Now I want to talk to you about the most fundamental fundamental that there can be fundamental below the level of consideration.

Here we go into some items quite rapidly which we find are of considerable importance to us in Scientology. It is demonstrable material, or doctrine. This is the basic theory which underlies instruction and indoctrination.

I haven't talked to you very much about considerations. There really isn't very much to say about considerations. And I made a considerable number of lectures on the subject of consideration; everybody appears to be very confused after I lecture on the subject. Because consideration is a consideration and all things are a consideration of the consideration, so that if you consider something which is considerable, why, you have considered it. And various phenomena such as space and energy and time, matter and so forth, is produced on the basis of consideration. So consideration of A is senior to A. Consideration of R is senior to R. And consideration of any and all parts of C are, of course, senior to any and all parts of C.

Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy and time. Considerations are senior to these things.

When you're dealing with A, R and C you have entered into a very early level of anatomy as far as the business of life is concerned. But you are not into the first and immediate level of anatomy as far as mechanics are concerned. There is a level lying between considerations and A, R and C, and this is isness. It's the consideration of isness.

These mechanics are the products of agreed-upon considerations which life mutually holds. The reason we have space, energy, time, objects is that life has agreed upon certain things, and this agreement has resulted in a solidification. And so our agreed-upon material is then quite observable.

Things are because you consider that they are. And, therefore, something that is, is considered is. If you don't consider that it is, it of course can be considered to be something else. But if you recognize that it is a consideration, you only have to recognize that it is. If you recognize that something is, then you recognize merely that it is a consideration. As soon as you have recognized that something is, you have reduced it to a consideration. And that's that.

Mechanics have taken such precedence in Man that they have become more important than the considerations. "Doesn't matter what you think," is the theme. The mechanics of space, energy, objects, time, rooms, houses, earth, electricity, Ivory Soap – these things have a greater value than Man's considerations. In other words, Man has become inverted. Having agreed upon these things so long that they are so solid, he is now below the level where he garred upon them, so his considerations do not apparently pack as much power as his immediate environment. This is what over-powers a man's ability to act freely in the framework of mechanics although he invented them. His considerations are now of less impressiveness than the mechanics with which he is operating. The agreement is more solid than his new consideration. And so as he makes a new consideration he runs into the mechanics of existence – his agreements with people, space, energy, objects and time.

Now that you know all there is to know about Scientology… What's the matter, don't you follow me there? All right, we'll go into that again. Considerations are senior to A, considerations are senior to R and are considered senior to C or any part of C.

A primary goal of processing in Scientology is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and the ability of his own postulates. We discover an individual in an inverted state – that is to say, his considerations have now less value than the wall in front of him. And in processing, for example, in Opening Procedure 8C, we put him into sufficient communication with the wall that's there in front of him – that he can then see that there is a wall in front of him. And at that exact point he has graduated upstairs, you might say, to a cognition of what his postulates have created. He can go on from there and can graduate up to where his considerations again have precedence over mechanics.

One has affinity because he considers he has affinity; one has reality because he considers he has reality; one has agreement because he considers he has agreement; one has disagreement because he considers he has disagreement; one has the third dynamic because he considers he has a third dynamic; one has a second dynamic, but some people don't, and so on.

The mechanics are so much in his road, they are such observable barriers, that he has become unacquainted with them.

Any part of the dynamic principles of existence – create-survive-destroy, ARC, the Chart of Attitudes, top and bottom, the entire Scale of Emotions, Know to Mystery – are all preceded by a consideration. In other words, they are postulated into existence.

Now it would seem as if it shouldn't be necessary to do this at all. All one would really have to do would be to get an individual simply to change his mind – all of a sudden to have an individual who could change his mind – but that is just not the way it is. It just doesn't work out that way. The principle here is: get an individual into thorough communication with something, and then, when he has lost his fear of it, is no longer flinching, to demonstrate to him that he can change his mind about it.

But right with consideration we have the most native and intimate mechanic which precedes all other mechanics, and that mechanic is isness. We have to consider that we can consider before we can consider an isness.

But unless you get him over his blindness, his unreality about something he's already agreed to, he is working against himself – he's fighting his own agreements. He has agreed that there is a wall there so there's a wall there – and now he's fighting that agreement, and he's saying there is no wall there. He is fighting his own postulates, so his own postulates are therefore very weak. Because the wall is there – that's his own postulate. And now without undoing that postulate, he's trying to change his mind about it and say "There is no wall there, there is no wall there". And there is a wall there, all right.

One considers that one considers and, therefore, what one considers is, is. So therefore, anything that is, is considered as being. What is, is as it is considered to be.

So this is the state in which we find Man. He has agreed that there is a physical universe, and then having agreed upon it he's sorry about it and now he wants to change his mind about it but to change his mind about it would make him wrong. An individual who has already said that there is something there, if he now says, without changing the first postulate, that there is now nothing there – of course he has got to make himself wrong before he can be right, and if you're wrong, your postulates don't stick. That's what Man is up against.

Now, the moment that you recognize, then, the isness of anything, it will disappear. To have something, to have anything over a long period of time, particularly, you have to beware of recognizing what it is. Because if you look at it with the recognition of what it is – simply its isness – this simple recognition will, of course, vanish it. So you have to be careful, if you want something, not to recognize what it is.

Scientology is the science of knowing how to know answers. That's extended a little bit. We have defined it as the science of knowing how to know, but we'd better say what we're trying to know. We'll just add that it's the science of knowing how to know answers.

Now, one of the best ways to have something for a long time is to put something in your pocket, you see, and then forget that it is there. And you'll have something in your pocket. You'll have something in your pocket even though you've forgotten it's there. And that's the safest method of possession, is to forget that you have it. Because if you remember that you have it, you won't have it.

A Scientologist is expected to be able to resolve problems in a great many specialized fields, of which auditing is the first field he addresses. If you know the principles such as, for instance, the principle of A-R-C (Principle of A-R-C: The "A-R-C" triangle is Affinity, Reality and Communication. The basic principle here is that as one raises or lowers any of the three, the others are raised or lowered, and that the key entrance point to these is Communication) – when you know this as the modus operandi and the mechanism of agreement (which has been agreed on itself) you can do many things. You can take an organization, an industry, a store, a troop of Boy Scouts, or whatever, and you will certainly know "how to straighten out this mess".

Now, this would all be hopeless if there weren't another factor way above consideration. And that is knowingness. You know anything you want to know and you know anything that has gone on.

We know the anatomy of mystery: an unpredictability, followed by a confusion, which then goes into a mystery. There is a mystery because someone didn't predict something and this made them wrong. The only reason a person thinks things are mysterious is that the amount of unpredictability became too great. So he closed it all off and said: "It's a mystery!" and, "I now don't know anything about that".

Now, let's take the person who is using facsimiles in order to tell him what has happened. He looks at the facsimile, the facsimile has certain pictures and symbols in it, so then he knows what took place. Well, he had to know what took place in order for a facsimile of that incident to be created.

If an individual knew that, and ARC – a few of the principles and applications of Scientology – he would see that in the case of this troop of Boy Scouts or this business or this disaster area, or anything else that he might be dealing with, it would be necessary to bring the individuals in it to follow a certain pattern in order to regain a communication, and having regained communication, why, he knows that other matters would remedy themselves. He would not have to be an expert in turbines to straighten out a factory which made turbines. All he'd probably have to do would be to get management in touch with the foreman and the foreman in touch with the workman and the workman in touch with the management, and the plant would make turbines. He would be a specialist in knowing how to know answers but this does not mean that he would have to accumulate an enormous amount of specialized information. What he would do would be to get the people who had the specialized information and put them into communication and the job would get done.

Now, he knew what took place, so he could create a facsimile of the incident, and he does this on an unknowingness level. But above this level, he can then look at the picture and know what took place. But he had to know what took place before he made the picture. Now if the picture is gone utterly and completely, he would still know what took place, unless he has the consideration that he has to have a picture in order to prove to himself what took place.

The world is every day more violently impressed with mechanics. The little wheel that goes spin, spin, spin is far, far more important than the little boy who is going spin, spin, spin. The care of the body and the transport of the body, the conducting of electricity – these are far more important than any activity of Life itself. The world is terribly impressed with space and energy and machines and objects which, any of them seem to be more important than a mind – the mind which makes them. And this is curious, but it brings a person down, as he gets more and more impressed with mechanics, to lower and lower levels of being mechanical. So, if you could conceive it, the individual, the thetan, a life-energy-production unit, has actually dropped out of sight to such a degree that people don't even know they one any more. Now that is attributable to a dependency on mechanics and the validation of mechanics.

Now, anybody would know anything that was going on if he didn't have to prove it. Proof, conviction and so forth is a very early level of aberration itself. As soon as you have to start proving things and convincing people of things, why, then you have to get into agreement with them. And in order to do this, you have to alter isness. You have to have something to persist long enough for them to see it, so that they can then understand what it is. So, in order for them to really understand what it is, you can't possibly put up something that they understand what is. Because if they saw completely what it was and what is, why, then of course, naturally, it would disappear, so you would not have been able to have proven it.

It isn't that you should just withdraw from mechanics and leave them all alone and let's all go off and quit. No, an individual has to be put back into communication with them, mostly because he's afraid of them, and after he's done this he says, "Now, lookee here, I don't have to depend on these things. That's nonsense!" And the next thing you know he has regained some of his own power and ability.

I hope you follow this very closely. Because, actually, everything I'm saying makes sense if strung together and looked at in a rational way. But if you try to alter it, if you try to alter it around, then you'll be able to remember it perfectly. But if you merely accept exactly what I am saying in each and every second that I am talking and so forth, you know this already, so it won't exist.

Now, when it comes to atomic fission, there is produced in this society an enormous mystery. It couldn't help but do so. It's unpredictable. The first bomb, for example, was dropped without any warning and this was certainly an unpredictability. Nobody even knew one was being made. That's nice and unpredictable, isn't it? So that the world is living in an expectancy of an unpredicted atomic attack. Well, that looks interesting, too, doesn't it? More unpredictability. Now let's take up confusion aspect. What do you suppose is the picture of all of these electrons and protons and morons exploding in all directions on a random pattern with great violence – would you possibly look upon that as a confusion of particles? What would be your chance, by the way, of tracing each of these particles individually, all through the entire mass? Well, your chance of doing that, if you're in very good shape, is very good. But Johnny Q. Public knows that he can't trace one card while it's being dealt across the table (that's what card sharks thrive on) and much less billions, and billions to the billion power, electrons and morons exploding all over space. And that is a confusion to him. So here you certainly have an unpredictability and then a confusion.

Now this is a very bad thing, I realize. So the best thing for me to do would be to color – if I really wanted this material to be remembered – would be to color the material so that it appeared to be something else than what it was. That would be the easiest way to get it remembered, to get it complied with – to color the material.

What follows is mystery. And so we have everybody being very secret about all the formulas of fission. They're only available in all of the library text books that are in all of the libraries in all the world. They're very secret. They are so secret, that the notebooks of anyone who has taken a course in nuclear physics abound with the basic formulas, the material of atomic fission. It isn't something suddenly discovered. They just decided to do it. It took billions of dollars to do it and it took a long time for somebody to put up that much money.

And now, I could do that, for instance, by talking about your egg-libido and your reconscious. I could quote authorities who didn't exist – that's always best, you know; that's really a curve, you see? Nobody can ever see those, so they can't ever disappear. And I could quote these authorities which didn't exist but which you couldn't disprove didn't exist, and we could go on about the counter-reflex of the ceretapal palsy and the og-libido, the bog-libido, the sog-libido and the mog-libido. And that we would categorize these things as explanatory to the behavior of fecie preservation on the part of young alligators. And this, of course, would then be utterly comprehensible because it could be so well remembered. See, it could be remembered perfectly, in every detail, particularly if it were altered from what I was really talking about. I was trying to talk to you about turbo-electric systems with that amount of data in it. We could go that far afield and you'd find that your brain would start hanging up on these non sequitur facts. Did you ever notice that?

But they're being very secret about formulas that have been public property – some of them – for fifty years. And all of the material that the U.S. had on the manufacture of the atomic bomb has already been transported over to Russia by spies, who were since executed for it.

Well, as a person becomes unable to recognize the isness of the things, he can't get jokes anymore. Every datum that comes in must have a significance. You see, it never occurs to him it doesn't have a significance. There must be a deeper significance for something to remain. So this accounts for the facsimile bank of an individual, particularly when that facsimile bank of the individual is badly jammed and so on. Now we get somebody who has a badly jammed bank and we tell him, "You have a right foot. All preclears have a right foot. In order to clear a preclear all you have to do is reach over and touch their right foot, then have them touch their right foot, then you touch their right foot, then they touch their right foot and they would be cleared."

So who are we keeping it secret from? Well; maybe we're not keeping it secret from anybody.

And this might be true, you see? And you put it out in this wise and you explained it very carefully and you went over it many, many times. And he would get into an auditing session and he would say, "Now, let's see, what is the significance of touching the right foot? Well, obviously, the significance of touching the right foot means, of course, that the preclear must always be right. So, therefore, what we should run on the preclear is the number of times that he has been wrong. Now, the best way to run this would be to remain out of contact with it." So the auditing command that he said, obviously, was "Bury and occlude and never have anything to do with all the times you've been wrong." And that would be the auditing command which would evolve out of this.

Maybe it's just a mystery because it is unpredictable and confusing and therefore we'd better lower all our communication lines – and before you know it, government is going to be almost totally out of communication with its own people, just on this basis. You get more and more cut communication lines. There's a big mystery building up. Well, how would you solve this? The way one might solve it would be to simply point out the fact to the government and to people that atomic disaster was not going to ruin the entire world and that if you accepted the disaster and predicted what was going to happen, then you could resolve the situation. Next, one would ask that the study of the manufacture of atomic fission be made a third or fourth grade subject, and get the children indoctrinated into this great mystery immediately – so it wouldn't scare the kids. Actually all they're doing is scaring the kids these days – which is not an honorable activity for big, grown men.

Well, he would certainly get a preservation of data, wouldn't he? And boy, he'd really get a preservation of engram bank on the preclear, wouldn't he?

Now the role of Scientology is, to impede any disintegration which is going on the realm of knowingness. Just to impede it. But if a disintegration does occur, why, people who know Scientology ought to just be ready to pick up the pieces. You could have a society so organized and with such enlightenment and so functioning that it didn't disintegrate people so quickly.

Well, let's talk about these various categories of isness, and we find out each one has a gradient scale. And first there is as-isness. This is the first level that we encounter and is actually the disappearance level. As we are content or can accept things as they are, they won't exist. That is absolute. If we are content with and can accept things as they are, they won't exist,

You could have one where freedom itself could be achieved.

Why? The simple recognition of their existence will blow them into a consideration. A wall? What wall? We really know what a wall is; there isn't going to be a wall.

But if you, all of a sudden, were looking at the complete smear-in of a state or a country or a nation, you still, knowing the principles of communication – and just what a trained Scientologist knows – could play a very large role in picking up the pieces resulting from that disintegration.

That's as-isness. And we see that mechanically. We have a lower mechanical strata on that which is a perfect duplicate. If we make a perfect duplicate of a wall, boom! – no wall. All right. That might be just for the thetan, but it's certainly no wall. I at least will lead you down the track to believing that you are not about to destroy the physical universe. Because I wouldn't want you to shy off from these processes just because they knocked out the physical universe.

The disintegration you would be dealing with would be one not of mechanics but would be a disintegration of knowingness.

Anyway, the next stage down the line from as-isness is alter-isness: the effort to preserve something. By altering its characteristics, we make it as a simple consideration and then we alter the method by which we made it. In other words, let's dodge on it. Having mocked it up, we will now dodge and say, "Joe mocked it up." Well, this is as far wrong as is necessary to get something to exist. But you have altered an as-isness slightly in order to keep it from being perfectly duplicated. Now, if it is perfectly duplicated, of course, it's in its own time, its own space, with its own energy and mass and it, of course, would cease to exist. So we enter into the field of alter-isness as a method of preservation. And one seeks, then, when he makes an object or a space, to get it to exist simply by saying, "Somebody else did it," or "It is a different kind of space," or "Its method of construction was different." We say, "God made it" or anything that would throw somebody off the track. Well, supposing God did make it; that would be all right. It'd still blow if you looked at it, recognizing that God made it. Your consideration is altered just enough so that you'll get your continuation of it.

Now as far as any politics would become a concern of Scientology, I would say offhand that it would probably hew to a democratic line – not Democratic Party – but democratic principles – because of our datum of self-determinism, but that does not make Scientology necessarily possessed of a political opinion. A body of knowledge cannot have an opinion on something. It simply extends what is found to be true, wherever it is found to be true – into greater truths. That's all. And if something is true, that's all right. And if something is false – well, one simply recognizes that it is false. So far as political opinion is concerned, Scientology as such, could not have, and does not have one. It knows that certain types of government could be very disintegrative to a people. It knows, for instance that fascism, military control of areas, and so forth, would result in a knockdown of communication lines, which would be very, very unhealthy for that particular area.

Now, people get into alter-isness simply by the process of having had too many things disappear. So we get a person who has lost many things, then trying to change everything. He's trying to shift the as-isness of everything. He's trying to shift from as-isness to alterisness. And so therefore he's got to change the significances and structure and background and everything around him, so that then these things will continue to exist. And that is his first impulse.

But this is in the field of Scientology, not in the field of politics. And one should remember well that Scientology has no political opinions or allegiances. If one political practice works better than another one, according to Scientology, that's fine, but what's working is Scientology – not the political practice. Don't ever get detoured on this one, because if you do – you get lost.

Now, alter-isness is simply the mechanism by which we persuade things to exist. We say they're something else than what they are, and after that they exist. See? Because one hasn't duplicated them. We build a brick house and then cover it up with shingles, you see, and then say and insist in argument that it is built out of lumber. Well, that would rather consist of an existence. You would get into enough of an argument with people trying to buy the house, and so forth, who could observedly see there was not totally a lumber house for them to get upset and worried enough. And that house is liable to persist in one's own ownership for some time if he just did that sort of thing.

Now the next one that comes up is – does Scientology have any religious conviction? Well, again we have the fact that a body of data does not have an opinion. I've known a lot of witch doctors who make more sense than a lot of priests. And I know a lot of priests who make more sense than a lot of preachers. I've seen the historical records and found that the Roman Empire didn't kill many Christians. As a matter of fact in one year of that confusion Christians killed more Christians in the city of Alexandria than the Roman Empire executed during all its existence. One hundred thousand Christians were killed in one year by Christians in Alexandria. Well that's because of a conviction – force without wisdom. There must have been some kind of a conviction running counter to some kind of a conviction, and – as far as having an opinion on this sod of thing is concerned, you can look at it on the basis of: this demonstrates that there must have been real bad ARC around there someplace! But beyond that it might be slightly amusing to you as a datum but it actually means nothing in relation to the body of data.

All right. We get alter-isness, then, totally mechanically as a method of getting things to continue their existence. Now that's an important fact.

So a Scientologist's or anyone's social, religious and political convictions would be those that he held to be true and that he had been oriented to. Trained to be democratic in his viewpoint, and trained to be a protestant, why then he's certainly democratic in his viewpoint, and a protestant, unless he sees fit to alter his convictions to some degree because a greater wisdom seems to have penetrated those very convictions. What would he do in that case? He'd probably simply modify for the better his convictions.

Although the nomenclature here is simply chosen at random, it's a pretty good nomenclature because it says exactly what it means.

But one of the oldest things that was ever given into the training of wise men that I know of was simply this – the basic faith in which the individual has been trained and the basic political allegiance of the individual must not be tampered with by the Order training him. And it was the Order itself which laid that down. That's an old, old one. They were training very wise men and that was the first thing that they made sure not to do. They did not tamper with these things. If the individual cared to alter these things himself nobody was going to tell him to or tell him not to. Nobody was even vaguely persuading him. It might be in the course of his study that he found certain things that men did laughable, or confusing, or he found certain things that men did remediable – but nobody was standing there trying to lead him into a higher religious or political conviction. And that is the case with Scientology.

The control case, by the way, is an "alter-ist." He's got to change, change. Well, he's lost too much. So now he's got to change everything, but he's not satisfied with anything. If he were walking down the street in a limber and loose fashion, he would think he had to walk in a tight fashion, and so forth. He's become anxious about things disappearing, so he, of course, has to alter everything he sees in order to keep these things from disappearing.

If you were to teach a tribal population on the banks of the Yap-Yap River Scientology, and they believed in the Great God Boogoo-Boogoo you would just be wasting your time to start in by training them on the basis that the great God Boogoo-Boogoo was nine feet tall not twelve feet tall. That's about all you'd probably accomplish, too. You'd probably convince them he was not quite so tall, or something of that sort. A Scientologist has no business fooling around with a savage tribesman's political or religious convictions or a very, very cultured, super-cultivated Oriental Potentate's religious or political convictions. His customs are definitely his. You would produce at best new convictions, but that's force, and that's not the way to free a thetan! There are very, very many ways to live. All of them can be derived from the same source and the same sources. Just because they can be so derived doesn't mean they're not different, one from another. So Scientology does not tamper with an individual's religious or political convictions. The total empire of a Scientologist and of Scientology and its organizations is an empire of wisdom.

All right. Now let's get into the next category. And we get not-isness. Now this fellow has altered things up to a point of where they're beginning to persist most damnably. In fact, he's upset about their continuous persistence. He doesn't think this is a good thing, to have a Fac One camera staring him in the face all the time, to have the walls of the room appear to be 180 feet tall – although they're only nine feet tall. It's not a good thing, this alter-isness, he's concluded: he's changed too many things; he's lost track; he isn't quite secure in what the things were in the first place, he's shifted them so often. (He's like the small boy who has told so many lies that he can no longer remember what lie he told, and so he's stuck with the lies and so becomes a human being.)

Now on the basis of mechanics, an auditor is expected to follow the Auditor's Code of 1954. That is a very solid compilation of things an auditor can do wrong and it says don't do them. Each one of those things has considerable importance. There is the one which tells you to run an auditing command until the Comm Lag is flat ("Comm Lag is flat": Comm Lag is Communication Lag: the time it takes for a preclear to give an answer to the exact auditing question or to carry out the exact auditing command. "Flat Comm Lag" is the point at which the auditing question or command is no longer producing change of communication lag). And then there is the one which tells you to run a process until the process is flat. ("Process is flat": A process is continued as long as it produces change and no longer, at which time the process is "flat").

Now, the next step there, not-isness, is manifested as unreality and is in itself the mechanism we know as unreality.

These are the two most important parts of that Code. Very, very much the two most important parts of the Code. You should know that Code. It was put together to keep us from making mistakes. It depends for its authority only upon this – that when it is disobeyed in processing an auditor has a lot more work to do. That's its total authority. It enforces itself.

Now, the next category: that's where things fade down, disappear, are made to be further away, dimmed, poor perception, fellow is trying to make nothing out of things, he has to wear glasses that make objects much smaller. That's a case of not-isness.

Not so the Code of a Scientologist. The Code of a Scientologist is put together on this basis: an aberrated society has in it a few who would try to keep the organization and organizations of Scientology from doing their job – by cutting their affinity lines. And the first part of the Code of a Scientologist, To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science, is simply an arbitrary slid in front of that one. When we don't allow our affinity lines to be cut, auditor to auditor, auditors to organizations, and organizations to auditors, we certainly thrive much better and we survive much better and we are certainly a lot happier. And as we go down the line, on the various parts of this Code, this again is simply knowledge which if we had started following from the very beginning, we would have had far less difficulty than we sometimes have had.

Okay. Now we go into the next category, which is the category of just plain isness. Well this, of course, is not a bad thing. This in its highest level is what we call reality. That's just plain isness. But we could spell this with bigger and bigger caps. See, we could keep spelling is there with bigger caps and bigger caps and bigger caps and finally spell it with an exclamation point which would represent a psycho.

And the last paragraph of the Code of a Scientologist says don't engage in unseemly disputes on the subject of Scientology with the uninformed. That is no effort to keep the material of Scientology closed up. That's not what it's about. We keep the lines open and flowing. But when somebody comes along – perhaps he's a major in Phrenology at the university of something or other – and starts protesting, "Well, I don't believe," and "Is your conviction…?" – why don't you just start talking about the weather. That is, please, an invitation not to go into a fight on the subject of demonstrating to somebody who doesn't have any awareness to talk to anyhow – all about Scientology. We have always gotten ahead faster when we haven't sat down and entered into verbal fisticuffs with everybody who disagreed with us on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology. He hasn't any information on it, and now you're going to sit there and give him a complete Professional Auditor course? Well, do you have any idea of how much work and organization it requires to bring somebody up along through the level of HCA? (HCA: Hubbard Certified Auditor) A lot of work is expended to bring someone that far. Nowadays, with codified training, it can be done easier, but you're not going to do that in a drawing room. And this part of the Code says in effect: please recognize this and don't make the party awful for eight other people while you and a psychology student argue.

There is a dragon in the middle of the room. And he knows this. There are many other things which he doesn't know, but he knows this. When he gets a mock-up of an anchor point, he makes a pyramid out of solid iron. When he is asked to pick up one of his mock-ups, he knows he doesn't have that much strength. The world is too real!

A reporter comes in – he "wants to know all about it," although he's going to write something different entirely or more likely – his story is already written before he comes to "find out all about it". He comes from a profession which works this way. You'll do best telling him all about the weather.

Now, once in a while, when somebody is just about to kill you, cut your throat or eat you up or arrest you or do something of the sort, you get an enormous flash of isness – a recognition of the situation. Boy, this is! It is real! Glug! A moment after that, you're liable to get – or postulate, as you would – an immediate reaction of not-isness. It's not real. A fellow will flare up and daze in about that order, from isness to not-isness in a sudden emergency.

You should never depend on anybody's industry with regard to a society at large or carrying the word in the society. Never depend on anyone's industry but your own. Other people, organizations and so forth are going to help you all they can. But don't depend on that help. Depend on yourself.

Now, alter-isness, not-isness and isness would be, then, the categories which can be aberrated. But remember, these are not basically aberration. They only become aberration when they go entirely beyond the ability of the person to re-recognize as-isness. When a person has lost his ability entirely to recognize as-isness, he's gone. After that, he's stuck with, and only has one of the remaining three – alter-isness, not-isness and isness – or one of the three. All three or one or two of the three – some such combination – with no as-isness left. Therefore, he gets everything persisting around him, he gets everything less and less changeable and he goes into a dwindling spiral. Because he has lost his quality of as-isness. That's all he's lost. When he loses that, of course, he gets stuck with one of these other qualities or some combination of them. You see how that is?

The psycho who is walking around is made well simply by touching a few walls. I mean, you have him go around and touch walls for a little while and all of a sudden he says, "This is a wall!" And he feels much better and he knows he's in communication and so forth.

Well, that's because he either has a case of not-isness: "There are no walls," or isness: "There are walls all through the room and all through my mind, and I have barriers everywhere, everywhere, everywhere," or "There are no barriers anywhere, anywhere, anywhere," which is just variations of not-isness and isness. And you've shown him that there were walls and these were agreed-upon walls. And of course that's way upscale because you have demonstrated to him something closer to an as-isness.

Now, each one of these is a gradient scale. And you know that you can recognize poorly enough the actual as-isness of something – you know, I mean you just draw back just a tiny bit from the as-isness of something. In other words, indulge in just a little bit alter-isness or just a little bit not-isness or just a little bit isness – you know, making it a little bit more – and it'll persist with great satisfactoriness. Of course, if you walk up to it and simply hit it with as-isness, it's not there anymore. You follow this very carefully? Because it's quite important, although the technology which we're using is elementary.

Now beware, beware, beware – ding-dong. You get this real carefully, now. I'm only going to mention this once. And I don't want to hear anybody going off the deep end in some direction or another, mounting a horse and dashing off in some direction. Many philosophies could be adjudicated out of these four categories. And believe me, any philosophy there is, has been adjudicated from these four categories. This is the root of all philosophy as well as all existence. And you're standing right there at the tiniest co-point between mechanics and considerations that we have so far attained.

All right. Now, you could then develop, as I said, many philosophies out of this. Now, the first and most dangerous of them would simply be this one: "Well, I just have to accept everything as it is and, therefore, what we're really supposed to produce out of this is an apathy, because if I had to accept everything as there is there'd be nothing left but apathy because if I can't change this and mess it up somehow or another… No, but I'll go into apathy. Yeah, I know what the auditor wants, he wants me to be apathetic about the whole thing."

This is too easy a philosophy; this is the philosophy of Zeno. "You can't do anything about it, so you might as well accept it," and everybody go into apathy and cut his throat anyhow.

Well now, we have an enormous number of things which we could say, list or categorize in terms of the philosophy of this, and this is only one of them that will hit your preclear. You see, he has to be able to accept his own restlessness before he can be restless. He has to accept his own dislike of things before he can dislike things. Remember, he has to accept something before he can have it – the case he's in! Because he has to get back some as-isness before he can have any as-isness.

Well now, he has to get back some as-isness before he can become fluid in his practice of as-isness, alter-isness, not-isness and isness. And the business of life requires that he be quite able in all four categories. It's necessary to be able in all four categories, not just asisness. So you're not particularly specializing in this.

But when it comes to this universe, you will discover that as you return your preclear to as-isness, things disappear. That may be regrettable, it may be interesting, it may be this and that, but those things too, just like opinions of art, are merely considerations.

Now, the first step that we would adventure upon in this, would be a step which would be immediately addressed to such a thing as exteriorization. You would merely find what part of the body was acceptable to the preclear – you know, what part of the body was he able to accept as is. And we would go on asking this question and asking this question and asking this question. We could vary it by saying what part of the body would he be at liberty to alter as to its position or shape? What part of the body would be acceptable to him on an absent basis? What part of the body would be acceptable to him on a much more present basis. For instance, just a hand walking all around all by itself.

Indicated processes. Actually, this processing is so good that you can almost take any part of it and just work with it. Indicated process on as-isness is simply done with that command: "What part of your body is acceptable to you?" "What part of the environment would be acceptable to you?" And you merely have him improve his considerations. And if he hangs up too long, you could say, "Well now, can you accept your dislike of – – – – ?"And, of course, it just involutes. He could just watch it. It just sort of goes away. It's terrible. The first thing he could recognize is the fact that he disliked the environment. All right. Well, can he accept his dislike of the environment? The second he does this, he has recognized the asisness of his dislike, which moment will blow it.

Now, you can get him to recognize the existence of anything as such and it'll disappear, just by getting him to accept parts of the body, just on this simple auditing command:" What part of the body could you accept?" "Give me another part of the body you could accept."(There's tremendous comm lags on this.) You could say," Well, how would it have to be altered for you to accept it?" "What would it be fine to have absent about this body?" Then we can turn around and say, "What's the acceptance level of your body about a thetan?"

Well, he doesn't do this by mock-ups, you understand. That's the trick. Get him to concentrate on the actual body. Does it accept the thetan this way or that way or how? What condition? "What distance could your face tolerate to a thetan?" We already have this on exteriorization processing, but without this one fact stressed which makes the difference between a workable technique and a nonworkable technique: "What distance is acceptable?" "What distance would be comfortable from your face to the thetan?" "Well, where would your face accept a thetan?"

And the first thing you know, you have spotted the preclear. I mean, the face seems to have spotted him. Then he spots himself.

But the whole thing would run out without any such complexity of command at all. You would merely ask him "What is acceptable to you in the environment?" "Look around." And simply go over it, one item after another item after another item, and his considerations will improve, which is the modus operandi behind 8-C Opening Procedure, except you're not doing it with any further consideration.

If you ran 8-C Opening Procedure long enough on a preclear, he would find the entire environment he'd been working in, certainly, very, very acceptable to him.

We could just continue to run this as "What part of the environment is acceptable to you?" And he begins to check them off, check them off, check them off, check them off, and he would eventually get down to his body. And having gotten down to his body – and taken care of the space around the body and that sort of thing – having gotten down to the body, we'd take it by parts of the body: "What parts of the body are acceptable to you?" And just on and on and on, and he'd be out there standing in back of his head.

Now, that's the easiest method of exteriorization I know, and the method which I commonly use when I am balked by a preclear, because it's an easy and certain process. It's a rather short process, really. You just ask him to pick up the as-isness of his environment and body, and if he really recognizes it, believe me, he'll be outside. And that is simply done with that auditing command. This is the easiest process I know of anyplace, anywhere. So, we have it.

Once in a while he says, "Well, I really dislike this and that." "Well, can you accept your dislike of it?"

This will involute it, which is the only additional command I think I've ever used.

Okay. So much for as-isness, alter-isness, not-isness and isness. All cases fall into these categories.