is imposition of energy.

"Oh, very high." Satisfied. I must be talking about high cirrus or something like that; they're high clouds. Or I say the clouds are low today. That's true, the clouds are low today. Well, how low is low? How long is a piece of string? Well, it's long enough. A piece of string is long enough or not long enough. And that's a relative truth.

Now, we've got: Theta imposes time and space. And what does matter do?

Now, I'm going to draw you, just out of pure cussedness, the basic graph on which this is built. And that basic graph is the gradient scale of rightness and wrongness.

Matter does not impose time and space. It simply goes crunch. It cannot locate itself; it is in chaos; it is without direction. It just wanders and stumbles and fumbles and bumbles around, just wonderfully. And unless theta comes along, directly applies itself to that piece of matter, it goes by these chaotic mischances and averages and so forth which are called the science of physics.

And it looks like this. [See the Gradient Scale of the Relative Value of Logic in the Appendix of this volume.] Here's the center of the graph and here are degrees of wrongness. So we have "wrong" over here.

'We have brimstone and it will combine with sulfur." Now that's chemistry, but those are actually — are just little discoveries there. They find out that pieces of MEST act differently when combined with other pieces of MEST. And this is a wonderful study, don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with that study. I recommend it by all means, that it should be studied sometime when you don't have anything to do. If you get so bored, that you just — go and study these combinations, because the second you start studying them you start validating this mischance, this adventure, this completely chaotic, bumbling, unthinking, undetermined, roll around and fall this way and fall that way.

Now, that theoretically goes out this-a-way to infinity; that comes out here to infinity. That's an infinity of wrongness. But know that this would always apply to and influence all dynamics, wouldn't it? If anything is wrong on one dynamic, it's got an influence on other dynamics. So we're going to come way out here to wrongness. And how far could we get? If we got to an infinity of wrongness or an absolute of wrongness, the whole something-or- other is going to be gone. The real universe would be gone, certainly, because you've reduced something to... You've said, "It is so wrong that nothing to which it is related can possibly be right." Well, that's impossible.

Don't start looking at the planets and the suns as you have in the past and say, "Isn't that wonderful?"

If all of the streetcar conductors of Manchester were crooked, you could just make a statement. You could say the streetcar conductors of Manchester are crooked. And somebody could say, within reason, "Well, there are probably two or three of them that aren't."

I'm asking you to change your plane of reference. "Isn't it wonderful how those suns stay there and keep shedding that brilliance, and how those planets go round in that exact order, and it's just wonderful how all of this takes place, and how flowers grow. And oh, this is so mysterious and this is so wonderful and, boy, am I an atom compared to that elephant." Because you can do the same thing on a different set of laws.

You say, "Well, that's all right." You accept that. You don't even expect anybody to make such a remark, because you know what you mean and they know what you mean.

It isn't wonderful, really. It's remarkable, which is an entirely different thing. It's remarkable that a bunch of guys could get so doggone monotrack and so unimaginative as to let the laws of inevitable average, you might say, of all illusion, take place.

Because if they were all crooked and if they were all dishonest and if their [dis]honesty was absolute in every case, I can guarantee you that would be the end of the physical universe. That's how wrong "wrong" would be. Now, that would be succumb. That is succumb. That's wrong, an infinity of wrongness. And that's succumb, over this way.

And if something like — supposing you heard an after-dinner speaker and you — maybe you were secretary of the club and every meeting he made a speech and he told the same joke. And you were secretary of this club for five years and there was a meeting every week, and he told the same joke and he told it in the same words. How would you feel if all of the members of the club, every time they heard this joke kept saying, "Isn't that wonderful? Isn't that remarkable?" Well, that's just about the same thing.

Now, we start this way from center and we get out here, and this is "right." And this is an infinity of rightness and this is survive.

You get this MEST universe bumbling along. It's actually not anything like a perfection. This Earth, for instance, is supposed to be a sphere. And it's not a sphere — it's a spheroid, but it's an oblate spheroid, to use the proper solid geometry term for it. It's flat on top and it bulges at the equator, and if it spun the other way it would get flat someplace else, and it's a very irregular sphere. Some places the crust is forty miles thick, someplace it's many hundreds of miles thick. It might be that there's molten earth just forty miles below you here, that you're living on this thin crust, but other places it's very thick and goes practically down solid to the core.

Now, how right is a datum? A datum is as right as it enhances survival on the dynamics. Let's use that as a definition: A datum is as right as it enhances survival on the dynamics.

The Mississippi River, for instance, and the Nile River — the Nile River runs downhill but the Mississippi River runs uphill. Now that's quite remarkable. It's just because of these wild gyrations — I mean, they're wild! Just because they're repeated all the time, it does not say immediately that they're wonderful. They're wild. We've sort of hypnotized ourselves, in the universities particularly, into believing that all these things go according to a perfection. And they don't.

How wrong is a datum? A datum is as wrong as it inhibits survival on the dynamics.

There's supposed to be a planet out here in the fourth ring, and there isn't. There's a bunch of chips. You go out and look at the sun. That sun is supposed to be in perfect condition. Actually it's a huge atom bomb which is burning for a long time and it's got holes in it, oh boy! The regulation burning surface of the sun is tremendously variable. It must vary by hundreds of thousands of degrees centigrade around the surface of the sun.

What is an optimum solution? An optimum solution would be that solution which brought about the greatest amount of survival for all the dynamics. That would be the optimum solution.

There probably is no back side to the moon. If you were putting together something perfect . . . When I say there's no back side, there's a hole back there. The moon is very off-balance; the same side always faces Earth. It's just rocked down and been stopped by gravity until that happens.

That tells you immediately, for instance, that war is not a good solution. And sure enough, in the practical world it's not a good solution. It tells you that an argument isn't a good solution. It also tells you that you shouldn't really enter into something that was weighted entirely two, three, four, five, six and seven, let's say, and completely left out one. I mean, you made this computation and it enhanced every dynamic and applied to every dynamic, but it didn't apply to one. You'll find that the darn solution's not workable. It's going to go wrong. You've got to make it apply to one. Somebody will say "But that's selfishness." Hm! You can sure fail if there's no self involved. That comes as a startling datum to some people. They suddenly say, "You mean I have a right to survive too?"

Now I'm not berating this, but I'm just saying let's kind of come off the awe level on it, because you could do the same thing. And that is, of course, subject to your own test. You just have to take my word for it for the moment.

Well now, what would be a nonoptimum solution or a reversal of an optimum solution? What would be the... If you had – for instance – if you had a problem and fifty people turned in solutions, there would be two ends of the spectrum. There would be the worst solution and there'd be the best solution. And the best solution would most enhance the greatest number of dynamics. And by the way, this works out just right down the line. It wouldn't seem to. It'd seem on a short-term notice, or something of the sort, on a short-term proposition, that you could omit one of the dynamics and say, "Well, we'll smash that one entirely and that lets the others survive." You don't get a good solution; you get good randomity when you do that.

But it's an accumulation of created energy. And if you accumulated enough energy and if you held on to it hard enough and if you were such a capitalist, if you were so vested interest, so status quo, that you even had a law passed saying that at no time would any of this energy deteriorate but it would only convert, you were just going to get more and more and more matter — you would get what? You'd get an expanding universe. You would get one that's terribly solid and you would get one which was bungling along in a chaos, unregulated. It would have been set up once and then it just keeps on going, keeps on going, accumulating more, accumulating more, accumulating more.

You start fighting somebody or other, or fighting something – and that's part of the dynamics – and if you fight them hard enough, and so forth, you'll notice the very thing you're trying to defend will start caving in on you. So you want to be careful; you want to choose something that's weak, something that doesn't amount to very much on any of the dynamics to fight – if you're really thinking in the broad term of the eight dynamics.

And you get a being who comes into this space-time reference. That being is theta — he's a thetan. He is able to impose space and time, and furthermore he can create space and time, and in addition to that, he can place created energy in spaces and times which he creates. Now that is a very, very remarkable — a very remarkable skill. And that is observably with you — observable, very observable.

So, this optimum solution is: How many degrees right is it? Well, it will be as many degrees right as it will serve the dynamics. How many degrees wrong is it? It will be as many degrees wrong as it will inhibit survival on the dynamics. This graph is a very useful graph and is actually logic.

And when you start running this technique 8-8008, it will become more and more plain to you; because you don't have to go up to the level of making the space and time, and creating it, and creating a universe, to prove to yourself that you can. You observe it on this low echelon.

Now, if you appeal, if you put time in here, we'll find... The ship is going down. The sailor finds that he'll be able, by diving below and shutting one of the seacocks, to keep the ship afloat long enough to let all of his companions get off of the ship, and yet that'll cost him his own life: That's a perfectly valid solution because it says that there were a number of others and those were his teammates, his shipmates and so on, and somebody's got to shut that seacock. And so he says, "It's I that will do that," and he goes ahead and does so. And this is particularly good, because all he actually loses in the action is a body. Death is not very final; unfortunate, but true.

If what I'm telling you isn't true, then there'd be no reason under the sun why 8-8008 would have the fantastic effect on the preclear that it has. Tried techniques, techniques, techniques — we've got more techniques than anybody ever heard of in the field of the mind.

So we have relative data then. Now, a datum is as big as it'll influence the dynamics – it's as big as. That's how big a datum is; that's how important a datum is. It'll influence, broadly, the dynamics.

In any month, in Dianetics, we accumulate more techniques about the mind than have been invented in the last five thousand years. In any month. It's just fabulous.

Now, if you look at data, then, you will find out that you have to be able to evaluate data. That is to say, what is the relative truth of this data? Is this data just vaguely true? We have a thousand factors in this problem and this datum only applies to six of the factors. You'd say, "No... no." Or you have a thousand factors and you have a datum that applies to two hundred of them. You'd say, "Hey. Hmm." You have a thousand factors and you have a datum which seems to apply, one way or the other, good or bad, to all of them but does strange and unpredictable things on each one of the factors. Hmm. Press that one to your breast, by the way. That's a wild variable, and by its examination you will discover a great deal about the problem. If you've got something that's varying wildly throughout all the factors of a problem, look at it. Look at it closely. Because within it may well be a factor higher than any other factor you'll attain.

If you want techniques, if you want phenomena, you could fool around and fool around with this, because why? It isn't any compliment to myself or to researchers in this. It's just the fact you get out on the main line and the material keeps accumulating and accumulating, and you get bigger and bigger bins and there's more and more material; and nobody is evaluating it because you say, "Well, that's — that's — we'll look at that some other day."

But now let's say you have a thousand factors in the problem and you find a datum that will apply to and benefit eight hundred. This is the principle of a democracy; this is the principle of majority rule, and so on. All of these things come in. That datum is important then. Therefore, we pass laws which will influence the greatest majority of the people. Therefore, we say that a law has the truth, that it benefits the people, and a lot of other things. That's evaluation of data. There's more of this.

It's not important right now because we're after this: We're after bringing up the capabilities of a being. So we want to know what a being is and then we want to bring his capabilities up to that ideal. That's our ambition.

Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth. Awfully easy to see that one. But it's relative to environment. For instance, a dinner jacket is important in London and not even vaguely important in Saipan. An elephant rifle is not even vaguely important in London but is sometimes useful in some parts of the world.

So we find out that the ruddy rods go off on the gammawhoogits and that people can do an ESP while standing on one leg at Piccadilly Circus and we find out all these other interesting data.

You take some person who is unable to evaluate truth, by the way, and examine his baggage. Just look over what he has in his pockets and look over what he has in his bureau. If you were to invade his privacy to that degree, the applicability of the materiel to his environment would tell you, in a large measure, what his ability to evaluate was. If his ability to evaluate was very poor and he just had tons of junk, nothing seemed to apply to anything else and it's all kind of being held "in case I needed it" – such as, he's got a bowie knife used in scalping early settlers or something, and it's just sort of he keeps it around in case he needed it. Or he's got a policeman's whistle, and he's got a this and he's got a that and so forth. You start asking him to evaluate. He's going to have a rough time. He'll also be having trouble with time.

We also find out that a preclear pulls a ridge off of himself — we wonder about the actuality of these things sometimes — he pulls a ridge off of himself and I tell him, "Well, all right. Now where do you want to dump it?"

All right. A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.

"Oh, I — there's cats all around the backyard here, there's several cats out here."

Oh, boy, let's know that one, shall we? Let's know that one. Whatever else you don't know, let's... Gradient scales are more important than that, much more important, but a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude. Gee, let's know that one. Can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.

"Well, all right, dump it on a cat."

Now, let's take a grain of sand and a mountain. And we'll say, "All right now, there's a grain of sand and there's a mountain."

And you hear this piercing scream out in the backyard as this cat gets a ridge dumped on him.

And the fellow says, "Well, all right, I know about a grain of sand, but I've never seen a mountain. What do we do about the mountain? I mean..."

And you say, "Well, that's very amusing. Dump another one on him." "Oh, I don't want to; that really upset him."

"Well," this guy says, "it's lots of grains of sand." Ah, yes. It's all off.

"Well, dump another ridge out there."

He says, "You know those hills out there? Well," he says, "if those hills were eight times as big, they'd be a mountain."

Scream! Another cat!

And the fellow says, "Yeah?" Now we're getting into comparable magnitude.

Somebody walks into the room where you're doing the processing and he says, "Did you hear that noise outside?"

Now, we wonder why it is that Herr Devil occupies so much of the scene, and why the devils as they are compared to the gods are so prominent. They'll become as prominent – get this – they'll become as prominent as the god they are supposed to oppose.

And the preclear and you say, "Didn't hear anything. Did you hear something?"

You could go around and say, "Now, the god... Believe in God. God is all. God is the only one. Of course, he's opposed by the devil, but God...," so on. "The devil can also steal the souls of men. Now, God really does take care of men. God does this and God does that." You're going to get, fully, 50 percent of the people you're teaching this to – they'll look down here and they'll say, "The devil can take your soul too? God is this big?"

This is very interesting, isn't it?

The automatic mental reaction, the mechanism behind this, says immediately, "The devil is as important as God." And you will have 50 percent of the populace actually following the devil, no matter how hard you tried to teach them.

All right. Then, we've got right there the source of animal magnetism. Ho-ho! This is the big curiosity all down through the years, animal magnetism. Can you regulate the behavior of an animal? Yep. Yep.

Now, A datum is as important as it has been evaluated is the next corollary on this. How important is a datum? It's as important as it has been evaluated. What is an evaluated datum? It's a datum that's been compared to the other factors of problems in which we're interested.

I made a couple of tests on it. I was making a cat hungry. The cat wouldn't eat, so I just kept making the cat hungry, so it'd eat. I'd tell the cat to go eat, just to be conversational. But I'd spot a beam on the cat's motor controls and so forth and I'd think, "Hungry, empty stomach," see? And the cat would sort of look haunted for a moment and go over to the dish and start chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp. And this was a very finicky cat that hitherto would never eat. Nibble. Animal magnetism.

All right. We'll have a preclear and the preclear is in terrible shape – shaking, miserable, sure that somebody is going to shoot him the next time he turns the corner. He's in horrible condition. He's just something that if you were of a sympathetic nature you might even feel sympathy for him. He's in terrible shape: a Homo sapiens, and normal. And he's just in this horrible condition.

So, there's — anybody who wants to wander along this, like you walk through a bookstall, he can find himself just — oh! just boundless material to work with.

And you start processing him and you find out that every night when he goes home a cat yowls at him. You want to process that? It's not a datum of comparable magnitude. You have to look and find a datum powerful enough to cause this condition on the part of the preclear. And you're thinking very, very badly and you're assessing very, very badly if you were being contented with something that wouldn't cause it.

Well, let's do animal magnetism. How would this affect animal husbandry?

He's had the usual familial difficulties: His father and mother's really no more or less than other fathers and mothers, and yet here he is in this terrible condition. You say, "Well, it must have been his father and mother." They're an average father and mother, but his case isn't average. You have to be able to diagnose on the clean, clear-cut basis: You'd better find something big enough to have caused the condition.

A lady popped into the Foundation one day not too long ago and she says to me, "I have just invented Dianetics for dogs," and she says, "I'm — I just invented it."

Now, another way of saying this is: The cause is always equal to or greater than the effect. The cause is of the same order of magnitude as the effect, and the effect is of a same order of magnitude as a cause, with this single difference: That you can have a multitude of causes which are very tiny growing into a mountain of effects – but at which time you would add up the causes and you'd find out they were the same size – or you could have a multitude of effects taking place from some little insignificant cause. But in any event, when you are looking at a preclear who has something wrong with him, don't be satisfied with the fact that it was because somebody stole his milk bottle when he was very young. There's something else in this preclear's environment, if he's in terribly bad shape, that you don't know about. And you just better fish around. Do an assessment and you'll all of a sudden start finding something that matches the preclear in order of magnitude as cause. And that, by the way, is actually the heart and soul of diagnosis.

And I said, "All right. What do you do for a dog?"

Now, as far as being able to research and think about something is concerned, a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated. You'll find an awful lot of people will come running around and saying this happened and that happened and it was known here and this was known there, and so forth. And if you look at this and you keep looking at this, and your attention keeps spreading out from the data, you're spreading out from an evaluated datum. A datum is no good – just bluntly, just no good – unless there's some evaluation, unless somebody says what it relates to.

"Oh, I don't know. I've just invented the fact that you could apply Dianetics to a dog, and I am a dog breeder and I'm going to apply this so that I get better dogs." "Well, yeah. But what are you going to do with it?"

Let's take the datum "trucks." And now, you write an essay on petrol consumption, and you look around and you use an example of truckage and the number of miles that are hauled per gallon of petrol and the number of tons of freight carried and so forth and so on. And somebody comes up to you and he says, "Well, your whole subject's been covered. I mean, it's already covered." He knew about it a long time ago.

"Well, I don't know yet, just give me some time. That's my profession, that's what I'm going to do with it and goodbye."

You say, "It has?"

And I said, "Goodbye."

They say, "Yes sir, yes sir. Here's an essay and there's the word right there: trucks."

I don't know, maybe by this time we have dogs that will talk or play the piano, or maybe they've all become very stupid or — I don't know what's happened to these dogs.

You say, "Now wait a minute. That word trucks in that article you're referring to also has the word passenger cars, jeeps, tanks, battleships, space wagons, vehicles, tricycles, and doesn't even say a word about petrol or consumption or anything else, and it just says trucks."

But there's just more of that sort of thing has happened along the line. You can wander, in other words, through this material, but we want a beeline.

The guy says triumphantly, "Well, it says trucks! The important datum." Just ignore him after that. He's not worth reasoning with. Or process him or get somebody you don't like amongst your friends to process him, because the guy can't evaluate data.

Now, the beeline lies in the direction of enhancing the ability of theta and devaluating the ability of MEST.

A datum is like a whole ocean full of drops of water. And you go in slugging into this ocean full of drops of water. And every datum looks like every other datum, and you finally swim all over this ocean and you find... What do you find, finally? You find a drop of water which contains certain component parts which are different than the other drops of water, but which is the same as all the drops of water, and you evaluate this drop of water. And by evaluating this one drop of water, you find out a great deal about water. So you haul this drop out very carefully and you put it up there as a single drop of water. And then you find four or five other drops that are valuable to you. And this is the substance of that ocean. That's evaluation.

Now, if you can balance your preclear — your preclear has become really unbalanced. He's over there on the MEST side of the ledger, and the MEST side of the ledger can determine nothing. It has no determinism; it places nothing in time and space of its own.

Somebody comes along and says, "Well, look, there's a whole ocean full of water. What do you want with those drops for?"

A planet blows up or something, and it runs into another chunk and that runs into another chunk and it scatters around somehow and that scatters into another . . . You see how random? Very, very plus randomity — no determinism about it. You never heard of a planet saying, "Let's see, I don't think I will blow up, but if I do blow up I'll put it in the left-hand pocket over there and make a billiard on Mars." No, you never had a planet thinking that. What you just had was a great big unmanageable piece of MEST go kaboom and then, sort of, the sun has a pull which is there because it's a built-in characteristic, and something else has a pull and it sort of wanders around. Just happenstance.

And you say, "Well, these drops explain the whole drops in that water. You don't need all those drops now, you just need to know these drops. And that tells you what water is. There's heavy water and there's light water and there's mineral water, and this is all in common to it, and these are examples of each one."

Blow up a test tube full of goo in a laboratory and it never thinks what part of the wall it's going to spatter itself on — never thinks about it for a moment. It doesn't put anything in time and space, much less create some time and space.

And the fellow says, "Oh, that's not sensible."

But a thetan has this other characteristic which is the reverse of that. Your thetan could do this. He could say, "All right. Let's see, first let's create a space area. Now let's say this time area is so-and-so. Now we'll create a test tube and we'll put it full of goo and what we want is a big purple spot just under the lampshade."

You want to be careful of taking in data which you don't evaluate yourself. Education is often along the line of stuffing snakes. Down here in the zoo they have a snake they feed every six months. They have a stuffing machine and they pry his jaws open and they put the end of this stuffing machine in his mouth and they turn the crank. And this loads him up for six months.

Boom! He's got a purple spot under the lampshade and that was what he wanted. Now he'll take apart the rest of the thing and take the purple spot .. . No reason particularly to do this, but what he could do is choose the time and space. Now he could do something else with that purple spot. Now he could put it in another space area on another time stream. Now, that's your theoretical capability. He could take a universe and put it on another time span. He could do this, theoretically.

Then he goes to sleep – sleeps for a long time and so forth.

Now, how do we know that he could do this? Because we've seen him do it? Partly, yes. And the other thing is, is that when we grant the fact that he's capable of doing this, we are suddenly cognizant of ability in processing.

Well, that could be likened to modern education. They never evaluate any part of it; they just open the student's mouth and grind away. And if he has enough data in him at the time a course finishes, why, he's supposed to be educated. He'll only be as educated as he's evaluated the data.

When we suddenly say — we say, "We're going to slant our processing in the direction of this capability," what do we get? We get a preclear getting over this and that and getting better, and good shape this way and that way, with great rapidity. But as long as we follow only the happenstance laws of energy, as long as we only erase engrams, we are still agreeing with the MEST universe and we are heading in the capability of MEST.

Here you have this dashing army officer and he has just been transferred over to the field artillery. And he had a whole month's training in field artillery. And they were saying "caissons, trucks, limbers, ration cards, hay, petrol, mils, fire posts." He knows all these words; been very familiar with them; heard them all, he has. And he gets out there and he starts the truck battery into action by the simple process of finding out if there's any hay. And he looks all around and he finds out they don't have any hay so they couldn't go into action.

So we mustn't head in the direction of MEST at all. What we've got to do is head in the direction of the highest level capability of theta which we can discover; and that highest level capability at this moment happens to be location of space and time and energy, creation of space and time and energy, creation of matter and relationships, conservation of all of these things and destruction of all of these things — destruction of space and time and energy, and energy forms in space and time, on all dynamics. It's very interesting.

Somebody points out to him, he'll say, "Hey, the stuff fired out of the guns is in the boxes there."

That is the direction toward which we aim our processing. Now, we want to make our preclear capable of doing this, so that any technique which we invent — any technique we invent to accomplish this — is going to be a valid technique, if it is oriented. Now, that's what's known as orienting a technique. What is the technique designed to do? And if the technique is designed to accomplish any of the points which I've just gone over, it's a valid technique — soon as you apply it, it'll work.

"What boxes? What I'm looking for are caissons."

You just figure out a technique which will let somebody switch around time. This little boy is in bad shape. He's sick. And you say, "What am I going to do for this little boy? He can't run engrams, he can't run locks, I can't get in communication with him to do very much of anything. What can we do with him? What can we do with him?"

"Well, those are caissons. (Contain the shells.)"

You could just take one point and you could invent yourself a technique. You'd say, "We will improve his command of time."

"Oh," he says, "so they are. Oh. Well, all right. Hook up the caissons." Now he's all set. He's got all the data in the world, but he hasn't applied it to anything.

There's thousands, hundreds of thousands, billions of ways you could do this. You say, "We'll improve his command of time."

And the most horrible thing that could happen to you is to imbibe all this data and not compare it to anything, and not sort it out and find out which is the necessary element. That'd be horrible. Because all of a sudden you'd have this preclear and it'd be two o'clock in the morning, and you're trying to get this preclear processed and get the job over with, but the preclear keeps screaming. And between the police ringing the doorbell and the parents of the preclear on the phone, you haven't got any time to evaluate this data. The time to do it is now!

He's stuck on the time track someplace or he wouldn't be sick. What do we do for him?

You say, "Is it as important to have a preclear take his shoes off before lying down on the couch as it is, always and invariably, to say to the preclear, 'Come up to present time,' or 'Are you aware of your surroundings?' or orient him in time and space? These two data, are they of equal magnitude?" No, they're not of equal magnitude.

Well, there'd be very interesting things. You just — we could take up any of these. We could take up space, we could take up energy, we could take up any of these points and give him a command over them. Give him a command over anything, no matter how tiny it was, here's a gradient scale. Give him a command over something. He's lying there, helpless.

It's important to have your preclear in present time. It's important to have your preclear at the end of the engram before starting him back through the beginning of the engram.

Get that characteristic of illness. In illness, the being is helpless in handling space, time, energy and matter. Now, this is not a symptom of his being sick. This is the cause of his being sick. He has in some fashion become helpless in handling space, time, energy. He's become helpless in creating, conserving, destroying, altering space, time, energy, matter — either of his own, of the MEST universe, or somebody else's universe, or several somebody else's universe. You can't get into communication with him very good.

Now, continuing this matter of evaluation, that's actually the essence of education – the essence of it. You actually have, here, only five data of incomparable magnitude. I mean, they're so high they're the Qs. They're way up at the top of the pyramid. And they don't compare with the other data which you're getting at all. So if you were to spend hours of examination of the Qs and doing theoretical applications of the Qs, just as that, and minutes on all the rest of this material – per each – you would then be evaluating just about right.

You could do many things. It'd depend on how inventive you were, what you did. There just could be thousands of techniques. Here's this little kid lying there helpless. What do you do with him?

There's a navigation textbook printed called Dutton's. It's the most wonderful textbook you ever read. It has everything in it that there is – just everything in it there is. Anything you want to know is in there, and it says it all in the same sentence structure. There's no evaluation in Dutton. Actually, it's about the grimmest thing a student ever tackled. Oh, it'd just be horrible. Because you read in there "Charts are put out by the Hydrographic Office. They are twenty-one and a half inches by twenty-four and a half inches. You must always know the index error of your sextant. Charts are folded, generally, and stowed in some merchant-ship drawers, but in most naval vessels they are laid out flat." And your guy reads that and... "You always know the index error of your sextant." Oh, my God, don't compare that in magnitude with how you fold charts or how big charts are. That's completely incidental. But boy, if you don't know the index error of your sextant, you're never going to get a position. I mean, just that. I mean, you're never going to know where you are, and that's the essence of navigation.

Well, just one turns up just to mind because I mentioned it the last time I was talking here: Clocks driving the kid to school. "You want this kid to get well, huh?" you say to Mama.

So give it that same value on these Qs. Know these Qs. Placing in time, space; creating time, space, energy, matter and so on. Boy, just work that one to death, just grind that in. And then take this other material and evaluate it by the Qs. You see how that works? And yet this other data has interest to you. And it, in turn, does some fragmentary evaluation of the Q.

Mama says, "Oh, yes, my darling baby, I — poor thing, poor thing. Sympathy, sympathy, sympathy, drool, drool, drool — I'll run and get something for him; I'll convince him he's helpless, one way or the other."

Now, Logic 10 is: The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment it imparts to other data.

And you say, "Well, now where — you don't mind, then, sacrificing a pound or two?"

Now, when you say alignment... This is a word you'll find through these Axioms quite a good deal, and alignment merely means "relationship." If you got all of the factors of a vector... Let's say we have a vector of force here. If all of your energy units in it are going in one direction, there will be a considerable force imparted here. You see how that is? – if all of your energy units are going in one direction.

And Mother says, "Oh, no, no, no, nothing," and so on.

But supposing it works like this. There isn't going to be any impact imparted there. No impact. Just going to be scattered. You put an impact in here and that stuff just chases around, sort of chases its tail. But here, nice and straight, an impact is delivered.

You say, "Where's the clock he goes to school by?"

In other words, you can make energy hit its target or make an object do what you want it to do if your force is directed on it. If it's not directed on it and if it's not directed properly on it, nothing's going to happen or it's going to happen wrong.

"The clock? Well, oh! that's — that's — sacred piece of MEST. It's up there on the mantelpiece."

So you could say a datum of how to apply force to a billiard ball would guarantee – if the datum were important – it would guarantee that the billiard ball would hit other balls and go into the proper sequences. In other words, what we've got here is the usability in the application of effort. The usability of the application of effort would determine the value of this datum. It'd also determine its ability to align other data.

I say, "Well, give me the — give me the clock."

And you take somebody out there you're going to teach how to play golf. And he says, "You put the ball down here, you put your heel opposite the tee and you stand back and you grip the club with an overlapping grip, and your thumb goes in here and your thumb goes there. Now you hold it back very carefully like this over your shoulder and you swing, and then you follow through. And you look up then and see the ball at the other end of the fairway." Now, he says, "That's what you do and that is how you do it," and so on. As a matter of fact, that's all valuable data.

"What are you going to do with it?"

But let's go over it again and see how much not-valuable data there would be in there. Now, he says, "You always bend over very carefully and dust your pants off in case you get sand on them," and so forth. "And you get this tee. Now, it's much better to get wooden tees, but wooden tees are very often expensive. But I can sell one of these wooden tees to you up at the clubhouse if you want them. But you can make sand all right, and maybe you'd better make sand." (Now, that's quite important.) "Now you put the ball on this tee, and you step back here and you take hold of the club and you hit the ball. And that's the way you play golf"

"Well, never mind. You said you could put out a pound or two. Would you rather put it out on pills or a clock?"

No, you wouldn't be able to play golf, that's all. That would really be a complete, different shift of evaluation to a nonessential. And how often have you found subjects like that? They keep shifting from a nonessential – I mean, over to nonessentials.

All right, we got that. We put this clock on the bed. We attract the kid's attention to the clock and we direct him to take the clock and put it over here on the bed and we direct him to put the clock closer to him on the bed, then we direct him to put the clock further from him on the bed and then we make him put the clock on the other side of him. He'll start to brighten up. Why? This thing is his boss.

For instance, you'll find out in laboratory work it is of the greatest, utmost importance to know how to get a test tube clean. They never teach you that. No, you sort of go into the laboratory and you find the test tube is dirty. And you try to get a precipitation, and this precipitation isn't the precipitation you thought it should be. And you scratch your head and say, "What is wrong with my chemistry?" Well, there's nothing wrong with your chemistry, but there's a heck of a lot wrong with your ability to wash the test tube. And nobody ever came in the textbook of chemistry and said, "Use clean test tubes always. If you take cornmeal and a long-handled brush and rub up and down carefully under hot water for some time, you'll get the worst stains off of the inside of a glass test tube. And this is one way to do it."

All right. Next step on the thing: Show him the back of the clock. Let him vary the hands, change it, put it a half an hour later, an hour earlier, fool with it. He's in bad communication, you understand? I mean, you've just got a tactile and you can get his attention and he feels very apathetic about the whole thing — he'll start to brighten up. It'll be unintelligible to anybody else why he's brightening up but he'll brighten up. You can guarantee that because you're on the main track of processing.

"Now, there are other ways to do it and that is simply to take an acid like aqua regia and simply rinse the thing out. That kills everything. There are various ways. And this is how you get a clean test tube." Very important. Shift.

So after you've fooled around with the clock and you put the clock on the floor and you put the clock up here and there — you'll have him sitting up on the bed in a very short space of time, and you have him put the clock up there. Then have him take this clock — take this clock and choose some instrument of his own desire and have him smash the clock. And then have Mama give him a shilling because he smashed the clock.

Now, a student, when he comes out the end of a course and he knows what he's doing – if he knows what he's doing, he knows what was important in that course. But he knows what's important in the course by evaluating the data that hits him.

Now, the kid's going to be well. All. right. The chances — the chances are very good that that's about — that'd be a good process. Why? Because it is symbolically reestablishing his command over time in the MEST universe.

Now, I have a way of trying to impress you with the value of data: I try to hit the data from about eight different sides and about twelve different times if it's vital. I keep coming back to it and kicking it and coming back to it and turning it upside down and showing the other side, and then show it in practice and then show it in use. And then when you're so darn sick of this datum – you say, "Why on earth does he keep talking about tennis balls?" – we come back and talk some more about tennis balls if they're important in the process.

Now, we have that. What could we do with space? What could we do with space?

All right. The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival.

Well, we could get his little sister's doll house, or something of the sort, and make him change the partitions around in the doll house. Or we could make him force somebody to change the location of objects in his room or give him something of his choice in terms of space — any way we could improve his choice of space, any way we could do so. Or we could do it on the level of possessions. Let's get a possession he does not like and let him dump it. Let's get a possession that he likes and let him have it.

Poison is corrosive to the stomach, is inhibiting to survival. If you didn't have that datum, you might take some poison. And you would learn the datum, and always it's too late to learn the datum in the field of action. That's always a little too late. It's better to know about poison before taking poison.

There's a famous, famous old story about the father who worked so hard and the little boy was dying. These fabulous German folk tales that just drool on and on and on with super-saccharine sympathy.

The value of a datum or a field of data is modified by the viewpoint of an observer

The little boy was dying and the father tried everything he could think of to make the little boy well, and the father was very poor. Everybody in these stories is very poor. I don't know where all that poorness comes from, but — must come from an inability to handle space, time and energy. But he finally got poorer and poorer and poorer and poorer and it got poorer and poorer and the boy got poorer and poorer and the father spent his whole week's wages to buy a little animated clown, because the boy would mutter in his delirium the name of a clown. And the boy would keep muttering this name so he bought him this mechanical clown — put a whole week's wages in on the clown, and the little boy opened one eye and took one look at the clown and closed his eye again. That was all.

To ducks, shotguns are no good.

So finally the father went over to the circus and got the most famous clown in Germany — that was the guy's name — to come over and see the little boy and the little boy promptly got well. The little boy took one look at the clown, the clown balanced an Indian club on the end of his nose and asked the little boy how he was, and the little boy sat up in the bed and he became very bright and he was well. That's a famous old German folk tale. Probably happened, for anything to be hitting that close on the button.

Logic 13: Problems are resolved by compartmenting them into areas of similar magnitude and data, comparing them to data already known or partially known, and resolving each area. Data which cannot be known immediately may be resolved by addressing what is known and using its solution to resolve the remainder.

This little boy, by his desire and request, actually had managed to move in time and space the most famous clown in Germany. Naturally, this really made him well. This put him right up there.

And the only reason that's there is that is the reason and the way I did Dianetics and Scientology. And that's how they got here, by the use of Logic 13. I just knew that there was something to be known about the mind and then just took the whole area of the mind and kept chopping it up in chunks – chopping up the humanities into chunks and carting one of the chunks off stage and dumping it every time I found out that it had not been generally applicable.

Now, generally what they do with kids is to give them things that continue to move them — them — in space and time. They hold them down; they give them more time.

Now, let's see. People, let's see, of Asia... All through China people are hungry. Now, there's a lot of Chinese philosophy, and there's Confucianism and this sort of thing. Can't be anything important in it. There might be something of importance in it, but why should we bother to examine China? Dump it overboard. Something wrong with all the information there is in China.

You give a kid toys, toys, toys, toys, toys, you'll bind him down on the time track. You're giving him less and less time, less and less time, less and less creation.

Isn't that a forthright and horrible statement?

You say, "When I was a boy they didn't give us toys like this. They used to make us make them out of this and that."

You say the secret does not lie in China. Why? People are hungry in China, China is dirty, people don't live long and they aren't very bright. Okay, that goes into the Yellow Sea.

Well, those were real good toys when they made them like that, although I remember the fastest friend of my youth was a small teddy bear that was given me, and the teddy bear was the same size I was. And it was called "teddy bears" because Teddy Roosevelt had refused to shoot a little bear that somebody had brought him to be shot and he created quite a rage for these little dolls, a little fuzzy bear.

Japan: Japan must be running in good shape. It's brought itself up in the world and it's in good shape, and they have all these rice paddies and everybody is working for it and they're in good shape, totally, and they're very bright. And let's see, they copy everything. Hm, that's an interesting datum: they mimic, they mimic, mimic, mimic, mimic, mimic, mimic. We'll put this down: Japan must have something in it – something in it – but I don't see anything immediately that's a large body of data there. We'll just move it sideways.

That bear was the same size I was. But nobody ever thought that bear was very important. And I used to tear the head off the bear regularly — about, oh, I don't know, twice a week — and people would have to sew the head back on again. And I used to complain because they'd sew the head back on so that the head wouldn't turn — it was fixed so it'd turn — and I'd make them take the stitches out again and sew the head back on so that it would turn. And I suddenly remembered something about the bear: it was the only toy I had nobody cared about but me. So as a net result, you see, I had something I could handle in time and space.

Now let's take the field of religion. Religion been of any great benefit? There are probably a lot of things... Well, we'll move religion aside.

The essence of this, then, in processing, is: What imposes time and space on the individual?

Let's see, what have we got left here? We got Aleut Indians. Well, I don't know, Aleut Indians didn't even know how to preserve food before the Russians landed there. Gee, they must be awful stupid. Let's just throw that whole culture out.

Whatever imposes time and space on the individual tends to convince the individual, or tries to tell the individual, that he is MEST, not theta. His ambition is to be theta, because he is theta.

And go on down the line in this fashion, until all of a sudden we find some field that has gotten a terrific spurt of advance. Well, what do you know, what do you know!

A goal you would say, would be an effort to approach its own basic characteristic.

It was the field of electricity... that seems to be advancing faster than anything has advanced in any age since man's been here on earth. Boy, is it going with velocity! James Clerk Maxwell in 1894 did himself a fine job of figuring out a lot of stuff – by 1894. Freud's libido theory was extant in 1894, and let's see, today we've got the atom bomb. James Clerk Maxwell, 1894; Freud, 198... Hm. You know, it kind of seems to me like electricity has done a terrific jump forward and the libido theory is still with us, unchanged. And we still have sanatoriums and there's been no advance in that line. But here's this one field of advancement.

There's something about goals. Let's say — let's say you have the basic characteristic of a wagon is to be a wagon. That's right, it's just as foolish as that, but the basic characteristic ... And let's — supposing we violate this, and we make this old wagon — it has the ... Let's say it hauls manure. And this old — this old wagon has this. It was built to do that, it always did that, and all of a sudden somebody makes it into a hearse. Now that wagon's going to have things happen to it. It was not built to be a hearse. It smells. People keep thinking it's the corpse, and it's just the past of the wagon. And the wagon is ridiculed and falls apart and somebody will discard it, whereas if they had kept on using it for what it was intended — what was its basic goal?

But it's incredible to think that anybody would be just wholly juice; there must be other answers someplace. So we'll go over and we'll find some more compartments and we'll look for some more knowledge. We'll look for some more spheres of knowledge. We'll look in the field of biology. We'll look in the field of this. We'll find out how well-oriented these people are or how badly oriented they are, or whether they're getting along well or whether they're not. Rough, isn't it?

Now, this will add up to people. A caste system in a society is really more workable than a system in the society which has no levels. One of those can become very vicious because the agitator in the society runs around and then he can tell everybody, "Now look, you too can be the Grand Bolinkas," or something. And this fellow, by IQ, by position, by inherited training, by education and everything else, this guy is fully equipped, fully equipped, to run an underground railway train. And yet he goes around thinking all the time, "Well, someday I can be the Grand Bolinkas." And he's very unhappy, miserable. He rushes around with this idea, "I'll be the Grand Bolinkas someday," and boy, nobody can be Grand Bolinkas then, nobody. Not that anybody wants to be.

Just the crudest kind of analysis of data, just arbitrarily taking a sword and just – whack! – that piece of data is cut off now from the rest of it and we won't think about it anymore. Whack! Another big body of data, we've cut that off and moved it aside. Whack! We've taken another part of the humanities and we've moved them aside. What do we keep coming back to? We find out there's one stability today: the science of physics. And by analysis of chemistry we find out that chemistry isn't very stable, because nuclear physics moved in on chemistry and, boy, the chemist is having an awful time today. He has another entirely different brand of nuclear physics.

Here's somebody else. You take this little girl and she's a very vivacious girl. She can make people very pleased with their lives, and so on. And perhaps she's ideally fitted — by her own real goals and hopes and training and other things, she's fitted to occupy a certain strata. And people come around, keep telling her, "Well, you — this is a free country and therefore you have a perfect right to be the Grand Bolinkasess. And what you should do is — really, Lana Turner doesn't have anything that you don't have. Therefore, you should be Lana Turner." This girl goes around in complete misery.

Here's relative truth: The atom of the chemist is good for the chemist. The atom of the physicist is good for the physicist. It's true for the physicist, it's true for the chemist. But the atom of the chemist and the atom of the physicist aren't even vaguely similar! Yet each says this is the atom. They've got entirely different atoms. That's very amusing. You call this to their attention. You say, "Say, by the way... by the way, I know you... Here you are working in this exact science. Now what did you say about the atom?"

I ran into a psychotic, by the way, who was psychotic for one reason only. Everybody kept telling her that she looked like a movie star. She did — very, very faint resemblance to Katharine Hepburn. And it robbed her of her identity. She lost her own identity. Not only was she a body but now she'd slid over into being a movie star. But now she realized she wasn't a movie star and she'd slid even further than that. She was so confused about her own identity that it was fabulous. Of course, there were many other factors in her existence. But everybody was imposing space and time on her by telling her what she ought to be; therefore everybody else could choose her goal for her and then force her to follow another goal, or tell her that she couldn't fit herself to any goal, and so on.

"Oh, so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so."

Because people use this not ... You take a caste system, it very often debars the very able from being more able, very often has — it works the opposite direction completely. But it does at least permit this: a fellow to have his self-respect in being what he has to be.

And you say, "Well, isn't that funny? That doesn't compare to the physicist."

And — we've got that. Well now, if we just release that, now we say, "We don't know what you are and therefore you ought to always be something else than what you are," the fellow can't ever have a finite goal. He can't be the best water tender the Borinkan line ever had. Mm-mm, no. People can come around and say, "You ought to be this, you ought to be that, there's something ..." In other words, people can control him by unbalancing him.

"Oh, the physicist has to be wrong! He's wrong, that's all. It just doesn't work in chemistry; it just doesn't hold out."

So this big yap about "we must be all free to become kings," or something of the sort, is very good revolutionary propaganda, but is not very workable, because it permits people to be controlled — controls them to an enormous extent. It says, "You have no vested. interest in the society unless you have reached the highest point of the society. And if you aren't struggling to reach the highest point of the society and aren't in contest with everybody else then you possibly — you can't possibly be happy. So therefore, what you want to do is all band together somehow and be the lowest point of the society." I mean, it really gets confused.

Physicist says the same way: "The chemical atom doesn't work out in a cyclotron." This tells you something else: It tells you neither one of them has got anything but a vaguely workable atom. The atom probably isn't like that at all.

This maybe doesn't appear apparent to you right now, but just think about it.

Now if we look at what our concept of the atom is, they'd both get awfully shocked. Because we're dealing with an atom probably in the line-up that it doesn't exist. Hmm, that's heresy! Well, I can't find any evidence that the atom exists. I wish I could. I tried! I've tried to be a good boy.

What if nobody could say forthrightly and make it stick: "I am such and such and I am doing so-and-so and the service which I am performing here is needed and is useful." Suppose he could never nail himself down in that but always was in this sort of a spin — always in this sort of a spin: "You could really be doing something else that would be far more useful than what you are doing, and really nobody needs you anyway, and you've actually failed even though you're the best water tender in the Borinkan line — you've actually failed because you're not the Grand Bolinkan. And therefore nobody needs you, and if you think you're important go down to the graveyard and take a look; that's full of guys who thought they were important too."

This tells you something else. This is useful in processing – why I'm stressing it a little bit. You want to do a fast diagnosis, just cut your preclear up into sections, so to speak. Well, one of the best ways to do that is cut him up in dynamics. You say, "Brrrrr! Eight dynamics. All right, how does he feel about this first dynamic? How does he feel on sex, children, groups, man, animals?" so forth. Just take a check down the line. "Oh, he doesn't want anything to do with that second dynamic. And he thinks he's pretty despicable as a person. Hmm, there's first and second out." And you say, "What about groups? Oh, he's an ardent supporter of the 'I Will Arisers'." You say, "Hmm. How's he feel about man? Men are lice. How does he feel about animals? He hates most animals but he loves cats." This is interesting. We're getting more and more interesting, because what we're doing is cutting up whole sections of this fellow's whole track and we're finding out that we'll find some solution (if we're just looking at this lifetime) immediately. Somebody, probably a sexual partner (you see, just add this up; just make a ragged guess out of it) used to run him down and tell him he was despicable. Who was it?

In other words, this fellow was elected to be in a time and place and then people can rush around and say to him, "There isn't any time and place there — ha!" See? I mean, it allows this big control mechanism to enter.

Now, if we could just clip that person out of his life – boom! – gee, would he feel good. Because here he is, second dynamic is bad, and yet he's not very old and he's in pretty good shape, and he thinks he's despicable. And we go up the line and we find out the rest of these dynamics don't seem to be terribly out of line. We find out just those two seem to be kind of bad. Well, let's just take a gunshot at it and say, "Who did you know..." This is a man, let's say, you're processing. "What woman did you ever know that used to run you down?"

So beware of constructing your own universe too loosely. If you construct it loose enough you will find that a very horrible thing will take place: You'll find out that the ambition of everything that you give life to, is to be you.

"Oh, that was my first wife."

If the ambition of everything you gave life to is to be itself, you'll have a workable universe. But if the ambition of everything you gave life to is to be you, you'll have an outfit of paranoids who all have to be God. That'd be an entirely different thing, wouldn't it? That'd be very upsetting and it'd be very hard to run a universe like that.

Now, he probably wouldn't have thought of mentioning his first wife to you, oh, for fifty hours anyhow, till he got to know you better or something – a hidden datum to you and to him.

Now, you want to know what's wrong with a state? It can become so static, as did the Roman Empire under the regime of Augustus, that a man could never be anything but what the state determined. The state had to pass on what the man could be. The eldest son of the farmer had to till the soil. The eldest son of the smith had to be a smith. There was nothing — no change. Big static, no variability.

You ask him now, "All right, let's get a visio on her."

The Roman Empire collapsed! The republic went by the boards; everything went by the boards. Christianity came in. Disaster after disaster occurred. Chaos reigned. Well, that had nothing to do with Christianity coming in, of course — although there was a tidal wave, came in shortly after Christianity. It was very destructive. The Mediterranean disappeared for about twenty-four hours and went up and stood in a mound out in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea and then — and then came back again. Really wiped things out.

"Oh, I don't get anything."

Now, the point I'm making is, is that's a terrible, unchanging static — then there's no randomity there at all, you see? There isn't any adventure. The whole Roman Empire was at a point where you had to be a Roman, and there was only one country and that was Rome, and that extended to all the borders of the civilized world and there was no other civilized world. That would be a very, very interesting thing.

"Well, let's get a visio on some of the places you lived."

You have the idea, for instance, you can go — pop over to France. Supposing you were a Frenchman and the French government said, "Well, we don't care much for you. In fact, we're going to hang you." And you could somehow or other slip out from under and go over to Holland and sit down, and the Holland government say, "Hello. Sign here."

"Oh, those years are just sort of blank to me."

But in the Roman Empire it wasn't like that. When you went out to the last boundary of the Roman Empire, you stepped from there into a land of people who beat drums or ate raw liver or something. They were just grim. Just no civilization. None. The white man who gets back in the bush and he just never sees another white man again and he'd never have a razor, he'd never have a bullet for a gun or anything like that. He'd just get suddenly shoved into the middle of some Godforsaken barbaric spot — boom — from there on.

"Let's get a visio on anything connected with her."

Well, that was the second you stepped off the Roman Empire into the rest of the world. If you were not in good with the Roman Empire, you were done. It was the empire of "no place to hide"; therefore, the Roman Empire could place time and space on the individual to a degree unknown today and so could assume this terrific static, cut down its randomity. The second it did that, the whole Roman state went mad. Interesting, because it made every Roman citizen MEST. Nobody could impose any time and space on himself at all and, as a consequence, everybody had to become MEST. You see?

"I don't know, I think we were married in 1932. No, it was 1940. No, that was her mother, I..."

I'm just pointing that up as a long, drawn-out example just to drive it home, that you can take a state and it can go to the point where you tell everybody in the state, "Well, you have no personal goal; there is no such thing as a personal goal anyway, and there's an unachievable personal goal and everybody knows you more or less can't achieve that and there are no rules and it's just ..

You'll find that you have walked right straight into the maze of unknowingness in this case. He can't place it in time, he can't place it in space, he hasn't got any eyesight on the subject, he can't hear a voice, he really can't tell you many of her characteristics. So what do we do to make a fast case out of this? We don't have to particularly go through the agonies of Theta Clearing this boy if we're just doing a fast patch-up. What do we do?

Well, that's a form of chaos. That's a complete chaos, because there's no goal. Individuals don't prosper in the absence of goals. It's saying to everybody, "You can't be anything unless you achieve this rank of the 'Placer-of-time-and-of-spacers' — unless you are the only one who says, 'Time and space, time and space,' and the energy in the time and space. If you're that person, you're all right, but nobody else in the society is all right except that person."

Well, we have him mock up a woman. And we start putting her in time – yesterday, tomorrow – and in spaces. And then make up spaces and put her in spaces. And then mock up some more women and then mock up some more women and some more women. And what do you know! All of a sudden, all of a sudden – is it his wife that appears? No. It was a girl that lived next door to him when he was sixteen. And did she louse him up like fire drill (as they used to say in the navy). And he's forgotten all about it. And her father threatened to have him run out of town. And oh, boy! And what do you know, after all this mock-up of women, women, women, all of a sudden there you are, he is looking at a picture of this girl. He's got a visio on this girl. Not just a visio of this first wife, but he's got a visio of this earlier girl.

You see what a society that's "free" runs into? It says, "Then there's only one job, that's the Grand Bolinkan. And he's the only one that it's worthwhile being, because he's the only fellow that can really impose any time and space." It's a complete myth, by the way. The Grand Bolinkan can't impose time and space. If you'll look at such fellows, they become old and haggard in a very short space of time. They are obviously MEST belonging to the state.

Now, you do things with that until he can create many of her, he can place her in many places, and until he can actually blow her up. And you create some more of her and blow her up some more. And then you place her some more places, and you take the actual facsimiles with regard to her and you place those around in times and spaces. You don't run them. And all of a sudden he says, "What are we doing this for? I'm bored stiff."

All right. Let's take the other side of it that says, "Everything is imposed on time and space and you've got to be in the time and space imposed," and so forth.

And you say, "Well, how do you feel?"

You'd have two universes of opposite polarity and neither one would work. One is all static: everybody has got to be everything which he's got to be and he's got no choice of any kind. Or everybody has to be the thing which has choice or he will have no choice. One is the completely free state; the other is completely frozen state. You have theta and MEST there, actually, in essence.

"Well, I feel fine. I feel..." He'll say, "Say, that's funny. That's the first time in five years I haven't had this headache."

A happy randomity lies between these two points, so that you could actually fix up your preclear so he was able to order everything in all directions — just complete, utter despotism — and he wouldn't be a happy man.

Just as silly as that.

That's why he finally broke down and got into the MEST universe a little bit. Now it was all right for him to be in the MEST universe a little bit, but to be in the MEST universe and say, "I am MEST. I am a body. I am a thing made out of MEST. I have only within myself the laws and capabilities of MEST and I am not capable of anything else" — which is the usual state of Homo sapiens — why, he's nothing.

Now, when I talk about diagnosis, you're dealing with something that's a vessel of knowledge. And you want to get out the most hidden knowledge that you can get out. One of the fastest ways you can get it out is just take and split it up and take each one of these big areas and find out if there's anything faintly wrong with any one of those areas. And then just spot the one you find the most wrong with, throw the rest of them overboard – you don't care about those – and just process this one area that you found in bad shape. And all of a sudden, what do you get? You get the datum of his life hitherto hidden from view suddenly flashing into view.

But at the same time, I'm showing you now why the absolute is unobtainable in making one's own universe. The absolute is a bit unobtainable — is because you get up there so high you have a despotism and you are the despot, and you get bored with it and you want some chance to enter in on it. So, you'll buy somebody else's illusion, full knowingly, in order to enter it in upon your own universe in order to produce some randomity and something with which you'll have to cope and some problem you'll have to solve. You'll know more about this on a complete review of the Axioms.

All of a sudden, by the way, because of past lives and things like that, you're liable to find some girl way down the time track. And he starts to get this strange feeling about this thing. "You know, I've seen her someplace?"

Well, this should tell you, then — this should tell you, then, that there could be a sickness of a fellow being a despot. There could be. Well, let's say you ran into this big motor manufacturer and he was quite ill. He was bored with it all and he wasn't getting on in life or anything of the sort and he was ill. And yet everybody had to do everything he said. Everybody had to do everything that he said. There wasn't any chance of his stepping outside that frame of reference at all. Now, supposing you ran into that as a case. It would actually require, theoretically, the reduction of some of his despotism and the entrance into his existence of a little more randomity.

He should have, he was married to her for fifty years.

If you came up and said, "Well, you know, it's a funny thing, although you do rule absolutely in this motor empire of yours, it so happens there's a janitor in plant number five who never follows your instructions." This guy is liable to snarl and roar and thump around and so forth. He's got to find that janitor. He's got some randomity.

Okay. Now, Logic 14 – Factors introduced into a problem or solution which do not derive from natural law but only from authoritarian command aberrate that problem or solution – goes with Logic 15: The introduction of an arbitrary into a problem or solution invites further introduction of arbitraries into problems and solutions.

That's a silly example, perhaps, but you actually could have a fellow so burdened with an ennui caused by an inability to be disobeyed — you theoretically could have that. But I'm giving it to you theoretically because you won't find it in this universe, and you won't find it in anybody who's got a body.

That's the introduction of an arbitrary. And you'll find any science has gone off of its wheels when someone introduced into that science an arbitrary. You'll find any government departed from rationality and from good government the day they passed an arbitrary law. It had no basis in natural cause or in custom – which is about the same as natural law – it simply got passed one day. And then you find that to enforce it they had to pass something else. And then it made something else go off of its wheels and you had to pass something else to patch that up.

If you find this motor manufacturer, you'll find out he is really sick because nobody obeys him. Nothing obeys him. He says, very logically, "I have just sold a hundred thousand cars. Our plant capacity is two hundred thousand cars and I just sold a hundred thousand cars to Buenos Aires. And all we have to do is manufacture them in the next couple of years and we're all set and all the employees will be paid and everybody will be very happy."

But then because that made five other factors go wrong, you had to create bureaux in order to keep those five others in place. And then, because that made so many arbitrary factors that went so wrong, then you had to appoint a board to oversee this whole field and regulate it. But that board, because it was on an arbitrary factor, knocked everything wrong. And the next thing you know, why, you have a fascist dictatorship. But of course when that passes away you get a communism. And you have to put in... What do you get? You get descending tone scale from any introduction point of an arbitrary. Get that.

And the vice-president will sit down with the board and they will figure out 8,675 reasons why they are actually in bankruptcy and why this can't be done. And we'll finally find out that somebody doesn't make a ruddy rod for that particular car; and ruddy rods cost one penny apiece and so therefore the whole project's got .. .

You want to trace where an individual started descending the tone scale, find out where the arbitrary was introduced upon him which did not agree with his own needs or the dynamics or an optimum solution or anything else. Someone introduced, by force or trickery upon him, an arbitrary factor which had no bearing in natural law. And he's been going off of the road ever since. And he's clear over there in the jungle. And he's all messed up and mogged down in the sand and threatened with wild beasts on every hand. And he can't figure out how he got there. He was a good, clean young boy – he'll say this to himself quietly. He was a good, clean young boy and he meant well and he studied hard and he knew the road and he knew how to drive, and here he is over here in this sand pile. And he keeps saying, "What happened?"

And this fellow, whatever he's doing, whatever he'd want to do, he has to get up and go down to the board meeting, take the head off the vice-president, throw it in the middle of the table, jump on it a few times, go around and convince every member of the board that he's about to be eaten alive, beat the thing down through the lines, open the communication lines where they are shut, procure the material, build the first car himself, put it on the boat, drive it for the Argentinian . . . I mean, almost that bad.

Well, what happened was that an arbitrary became introduced into his existence. And when that arbitrary was introduced into his existence, nothing else could fit with it. And so he had to make new arbitraries, which made new arbitraries. The next thing you know, he had totally false gods, false values, there was nothing real. And the funny part of it is, he didn't think anything in the whole universe was real either. After he got through, he was certain there was no reality left.

What's wrong with him is he can't get anybody really, although he ought to. And again, we have a divergency of goals.

Now, down tone scale is from the point of first introduction of an arbitrary. A person's inability to feel the reality of things stems immediately from an arbitrary point, an arbitrary introduction of some sort, which had no basis in natural law, cause, fact or anything. You start searching this law out, you start reading him on an E-Meter and you'll trace this back, back, back, back, back. And all of a sudden – it'll be the darnedest thing – something strange happened one day. And if you want the point in one lifetime which makes the electric lights of a fellow turn on, you just look for that first arbitrary. You'll find it pretty early, but it's totally unreasonable. And that's what's wrong with it.

So, it ought to be dawning on you that a thing tries to reach the goal which it is. Its goal is to be its own beingness and its randomity is how short-it falls of being its own beingness — and that's its randomity — and its struggle to be its own beingness.

He's always gone along with it but it's totally unreasonable, and he's always fought it, and it's suspended in view, and he has to do this and that. And that's the way it is.

This should tell you volumes in therapy. This should just tell you about therapy — it appears to be so simple and it is something that you say, "Well, of course I know that and nobody would overlook it." But don't you overlook applying this. Don't overlook — just because it's simple.

And Logic 16 is: An abstract postulate must be compared to the universe to which it applies and brought into the category of things which can be sensed, measured or experienced in that universe before such postulate can be considered workable.

The goal of a thing is to attain its own beingness.

That sounds very erudite, doesn't it? That merely says if you're going to have an x and y in a mathematical equation, you better show wherein the x's and y's is. It says that those x's and y's have to be brought into the category of things which can be sensed, measured and experienced. It tells you that a mathematical formula is of no use whatsoever until real values are put into it. It really is of no use unless someplace, somewhere along the line, somebody puts a universe in there. It's an abstract nothingness.

You've got to handle the future in processing, in the MEST universe. You've got to handle the time track into the future if you're going to produce a fast, good result, and therefore you're going to have to handle the goals of the individual. And if you handle the goals of the individual, you have to find out what were the goals of the individual and when did they fail in his lifetime. And with this process you would do an assessment of this character.

And the fellow will say, "I can figure this and figure this. I can figure x and x's are fine and infinities. And I can figure G's and zeros," and so on. And "I'll figure all these things, and I'll figure 'em..." and boy, he has a lot of fun.

We have a definition: What is a goal?

And you say, "Hey! Hey, hey, where are you?"

A goal is to attain one's own beingness.

The fellow says, "I can't even hear your voice." He's gone.

What is the goal of theta?

By the way, when you process some people, they have done practically that. They have actually done practically that. Now, they'll have a universe of their own. And they'll find this universe of their own is no good. This universe is no good. Why? Well, it's just the fact that they couldn't apply it in any fashion to anything they were doing, and it doesn't have any relationship. And besides, it's just idle daydreaming and it never got them anyplace and it doesn't have any purpose. And they feel kind of sad about the whole thing because they couldn't think up anything original anyway. And you get this thing.

The goal of theta is to exist as theta, which happens to be completely motionless. It has no motion in it, it has no wavelength in it, it has no energy on it. All it does is impose space, time, energy. It's a static. It's complete motionlessness.

So where do you pick up where they thought daydreaming was idle? Daydreaming, once upon a time, was the life and death of their very beingness. Later on it became daydreaming. How did it become daydreaming? That's an interesting thing to know.

What is the goal of theta in terms of the MEST universe?

Completely aside from this fact, the reason why this is here is just hopeful that someday somebody won't come up with this perfectly wonderful thing, transcendental "truth": All knowledge is beyond the realm of human experience. Let's just skip that one. It's not.

It would just be to impose things on the MEST universe, if it had a goal about the MEST universe. That's all. To impose things, not to be the MEST universe. That is not its goal, that's its ultimate. The reductio ad absurdum, actually, of theta is complete motionlessness and an unlimited imposition of time and space from that motionlessness. Fascinating. If it's able to do that, it would be itself.

Logic 17: Those fields which most depend upon authoritative opinion for their data least contain known natural law.

And what's the goal of MEST? And this should tell you a lot about down Tone Scale, low-toned people — the goal of MEST.

Want an example? Art. It really depends upon authoritative opinion – really does. Art does. Somebody comes in and he says, "Now you see these new cubist-modernistic impressionisms?" Now, he says, "they're the thing." And you look at these things and they just don't make sense, except they give you kind of bad eyesight.

When people are well down and plowed into the MEST universe they have the goals of MEST, and those are laid out on that Evaluation Chart. And I have seen no reason ever since that was written to depart from it, even in one spot, one hair.

You say, "Well, I guess they're the thing." How do you know they're the thing? Well, there isn't any way you know, because there's no law behind art. There could be.

Because the goals of MEST are the beingness of MEST, and that's chaos, disorderly chaos. And if it moves anything, it does it with force. And the goal of a MEST person, if he tries to do anything, is to employ force, heavy force.

Oh, by the way, that is a good one for you from this standpoint – this on a diagnosis becomes very interesting: The preclear who says, "Bang, bang! It is so, it is so, it is so. This is, that is, and so..." Boy, you got yourself a case. You got yourself a case who is so far gone on knowingness he is fighting his last- ditch action. He doesn't know. The only thing that's left of him is to be highly authoritative. And if he feels he can be authoritative enough, why, gosh, he somehow or other will be able to make it. But he doesn't know. And you'll find out that he knows he doesn't know. He's fighting the front edge of a very, very tight balloon that is liable to be punctured at any instant.

Well, a person has got to be able to use MEST universe force. He's got to be able to use force in one characteristic or another, just so that he can impose his will on force. You're not asking him to use force, you're asking him to get up to a point where he can impose his will on force, and if he can impose his will in an unlimited fashion upon force itself, believe me, he's never going to use it. He doesn't have to. He never has to employ force. He thinks that something so-and-so and so-and-so and it becomes so-and-so and so-and-so. Where's the force? Wouldn't be any force. He would actually be able to think force out of existence.

Now, Logic 18: A postulate is as valuable as it is workable.

You get this silly situation. This fellow would get into a boxing ring and his opponent would leap out of the corner with a big maul fist clenched to hit him in the head — bang! The other boxer would be awfully surprised, awfully surprised. He either wouldn't have any fist or he would cease to exist and be back in his corner again — but the fight would never get to the first gong. Or the fight would all be over and the opponent boxer would be in the dressing room and so on, in horrible condition, and everybody in the crowd would be convinced there had been a fight, but there wasn't any.

That's very self-evident, but you wouldn't think so with people. Sometimes it's the postulate "Well, I made up my mind to believe myself, and after this I'm going to believe myself. And although this keeps giving me awful headaches, I've still made up my mind to that effect." You see, that's not a valuable postulate at all, because it doesn't work. Idiotically simple, that one is.

In other words, you've just got enormous randomity of what would happen between two human beings using force, one of which uses force and the other which uses theta. Now, the one who wants to use force wants to get in there, slug and hit; and the heavier, the bigger the boxer there is, the more he specializes in chaotic use of. He's got so much weight and so much strength and so much force and he can absorb so much punishment that he can permit himself to be hit at will; therefore, he needs no defense. And he can hit at will, therefore, and obviously if anything ever connected with one of those blows, it's gone.

Logic 19: The workability of a postulate is established by the degree to which it explains existing phenomena already known, by the degree that it predicts new phenomena which, when looked for, will be found to exist, and by the degree that it does not require that phenomena which do not exist in fact to be called into existence for its explanation.

So all he has to do is step into the ring and hit one blow — and that was Joe Louis. He needed no finesse, no dodge, nothing. He might even have had a shadow of these things, but eventually he was knocked to pieces. His body couldn't stand up under that amount of punishment, which was probably a great surprise, especially to Joe Louis. I should think he would have been utterly amazed the first time he ever got beaten up in a ring. Probably never entered his calculations.

You want to study that one out someplace, I'll give you a simpler way to study it. Just go look up the works of a fellow by the name of Hegel.

His calculation was "force does it." He was imposing non-beingness on his opponent, non-beingness in terms of force. It's very fascinating that Joe Louis was himself quite a guy — is quite a guy. And it's very fascinating, however, that anybody with a wild or radical idea can come around and talk to Joe and sell him a bill of goods. This fellow is an utter puppet in the hands of anybody who operates from the theta side of the ledger, just a puppet; he dances on any string. Isn't that fascinating.

The wild abandon with which certain writers of the past have been able to just leap out into thin air and say, "Well, there it is!" And everybody sort of waits for them to fall. They don't fall. They seem to stay there in thin air, saying "There it is." And so after a while everybody starts to believe them. They must be there; they're defying all known laws.

And it happens that that's the case with nations. If any nation were involved in the wild hysteria of war, all force, force, force — you know it's the strangest thing that it's never happened that somebody suddenly got up and said into the middle of this chaos, in a loud, firm voice so that it could be heard — which said, "There is a better way to do this and it is so-and-so and so-and-so." And didn't go around and suggest it to somebody, but said, "It's so-and-so and so-and-so and that's the way it's going to be." And got four people to do it, and then eight people to do it, and then twenty people to do it and twenty-four hours later had the whole nation doing it. Isn't that strange? It's mostly because theta realizes it can't reach — possibly reach its goal in this universe. It just couldn't do that. It's too simple — too simple.

A person could come in and say, "The moon is made of green cheese." And he says, "The moon is made of green cheese," and then we go up and we look and see if the moon is made of green cheese. And it's not made of green cheese. Well, the theory which led him to believe that the moon [is] made of green cheese is then probably not very workable.

I put this to test, by the way. I have told a group of men that the time and the place was this and the goal was that. Just like that! No compromise or apology. Here was a group of men used to using force and nothing but force, you see? Force. That was the big stuff, that was to what they went down. All of a sudden you just said, "This time, place, object," and they didn't even look like they believed it, but the next five minutes, that was it. I mean, it wasn't a case of "Let's think it over and let's believe it and then we will become it, maybe, in a reserved fashion." No, we just created it.

But a fellow sits down and he says, "Hmm. The moon must be covered by pumice." We go up and we take a look at the moon and, sure enough, it's covered by pumice. Now, the theory from which he's working must be a good theory because it predicted phenomena which, when looked for, was found to exist. You get this as a test, then, of a theory. In the matter of how to think, you're always thinking from postulates. You assume something is true and then you try to find out if it is true.

You should know that you as an auditor, operating from an altitude of some success in the line, can actually just tell the time and space and the preclear that all is well, and it is.

Now, 20: A science may be considered to be a large body of aligned data which has similarity in application and which has been deduced or induced from basic postulates.

That's faith healing. Do you get it as a definition? You get a definition now for faith healing. The fellow — only the faith healer comes around and says, "You've got to have faith, you've got to do this, you've got to do that and wiggle your left ear and believe it and think the right thought and so on. And if you go at it in exactly this order and you do this and you drop the right penny in the right collection plate, and don't think of the word hippopotamus at midnight, you'll get well."

That's just so science will have a definition.

And of course, the poor patient says, "Have I got to do all this?"

Twenty-one: Mathematics are methods of postulating or resolving real or abstract data in any universe and integrating, by symbolization of data, postulates and resolutions.

Actually, the only really successful faith healers of which we have any record at all — amongst those, of course, Christ — you won't find even in the most misquoted version of the life of Christ, him going around and saying, "Well, now think some right thoughts, now ride on the right foot, now the left foot, now don't think of the word hippopotamus, now we will all get down on the bed together and pray." No, he says, "You're well. Pick up your bed and walk." Boom! Fellow's well. He can't help but be well. He's hit by an impact — he's hit by this impact of certainty — complete, absolute certainty that this is the time and this is the space in which the person is well.

That gives mathematicians headaches; they don't like that one.

It isn't done by force; it's done by a complete disdain of force or a complete control of force. So force, so what!

Logic 22: The human mind is an observer, postulator, creator and storage place of knowledge.

Now, bountifulness and so forth — it says he provides fish and bread, something, for the multitude. He says, "All right, there's some fish and there's some bread. All right, that's the way it is." And everybody eats. Fascinating. All he's doing is operating from a high post of imposition of energy and space and time in the shape and form of energy, that's all.

So you're studying a secondary manifestation from knowledge, but you're studying it because it is a vessel and creator of knowledge – and destroyer also.

And the funny part of it is, is you don't have to get down and grunt and moan and grip yourself and twist earrings around twelve times or part your hair with a saber-toothed tiger, or beat a drum or wear an amulet. All of those things are symptoms of fear. They say, "I can't do it."

Logic 23: The human mind is a servomechanism to any mathematics evolved or employed by the human mind.

And you will find that your problems of a society go off just as well as the people of that society can think. And that any solution you introduce into any problem with the preclear goes off just as well and no better than he can assimilate it or be a servomechanism to that theory. And you may know very well that the reason why that preclear is ill is because of so-and-so and so-and-so, and that is your theory. And your preclear just is plain incapable of grasping this theory. That might as well be the wrong answer. Why? His mind is a servomechanism to your theory. And don't you ever forget that in processing.