Here are the reasons why the human mind has not been solved:

Here are the reasons why the human mind has not been solved:

1. I don't know.

1. I don't know.

2. No idea.

2. No idea.

To know about something, is is necessary to not-know it first. This was an incomprehensibility to philosophers of all ages. To understand the source of ideas, you had to understand "no idea". One has to be able to not-know something in order to know something about it. Dialectical Materialism is a dramatization of "no idea". "No idea" is a workable concept, but as long as the Dialectical Materialists are only dramatizing it and don't know it, it is unworkable. Dialectical Materialism says that all new ideas are the result of two old forces. Hence no idea can bs really new. So there is no possibility of getting a new idea. If someone dramatizes something, as with the Dialectical Materialists, it must have existed earlier as a postulate that went solid. Things begin with a consideration and end with a solidity, e.g. a dramatization or a solid reality. So an idea is senior to all matter and conditions. Above that is the thetan in his native state. If a thetan wishes to return to his native state, he often bungles it by assuming that hs is in native state, when he is actually in very bad shape. This leads to the idiocy that everything that is true of a thetan's native state is what continues to be dramatized, clear down to the bottom of the barrel, and that every aberration is a reflection of native state and the first and second postulate theory [Axioms 36 and 37].

To know about something, is is necessary to not-know it first. This was an incomprehensibility to philosophers of all ages. To understand the source of ideas, you had to understand "no idea". One has to be able to not-know something in order to know something about it. Dialectical Materialism is a dramatization of "no idea". "No idea" is a workable concept, but as long as the Dialectical Materialists are only dramatizing it and don't know it, it is unworkable. Dialectical Materialism says that all new ideas are the result of two old forces. Hence no idea can bs really new. So there is no possibility of getting a new idea. If someone dramatizes something, as with the Dialectical Materialists, it must have existed earlier as a postulate that went solid. Things begin with a consideration and end with a solidity, e.g. a dramatization or a solid reality. So an idea is senior to all matter and conditions. Above that is the thetan in his native state. If a thetan wishes to return to his native state, he often bungles it by assuming that hs is in native state, when he is actually in very bad shape. This leads to the idiocy that everything that is true of a thetan's native state is what continues to be dramatized, clear down to the bottom of the barrel, and that every aberration is a reflection of native state and the first and second postulate theory [Axioms 36 and 37].

Native state is having no idea. The thetan knows all about all. He has no ideas, because he has all the ideas there are. Now he says that he will have an idea. Here, we get Axiom 36: the first postulate gives the second postulate power. So the thetan in native state knows all. He then makes a first postulate: that he has no idea. From here, as per Axiom 36, he can make the second postulate: that he can have an idea. This is an harmonic on native state, but it is alter-ised, so it persists and we get time. The force of having an idea is the statement that he didn't have an idea before. An idea is a barrier, a stop on the track. Even a manic idea or a win can be a stop. So we get:

Native state is having no idea. The thetan knows all about all. He has no ideas, because he has all the ideas there are. Now he says that he will have an idea. Here, we get Axiom 36: the first postulate gives the second postulate power. So the thetan in native state knows all. He then makes a first postulate: that he has no idea. From here, as per Axiom 36, he can make the second postulate: that he can have an idea. This is an harmonic on native state, but it is alter-ised, so it persists and we get time. The force of having an idea is the statement that he didn't have an idea before. An idea is a barrier, a stop on the track. Even a manic idea or a win can be a stop. So we get:

0. Native State: The thetan knows all but has no specific idea.

0. Native State: The thetan knows all but has no specific idea.

1. First Postulate: No idea. I don't know.

1. First Postulate: No idea. I don't know.

2. Second postulate: A specific idea. This is an harmonic on Native State: "I know something."

2. Second postulate: A specific idea. This is an harmonic on Native State: "I know something."

3. Third Postulate: Forget.

3. Third Postulate: Forget.

4. Fourth Postulate: Remember.

4. Fourth Postulate: Remember.

For the first time in the history of mankind it has become safe for man to know something. It was not safe before because you'd stick to it, because every mystery could then pull you into it. The more you knew about it, the more you were enveloped by it. This gives the manifestations of a thetan's blackness, dropped havingness, illness, etc. Things known on a second postulate basis are solid and persist. Studying anything will produce this phenomenon. Scientology has been a safe subject because it has progressed toward simplicity and has never pretended to contain all knowledge. There's a limited amount of knowingness and unknowingness available. What gets scarce is unknowingness. We let "unknow" go on an automatic basis; we don't take responsibility for it [so it gets pulled in on an unknowing basis.] You'd never get into trouble in processing if you kept on supplying lots of no-idea instead of using old no-ideas. When you keep on using old no-ideas to get new ideas, [eventually] the new ideas jam into the existing no-ideas which have become so precious that we interiorize into them. Here, we've ignored the first postulate which provided the power for the second postulate. One gets stuck in dramatizing no-idea and loses the volitional ability to postulate an idea into existence. People who get stuck in "know about" are in the second postulate. If they exteriorize, it's into the blackness of the third postulate, which is the harmonic of the first, not-is-ing the knowingness; thus: "I've forgotten it. " The fourth postulate is "remember": an alter-isness of a not-isness. This is getting to be very persistent stuff. From this sequence, we get most solidities and spaces, except for directly postulated solids and spaces. [Perhaps the fifth postulate would be "occlude".]

For the first time in the history of mankind it has become safe for man to know something. It was not safe before because you'd stick to it, because every mystery could then pull you into it. The more you knew about it, the more you were enveloped by it. This gives the manifestations of a thetan's blackness, dropped havingness, illness, etc. Things known on a second postulate basis are solid and persist. Studying anything will produce this phenomenon. Scientology has been a safe subject because it has progressed toward simplicity and has never pretended to contain all knowledge. There's a limited amount of knowingness and unknowingness available. What gets scarce is unknowingness. We let "unknow" go on an automatic basis; we don't take responsibility for it [so it gets pulled in on an unknowing basis.] You'd never get into trouble in processing if you kept on supplying lots of no-idea instead of using old no-ideas. When you keep on using old no-ideas to get new ideas, [eventually] the new ideas jam into the existing no-ideas which have become so precious that we interiorize into them. Here, we've ignored the first postulate which provided the power for the second postulate. One gets stuck in dramatizing no-idea and loses the volitional ability to postulate an idea into existence. People who get stuck in "know about" are in the second postulate. If they exteriorize, it's into the blackness of the third postulate, which is the harmonic of the first, not-is-ing the knowingness; thus: "I've forgotten it. " The fourth postulate is "remember": an alter-isness of a not-isness. This is getting to be very persistent stuff. From this sequence, we get most solidities and spaces, except for directly postulated solids and spaces. [Perhaps the fifth postulate would be "occlude".]

All you need to get space is lookingness, which is a dramatization of knowing. In lookingness, space is on an automaticity. That's why space continues to exist. This automatic space, because it's automatic, tends to fold up on people, producing condensed spaces and figure-figure at lower levels.

All you need to get space is lookingness, which is a dramatization of knowing. In lookingness, space is on an automaticity. That's why space continues to exist. This automatic space, because it's automatic, tends to fold up on people, producing condensed spaces and figure-figure at lower levels.

The above was discovered by the fact of the relative effectiveness of running "something you wouldn't mind forgetting" compared with the bogginess of "Something you wouldn't mind remembering." Not-knowingness evidently is the only solution to prevent interiorization into bodies of knowledge or solid objects. Per Axiom 36, if you take out the first postulate, you can knock out the second one. For instance, "You realize that over there there's a bus running." It doesn't affect you, does it? Until you knew there was a bus over there, and then you probably got a picture of it or something. Get the trick? Probably a counter-trick would be saying, "I don't know what's standing right here," inventing something to stand here, then remembering you said you didn't know what was there. So there's automatic "I don't know" before the knowingness. Running an "I don't know" process for two hours gives more gain than 50 hours of "I know".

The above was discovered by the fact of the relative effectiveness of running "something you wouldn't mind forgetting" compared with the bogginess of "Something you wouldn't mind remembering." Not-knowingness evidently is the only solution to prevent interiorization into bodies of knowledge or solid objects. Per Axiom 36, if you take out the first postulate, you can knock out the second one. For instance, "You realize that over there there's a bus running." It doesn't affect you, does it? Until you knew there was a bus over there, and then you probably got a picture of it or something. Get the trick? Probably a counter-trick would be saying, "I don't know what's standing right here," inventing something to stand here, then remembering you said you didn't know what was there. So there's automatic "I don't know" before the knowingness. Running an "I don't know" process for two hours gives more gain than 50 hours of "I know".

The unworkability of "remember" processes shows that psychoanalysis never gave stable gains. It gives solid ridges if you keep remembering. You can as-is it by having him recall all the times he remembered, or better still, use forgetting to dissolve the ridge.

The unworkability of "remember" processes shows that psychoanalysis never gave stable gains. It gives solid ridges if you keep remembering. You can as-is it by having him recall all the times he remembered, or better still, use forgetting to dissolve the ridge.

Take any troublesome engram, ask the PC what he doesn't know about it, and it will blow in minutes. It upsets the PC to have him make a perfect duplicate. But this way only causes fogginess if you don't acknowledge well and stay in two way comm. This also solves the case with the stuck picture. It's also safe to use "What don't you know about it?" on chronic somatics.

Take any troublesome engram, ask the PC what he doesn't know about it, and it will blow in minutes. It upsets the PC to have him make a perfect duplicate. But this way only causes fogginess if you don't acknowledge well and stay in two way comm. This also solves the case with the stuck picture. It's also safe to use "What don't you know about it?" on chronic somatics.

Not-knowingness is not the goal of humanity or scientology; it's just the barrier that has to be crossed.

Not-knowingness is not the goal of humanity or scientology; it's just the barrier that has to be crossed.