I want to talk to you now some more about the Axioms.

Having these Axioms we are now particularly interested in this whole subject of truth and its actual use in auditing. We see immediately that any problem of any character or scope is the basic business of a Scientologist. If you have someone who wants to know about solutions, you had certainly better give him not a solution to a problem but the solution to problems, and that of course would be a basic and ultimate truth. Well, if you can describe a basic and ultimate truth, and describe it exactly, you have no problem at all in solving problems.

It's a remarkable thing that life itself can be codified in terms of axioms. It has not been done before. The first time it was attempted is when I wrote up the Logics and Axioms way back there, couple of years ago.

We see that failure to discover truth brings about stupidity. A person begins to believe he's stupid if he can't As-is.

Well, it's more than that; that's about three years ago. And I wrote these things up simply to give an alignment to thought itself. And as a matter of fact, copies of these Axioms were sent over to Europe and just a year ago I found them in Vienna, fully translated into German, which is quite remarkable. But over there they were terribly impressed, simply because it had not been done: nobody had codified life to this degree and nobody had codified psychotherapy. And they were not impressed as to whether they were right or wrong, it's just that nobody had done it before.

We see that the discovery of truth would bring about an As-is-ness, by actual experiment, and thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place or form.

Well, we are not quite doing the same thing here. Those Axioms were quite complicated, and the Axioms which we have here in the summary of Scientology in the Auditor's Handbook are nowhere near as lengthy, but they pack a great deal more punch.

Whatever we had there would simply disappear if we discovered an ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is a perfect duplicate and therefore a Static. And, operationally, to achieve a Static would be to make a perfect duplicate.

Now, let's take up something very, very interesting. Let's take up proof of ultimate truth.

We see that a lie as we understand it is an alteration of time, place, event or form, and that only lies persist.

If we have reached an ultimate truth, then we have reached an ultimate solution. And who would ever suspect, really, that an ultimate truth or an ultimate solution could be subjected to mechanical proof? Who would dream this?

We have to have a basic postulate, and then another postulate, before we get time. Two postulates. We can't have time with one postulate unless it is the postulate that there will be time. That could be one postulate. But normally in operation we find that two postulates are necessary to achieve time.

Well, certainly I never would have dreamed it, and yet we have done just that. I discovered the phenomenon of a perfect duplicate. Now, you'd better know what a perfect duplicate is. We get that in Axiom 20: Bringing the static to create a perfect duplicate causes the vanishment of any existence or part thereof.

Now which one of these postulates is going to persist if the two postulates deny each other: the second one is going to persist, because it is the time postulate.

You understand that – that if you can get a life form to make a perfect duplicate of anything, it will vanish. Now, that's quite remarkable. We have a perfect duplicate very, very clearly defined. It is an additional – now get that additional – it's an additional creation of the object, its energy and space in its own space, its own time, using its own energy. And we could append to that the considerations which go along with it because it couldn't be anything but considerations.

Lying becomes an Alter-is-ness, and becomes stupidity. In other words, we don't discover where the thing is, we don't discover exactly how it is, so we can't unmock it, and there we are. The only thing that we can do with it possibly is to Not-is it or Alter-is it some more or do what a Black V does – just stir it around and hope it will disappear. He doesn't As-is it. It doesn't disappear.

Now, this violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes the vanishment of the object. The second that you violate this rule which holds universes together, which is that two objects must not occupy the same space, and we make two objects occupy exactly the same space, why, we get a vanishment.

Oddly enough, lying will develop into a stupidity. It also develops into a mystery – into this blackness which individuals are so upset about. It's just an alteration of time, place, event or form after the fact of its having been created.

Now, this is quite remarkable. But if you will ask somebody to simply make a perfect duplicate of something, well understanding exactly what a perfect duplicate is, if you ask him to make a perfect duplicate for instance, of a vase, just exactly where it sits, it will start to fade out on him. And he can do that to almost anything.

There would be two kinds of lie here. A mechanical lie does not lead to blackness.

Now, why doesn't it fade for somebody else? Why doesn't this perfect duplicate fade for somebody else? Well, it's quite remarkable. Do you know that everything in this universe is displaced or misplaced?

Mechanical lie: we mock up some space, and we put an object in that space and then we move it. The moment we've moved it we've lied about it. We've said it's over there when as a matter of fact it was created in the first location. Now in view of the fact that there is only consideration this of course would bring about mechanically a lie. It doesn't disappear, it doesn't do anything peculiar simply by moving it around. The mere handling of energy does not bring about a stupidity. It takes another consideration than simply moving something to bring about an occlusion.

Now, when we say "a lie," when we talk about a lie, we really don't mean that simply changing the position of something is a lie. We have to alter the consideration regarding it to make a lie. Now, it isn't really a lie that everything is so scrambled in this universe, but believe me, it's scrambled. Just in the last moment or two, several cosmic rays went through your body.

Now, anything to persist must avoid As-is-ness, and thus anything to persist, really to persist, must contain a lie. And we get the next Axiom:

Now, those were all particles. They emanated from someplace else and they came down where you are. Maybe they've been en route for a hundred million years – who knows. And there they are.

Axiom Thirty-Nine: Life poses problems for its own solution.

Now, to get one of those cosmic rays to vanish, it would be necessary to pick its point of creation. And we would have to find its point of creation, and we would have to make a duplicate of the ray at the moment of its creation. And then we would have to make a duplicate of having done so. And instantly that cosmic ray would vanish. There is no doubt about this whatsoever.

Now what do we find here, in a problem? We find something which is persisting, the As-is-ness of which cannot readily be obtained, and would be the definition of a problem.

There is how you make a perfect duplicate.

Now to solve that problem it would be necessary to get its As-is-ness. Well, how do we prevent something from being As-ised, in other words vanished? We introduce a lie into it.

Now, if you can make a perfect duplicate and make something disappear, why, you have of course achieved a vanishment. And this means, then, that you have achieved something which is quite interesting. It's very interesting to the physicist; it's very interesting to almost anybody. But it is demonstrable. You can do this.

Axiom Forty: Any problem, to be a problem, must contain a lie. if it were truth, it would unmock.

Now, I asked one of our better auditors the other day: he was foolish enough to sit down and let me process him while I was doing something else. And I told him simply to look over to the wall over there, and pick a very small area and get the atoms and molecules in the wall there, and put an attention unit – you know, a little attention unit, a remote viewpoint – next to each one and follow it immediately back to where it had been created.

When the preclear is being a problem, we know very well that there's a lie somewhere on the track that he's trying to obtain the As-is-ness of. It's not necessarily his lie, but it certainly is a lie. And under Axiom Forty we get: An "unsolvable problem" would have the greatest persistence.

And he came off of the fender of that car as though he had been shot, because the object itself, this tiny portion of the object, started to disintegrate. And he rushed over to it to hold it into place. Well, it was an interesting experiment. Because he'd heard all this and he didn't quite believe it. But the second that he realized that, it was fine.

It would also contain the greatest number of altered facts. To make a problem, one must introduce Alter-is-ness.

Well now, why doesn't the whole universe vanish? Well, let me point out to you that probably on the very site of this building there was another building once. Where's that other building? It's been broken up and the bricks have been moved, and part of it's out here in the street, and there's part of it still in the ground below you, part of it maybe has – oh, I don't know – some brick dust got on somebody's suitcase who went to World War II and part of it's in Germany and… In other words, it's spread all over the place.

In other words, this problem must have been moved and shifted and shoved around considerably to be unsolvable.

And here are all these waves and rays going all over the universe. And to get each one of those at its moment of creation, in the time and space of moment of creation, using itself as its own energy, would be quite a job. And it's not an impossible job. It merely means that it's a job that requires an ability to span attention like mad.

Axiom Forty-One: That into which alter-is-ness is introduced becomes a problem.

You would get, then, a physical object to disappear so thoroughly that everybody else would know it was gone if you got all these various parts. You see, it isn't true that an object sitting before you at this moment – or your chair – has always been in that position; nor it isn't true that the materials in that chair have always been in that position; nor is it true that the atoms which made up the materials in their raw-material form were always in that particular ore bed or in that particular tree. So you see, it's quite complex. This universe is very mixed up. It doesn't mean you can't make it vanish, however.

Any time you Alter-is something you've got a problem on your hands.

Now, the second that we get this perfect duplicate and the second we can produce this phenomena, we know we have an ultimate solution. Now, we will go into that much more deeply here when we get to the last part of the Axioms. But I merely want to call that to your attention right here: that the perfect duplicate was the little latch string hanging out that opened the door to an ultimate truth.

This whole universe, then, is a problem. Therefore this whole universe must contain alie to go on persisting the way it does. It certainly does contain Alter-is. It certainly does contain a lie. It contains a variety of lies about its creation, and there are all sorts of things about this universe which cause its persistence, and all of those things boil down to the one fact that it must be based upon a lie and it must be very definitely altered.

Well, what would an ultimate truth be? Well, we'll take that up a little bit later. But an ultimate truth is a static and an ultimate solution is a static. In other words, an ultimate truth and an ultimate solution is nothing. You get the as-isness of any problem, you make a perfect duplicate of any problem, and the problem will disappear.

Axiom Forty-one tells us that it was alteration which brought the preclear into having a problem. Thus we find any child who has moved extensively, who has had his home changed, who has been shoved around to various parts of the world, eventually becomes a problem, first to the environment and then to himself.

Now, you can subject that to truth, too. So if you can make a problem disappear by simply getting its as-isness, then you've got the solution to all problems, haven't you? Well, the mest universe itself is just a problem. And if you could make it all disappear just by getting its as-isness, it would disappear. It'd disappear for everybody.

Axiom Forty-Two: MEST (matter, energy, space, time) persists because it is a problem.

All right. Let's study that and get that very good and get what a definition is, there, in the Auditor's Handbook. And let's get that definition of a perfect duplicate and let's understand it very, very well because contained right in that is the total solution, by the way, to a mental therapy, Dianetics, of which you may have heard something.

It is a problem because it contains Alter-is-ness.Your physicist is busily at work trying to unmock it but he is unmocking it by Not-is – ness. He's using force to alter force, and because he keeps altering it, it all naturally just gets worse and worse. He will solve nothing with an atom bomb. He will simply make things go worse, more complicated, more confused, more dispersed. The atom bomb is a dead-end track and is folly, it is great folly.

And the vanishment of engrams, the vanishment of ridges, of all energy forms and manifestations, can simply be accomplished by making perfect duplicates of them. That doesn't mean that you should go around trying to make nothing out of everything or get your preclear to try to make nothing out of everything. But it just can be done.

If an atom bomb were introduced into a war the number of particles and the amount of MEST which would be altered, we would discover immediately, would have introduced a great number of lies into the situation, it would have deteriorated the society and everything else. If we were foolish enough, for instance, to atom bomb Russia, or if Russia were foolish enough to atom bomb the United States, enough confusion would have been introduced into the cultures of earth so that probably there would be no other choice but to sink into a barbarism, in the absence of an understanding of life itself.

If you wanted to make a mest Clear, you could use the principle of the perfect duplicate to do it in a very short space of time. He'd not only be Clear, he wouldn't have a body, either.

Axiom Forty-Three: Time is the primary source of untruth.

All right. Let's take up number 21: Understanding is composed of affinity, reality and communication. The understanding that we have of an understanding is, of course, a broad collection of data – that's what we would consider understanding. "I understand this data."

Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations.

Well, let's get understanding just a little bit better. Do we understand that understanding is simply the ability to get the as-isness of something? In other words, you go around and you say," I don't quite understand this car." And we walk around it – "Don't quite understand what's wrong with this car; it just won't start."

I call your attention to interest, as an interesting thing to observe. There are two classes of interest, and we want to know why we're thinking about this in terms of time, and this is because time is the basic lie behind all lies. We believe there are consecutive moments. We see consecutive motions and this all very pleasant – we agree to this – and it's only when we have masked them with some vicious intent that we really get a kick-back from the progress of time.

And we walk around it, and then we find out we haven't turned on the key. And we turn on the key; we have understood it, in other words. We have unmocked the fact that the key was not turned on and we have turned on the key.

But we discover here in the matter of interest that we have two facets: one is "interested", and the other is "interesting".

Now, that actually is practicing alter-isness. If we walked around this car and said, "I don't understand what this object is, I don't understand what this object is… Ah! It's a car," we would feel immediately relieved; we'd feel a lot better about the thing.

A thetan is interested, and an object is interesting. A thetan is not interesting. He is interested. And when a person becomes terribly interesting he has lots of problems, believe me. That is the chasm that is crossed. That is the chasm which is crossed by all of your celebrities, anybody who is foolish enough to become famous. He crosses over from being interested in life to being interesting, and people who are interesting are really no longer interested in life. It's very baffling to some young fellow why he can't make some beautiful girl interested in him. Well, she is not interested, she is interesting.

But if we were to get its total as-isness, it would just be a hole sitting there. So understanding is as-isness. And understanding, in its entirety, would be a static. And so we have the fact that life knows basically everything there is to know before it gets complicated with lots of data, merely because it can postulate all the data it knows.

Axiom Forty-Four: Theta (the static) has no location in matter, energy, space, or time. It is capable of consideration.

In other words, all knowingness is inherent in the static itself. A thetan who is in good shape knows everything there is to know. He knows past, present and future; he knows everything. This doesn't mean he knows data. This merely means that he can as-is anything. And if he can as-is anything, believe me, he can understand it.

We have put it right in there again just to drive it home well. There's no time in this Static. Time is a lie.

Man's salvation, I have said several times, depends upon his recognition of his brotherhood with the universe. Well, let's misinterpret that just a little bit and say," Well, man's salvation (if you wanted to mean save him from the universe) would depend upon his ability to make an as-isness of the physical universe, at which moment he wouldn't have a universe.

Time can be postulated by the Static but is only a consideration and thereafter a thetan gets the idea that he is persisting across a span of time, and he is not.

And this would be total understanding.

He is not persisting. Objects are going across time, and energies and spaces are changing, but he is not. At no time does he actually change. He has to consider he is in a head before he can be put out of one, and that he is out before he can be out.

Well, this understanding has three parts, and this is affinity, reality and communication. Well, I've mentioned that to you before. And we know quite a bit about that. As a matter of fact, there's a total book on this subject. It's an old book and doesn't contain as many refinements as we have today, but affinity, reality and communication are very, very useful to the auditor. You should understand them very, very well. That's A, R, C.

A Step V, or Black Five, is quite interesting in this regard. He is always thinking the auditor's going to reach in and pull him out of his head. He's waiting for something else to do it! Of course you could probably hypnotize him and tell him that he was, and he'd probably react in various ways, but he has to say, "I am now out of my head," and then he will be out of his head. But "waiting to see" whether or not he's out of his head is complete nonsense. The only way that he can get anything done, is to consider that it is done, or consider that that is the condition which exists.

Now, you can actually take ARC and you can compose, out of ARC, all the mathematics there are. You can combine ARC into mathematics. You can do anything with ARC that you want to do. Symbolic logic, even calculus could be extrapolated from ARC. It's quite interesting.

Axiom Forty-Five: Theta can consider itself to be placed, at which moment it becomes placed, and to that degree a problem.

Affinity depends upon reality and communication; reality depends upon affinity and communication; communication depends upon affinity and reality. And as I used to say, if you don't believe this, try to communicate sometime with somebody and don't have any affinity at all. Just get real mad at somebody and try to communicate with him. You won't.

Any time we fall away from Axiom One, which is repeated as Axiom Forty-four, we discover that we have less of a Static than before. In other words we just place this Static, and it's less of a Static. A thetan, then, can have a problem, just by being placed. Quite in addition to that he ceases to be quite as interested.

Try to get somebody to be reasonable when he is very angry, and you'll find out his reality is very bad. He cannot conceive of the isness of the situation. He will give you some of the weirdest things. There is no liar lying like an angry man.

He himself, placing himself, can get away with it. This isn't very hard for him to do.

Now, if you raise somebody's affinity, you will raise their reality and communication; if you raise somebody's reality, you will raise their affinity and communication; if you raise somebody's communication, you will raise their affinity and reality.

And he can perceive from this new place, and so forth, but as long as he is placed, he will be less than the Static. Just remember that. He is to that degree a problem.

And the keynote of this triangle happens to be communication. Communication is more important than affinity and reality.

Axiom Forty-Six: Theta can become a problem by its considerations but then becomes MEST.

All right. Now, let's take up number 22, and find out that: the practice of not-isness reduces understanding. In other words, something is there and we say it's not there. That's a lie, isn't it? We're running down the road like mad and there's an enormous boulder lying in the middle of the road, and almost anybody, just before he has an accident, will say the boulder is not there. And by golly, it's there.

A problem is to some degree MEST, MEST IS a problem.

And this makes him feel that he's a bum thetan. He's failed. Well, the funny part of it is, if he were to say immediately, "As-is a boulder in the road," instead of denying the situation, and if he could do this – a perfect duplicate – well, the boulder would disappear.

What is this MEST? We find that an interested thetan is a thetan, but an interesting thetan has become MEST. What is MEST? Well, it's actually simply a composite of energies and particles and spaces which are agreed upon and which are looked at.

But he doesn't do it that way. He sort of puts some energy up there and sort of pushes against the boulder and he says, "It's not there. It's not there. I deny it."

We have the difference between inflow and outflow. A thetan who is being interested is simply outflowing. Interested – outflowing. Interesting – inflowing. He wants the attention of others to flow in to him: interesting. That's MEST. Attention of others flows to it. That doesn't tell you that all MEST is a series of trapped Thetans.

Well, he'll have a mighty thin understanding of the whole thing. He doesn't want to communicate with it, so he says it's not there. He doesn't want to have any affinity for it at all, so he said it isn't there. And believe me, his reality cuts down.

It says that it is a type of life which is being interesting, as opposed to something which is being interested in it.

After somebody has lost something or been through an accident, you would be surprised how poor their perception is, how poor their reality is. Everything looks very dim to them. They don't like it. That means their communication is off, their affinity is off, they don't like the world, they feel sad and so forth.

Now, Number Forty-six: Theta can become a problem by its considerations, but then becomes MEST, is followed by this, that MEST is a problem, and will always be considered a problem, and is nothing else but a problem. MEST is that form of theta which is a problem. That's all. Therefore, it is that form of theta which has a lie introduced into it. And so, of course, it is a problem.

Well, the practice of not-isness reduces understanding. And that is what man is doing all the time. He's trying to avow that something that isn't there is there, and he's trying to avow that something that is there isn't there, and between these two things – giving it no asisness at all or alter-isness or new postulates of any kind – he's having a lot of fun. Well, I don't know; some people claim it's fun anyway.

Axiom Forty-Seven: Theta can resolve problems.

All right, number 23: The static has the capability of total knowingness. Total knowingness would consist of total ARC.

Axiom Forty-Eight: Life is a game wherein theta as the static solves the problems of theta as MEST.

Well, we've just covered that. Here we have a condition of existence which is as-is. That'd be total knowingness. Well, if we had somebody who could say "As-is" to everything and trace all parts of everything back to the original time, spot, and so forth, and simply get them as they really were, we of course would have nothing left but a static. Naturally. We would not have anything else but a static. We would have zero. We wouldn't even have space.

Now that means that theta is the Static, and theta is the object? Yes, indeed. It can be both ways.

Now, that's why we say the static has capability of total knowingness. Total knowingness would consist of total ARC. By the way, if you wanted to make this whole universe vanish, you would have to be able to span this whole universe. You would have to be as big as the universe. And that isn't, by the way, very hard to do. You can drill somebody up to a point where he can do that.

It all depends on which one is being interested and which one is being interesting. And we find that a preclear gets more and more solid the more interesting he becomes, and the more problem he becomes; and the more problems he has and the more figuring he does on his problems, the more solid he is going to get.

But if you go into that to get him to make an as-isness of it, would you please let me know first? I've got a couple of old hats and a motorcycle, and so forth, that I'd like to alter very quickly at the moment he does this, so I'd at least be left with those.

Axiom Forty-Nine: To solve any problem it is only necessary to become theta, the solver, rather than theta, the problem.

Now, number 24 is: Total ARC would bring about the vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence. Now remember, all mechanical conditions of existence. It wouldn't bring about the sudden death of everything. It would bring about the exteriorization of everything. It would mean the vanishment of all space and all form. The mechanics.

That is a very, very important Axiom. That tells you why SOP 8C Opening Procedure works. It works because the main form of theta which we find desirable, which has mobility, which has freedom, which is happy, which is cheerful, which has all those qualities on the top of the Chart of Attitudes is an observer of problems and a solver of problems. So if you get somebody to simply look around the environment, he will cease to be a problem and will become the solver of problems. That's all. Just looking.

Now, you want to differentiate between a consideration and a postulate and a mechanic. Now, you want to get the difference between a quality such as complete trust, a quality such as full responsibility, and the mechanics.

Get him to look around and recognize a few problems and he will feel better.

Now, you get somebody who is a Step V or Step VI or Step X… And you'll get one of these fellows, and he will be all out for mechanics and he won't have anything to do with considerations. And he will believe completely that considerations are – well, they're no good: "Mechanics are the thing. You know, you can put your hands on it. You can feel it, you can touch it."

Somebody then who is worrying about himself constantly – well, he's all mixed up in a problem and his affinity is at a closure with this problem. He's having an awful time. Then let's take this and turn it around the other way and let's have him observe himself as a problem, and we get that part of the process which is "Problems and Solutions". And naturally, if we asked a thetan to be a solution often enough, he would eventually become a Static. That's all. If we asked him to observe problems long enough he would simply become a Static. In other words he would go out of it both ways.

Well, he has to be made thoroughly acquainted with the existence of these mechanics before he could as-is them enough so that he could get up to a point where he would have the ability to consider. That's why Opening Procedure of 8-C works. He has sunk below the level of mechanics.

A Thetan could become a problem, more of a problem, more of a problem, more of a problem, more and more and more and more and more and more – static. You see he could go "out the bottom".

Well, when we say mechanics we mean space, energy, objects and time. And when something has those things in it, we're talking about something mechanical.

Or, he could go: less of a problem, less of a problem, less, less – static. He could go either way. So there's no avoiding it, you're going to survive anyway, and so are your preclears, but we're going to have a better world doing it.

All right. That's all that would vanish if you as-ised all of existence. It would just be the mechanics. And you could turn right around and postulate them all back again, too, with great ease.

Axiom Fifty: Theta as MEST must contain considerations which are lies.

Only, if you do this, why, don't postulate them back with any politicians. We've had too many of them. Generals, too – you can omit the generals. Don't give them any mechanical forms.

In other words, there isn't a single piece of MEST in the world which isn't to some degree lying.

Number 25 of these Axioms and definitions: Affinity is the scale of attitude which falls away from the co-existence of static, through the interpositions of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.

Looking at that, then, we find that the only crime that you could possibly commit in this universe is being there. It doesn't matter where. This is the only crime that you could commit.

My, isn't that complicated? That is very, very complicated. Well, let's get this fairly straight, and let's realize that we probably could simplify that particular Axiom. If it's complicated like that, we probably don't know all there is to know about it. I probably got a blank spot here someplace.

And this is all your parents objected to, and this is all the preclear objects to when you're auditing him and he growls at you. They add tremendous significances into this, but all they object to is being there. Now if you ran SOP 8C, Opening Procedure, and you ran it very, very definitely with that postulate: to get the fact that the wall is there. Get the fact that the chair is there, that something else is there, etc., you'd be likely to knock your preclear flat at some point. I am not advising you to use this form of Opening Procedure. It's a violent process. If you get almost any preclear and just have him stand in the middle of the room, and say "get the idea", to that empty space out in front of you there, "that it's there", it's there, it's there – his mother will show up and eight or nine of his wives and all sorts of other things will show up all the way down the line. He'll have all kinds of people standing in front of him.

But affinity is simply a matter of distance, in terms of mechanics. Now, the second we get out of considerations and go into mechanics, what is affinity?

They're all "there". But that's the only crime a thetan can commit. It's a lie, you see. That theta can be there is a lie, and that's the only bad thing that anybody has ever done is to be there. Now, that's all, actually, that the body is doing. He's got a body and he's visible. He is being there.

Well, affinity is basically a consideration, so it isn't a mechanic at all. But it does represent itself mechanically. There are mechanical representations of it. For instance, total knowingness goes down to lookingness. You have to look to find out. Well, that's different than simply knowing without looking.

And we must have introduced a lie. And the basic lie which is introduced is Time.

Now we go down to looking.

It is interesting to note that it is the second postulate which persists, because persist means time, and it's the second postulate which introduces time, and this becomes elementary.

And now we go just a little bit lower than that – this is, by the way, an affinity scale – we go into emotion. And look, and then we no longer have knowledge by looking, we have to have knowledge by emotion. Do we like it, do we dislike it – emotionally? There are particles in emotion. "I don't like it. In other words, I have some anger particles about it or I have some resentment particles." By the way, a preclear has his bank full of these emotional particles.

Now let's look at this one: let's take this fellow who's awfully sick. He's terribly sick. Boy, is he a problem. He's a problem to himself, a problem to his family, and a problem to his auditor. He is a problem. He's terrific.

Now, if I have to feel it to know it's there, I've gone immediately into effort. My affinity for something would be good if I could feel it and it would be no good at all if I can't feel it. You get a Step V who is swearing by mechanics and swearing at all life forms (and who builds atom bombs and things like that), and we get this Step V telling you that he cannot contact life. He cannot contact life, so therefore – you know, we can't contact this thing called static, so therefore he can't believe in it.

You know that he must have had an original postulate that he was well before he could make the second postulate that he was sick. And you know the postulate that he was sick must have denied the postulate that he was well, and so his original sickness was a falsity and he knew it at the time he made it – he actually knew it well. He knew – when he said he was sick that day to keep from going to school – that it was a lie. He knew it was a lie and he got a persistence of the sickness and now here he is eighty-nine years of age and all crippled up and we find out that the basic postulate was the fact that he was well. How could sickness ever get any power except through wellness? Now we look underneath every lie to find out that it was the truth – the Static itself – which gave it power. The lie has no power itself because it is a perversion. Persistence has no power that is not based on the Static itself. So we have the basic lineup at all times and in all places, that the lie is empowered by truth. Truth must have existed and a good condition or quality must have existed prior to a bad condition or quality.

Well, this is very interesting. You ask him why. And he says, "Well, I can't feel it." Well, he's twisting the snake around so it'll eat its tail or something. He's proving it all upside down and backwards.

As we study the problem of goodness and badness in the world, we find out that we must be studying the second postulate, because that is all that persists.

He says he can't get the existence of something he can't feel. Well, the odd part of it is we can measure electronically the existence of life. There is a little meter which we have run some tests on, and we can actually demonstrate that one individual can turn on in another individual, at some great distance from him, a considerable electrical current – enough to make this little machine sit up and sing. And the other person can turn it on at will, and the person on whom it is being turned on can't stop it. Here's a manifestation which can be measured. We've done the impossible there, too. We've done the impossible in many places in Scientology.

Now let's take a situation where something is persisting – and it's good. We could say that that looks as if it must have been based upon a prime postulate which was bad. But you can't make a prime postulate which is a lie. If you'll just get the idea that there are no postulates, that you've made no postulates of any kind, that there are no postulates which have been made – now make a postulate. That would be a prime postulate. That postulate can't be a lie. Now make a second postulate denying the one you just made. That's a lie. Now which one of these two is going to persist? Of course the second one. And it is going to get its power from the first postulate.

You can't measure a static, but we've done so by making one person at a distance bring a mechanic into being.

It would not matter what the prime postulate was. That is not the point, here. We're not going on the basis of badness or goodness. A consideration is a consideration.

Now, affinity is this scale. It goes down through effort. When a person gets down to effort, then he's into a level where he's got to work, everything has got to be work; he's got to touch everything and feel everything before he can know anything. A person in that band, by the way – as he gets to the lower part of that band – has facsimiles. He will even do weird things like this: he will get a picture to know what's happening to him. In other words, he will get a picture of an incident to get an idea. He gets the picture and then he gets the idea. He doesn't get the idea and then get a picture.

Now, do we mean reach back on the track, and find these postulates? – reach back and run it out with straight-wire? No, because there is no time, and all address to the past – every address to the past and every address to the future actually is validating a lie. There's only now. There's never been anything else but now. There's a consistent change and a consistent series of postulates going on which give us a continuance of now, but the continuance of now is a lie.

You want to watch that. Sometime or another you'll find a preclear who is doing this. You'll be saying, "All right, now get the idea of being perfect." And your preclear will sit there and say, "I got it."

You can move objects around. That's quite honest compared to a contradiction, but we're looking at two kinds of a lie here. We discover that when we are trying to make a condition change we simply have to postulate, as though it exists in present time, the opposite condition.

You want to ask him "How did you do that?" – that's a wonderful question to ask a preclear at any time – "How did you do that?"

So somebody who hates the human race – he must have loved them desperately by prior postulate. There's no hatred like that which can exist between two brothers or a nation torn asunder in war. Well, that's because they loved each other so well, you see. And so they can hate with violence. But what is their hatred depending on but the fact that they loved each other? So if we have somebody hating madly somebody named Bill – we would say, "Now, get the idea of loving Bill." Grrrrr, he'd go. "Now, get the idea of loving Bill." Grrrr. "Get the idea of loving Bill." Grr. "Get the idea of loving Bill." "Well, he's not too bad a guy." We wouldn't necessarily restore love, but we'd certainly run out the hatred for Bill.

And he will say, "Why, of course, just like everybody else. I got this picture and this picture came up, and I looked at it, and the picture said, 'Be perfect' and so forth, and it showed me a circle. So a circle, that's perfect, so…"

That's the way your preclear was doing that. He wasn't making the postulate at all; he was waiting for a picture to come up and tell him what it was all about.

Well, now we go down from effort into thinking. And we get our figure-figure-figurefigure-figure case. Now, he's a hard boy to get along with because he can't work. His thought… Thought, by the way, is a colloquialism. Life is not composed of thought, particularly, it's composed of space and action and all sorts of things.

The static can do all these things. It's not necessarily pure thought. If you've got a hangover about pure thought from a field of Christianity, why, get rid of it. Because thinkingness comes in clear down below effort. And it comes in as figure-figure-figure-figure-figure.

Now, a person can postulate without thinking about it. If that's what we mean by thought, that's fine, but usually what people mean by thought is figure-figure-figure-figure. I'll just figure this out, and I'll get a computation, a calculation, and I'll add it up to "Now, let me see. Can you go to the movies? I don't know," they said when you were a little kid. "Now, let me see. I'll have to think it over. Give me a couple of days."

We don't know how all of this mechanic got into a postulate, but they've let it get in there. So that's our level of thinkingness.

Now, we go downstairs from thinkingness on this scale, and we get into symbolizingness. Symbolizingness is very interesting. A symbol contains mass, meaning and mobility. What is the definition of a symbol? A symbol is something that's being handled from an orientation point – a point which is motionless in relationship to the symbol (you know, it's motionless; the symbol is in motion) – and the symbol of that orientation point has mass, meaning and mobility.

"Where are you from?" "I am from New Jersey."

This fellow is telling you that he is from an orientation point called New Jersey, and it's motionless. And as he runs around the world he's always from New Jersey. He has mass, meaning and mobility; he has a name, he has mass, and so forth.

Well, when a person drops down the line below figure-figure, they're into a point of where they figure with symbols. Now, that's a condensation, isn't it? Now, each one of these was a condensation.

The next one down the line below symbols is eatingness. You know, animals eat animals. Animals are symbols and they eat other symbols. And they think they have to stay alive merely by eating other symbols.

This is real cute, and eating is quite important (of course, it can be a lot of fun). But here you have a real condensation. In other words, effort got so condensed that it turned into an inverted kind of thought. And that became so condensed that it packaged thinking, is what took place there; it became so condensed it became a symbol. A word, for instance, is a whole package of thought.

So packaged thinking is a symbol and packaged symbols are a plate of beans. Got that?

All right. Now, below that, when a person doesn't believe he can eat anymore, when he thinks he's not going to survive and so forth, he will go into the sex band. Now, as a witness of that, oh, if you starve cattle or something like that for a while, they'll start to breed. And if you feed them too well they'll stop breeding. It's quite irrational, but then who said any of this was rational?

Cattle who are starved or lacking certain food elements will decide, "Well, we'll live again in some other generation," and they'll breed up a lot of calves. Of course, there's nothing to feed the calves on, but they haven't paid much attention to that.

Now, here in Arizona we have an interesting fact. We have some very beautiful cattle who have stopped breeding. They've just been too well fed. The way you'd get those cattle breeding again, is you'd simply start starving them and you would get them breeding.

Down below sex, then – Freud, by the way, he was so condensed, he had to get clear down there to that condensation of sex – and down below sex we have a new level of knowingness. Only that, this time, is mystery and the level of mystery.

Now, mystery, of course, is a complete displacement of everything, which is in a terrific confusion. The anatomy of mystery, by the way, is unprediction, confusion and then total blankout.

You see, at first he couldn't predict some particles, and then this seemed awfully confusing to him, and so he just shut it all off and said," I won't look at it anymore." That's what mystery is, and your Step Level Vs, by the way, are very, very concerned about mystery. They are very concerned about thinkingness. They're trying to solve the mystery. Well, the mystery is already solved in an ultimate truth. An ultimate solution, of course, is simply the as-isness of the problem. And the as-isness of mystery is simply mystery, and that's really all there is to it.

There really is nothing to know back of a mystery, except the mystery itself. It's just its as-isness, but it's always pretending there is something to know earlier than the mystery.

Okay.