First hour of try night, December the 4th, we’re going to cover here the logics. The last evening lectures I covered these Qs.

Third hour this afternoon, December the 4th, continuing this third talk on spacation. Going to go over this again very rapidly, very, very briefly and very rapidly. We are talking about, in this universe, a series of agreements as follows:

All right, the logics are something which evidently apply quite broadly and uh… are not necessarily fixed for all universes but are quite general to universes and are certainly very specific for this universe. Logics would consist of methods of thinking. There could be many, many methods of thinking.

One, there is an origin point, unknown but understood. You’ve not located that origin point, you just say all this space somehow or other comes from an origin point. Now that is the first point of confusion about the MEST universe, is that there’s space all around and it must be coming from someplace and so on, which is not the case. Then there’s origin point one and that could also be origin point „I“. And that is the viewpoint of dimension, and that is the definition of space: Viewpoint of dimension, of the individual. And he looks around and he can assign viewpoints. The handiest way to do this is, of course, to simply mock up anchor points, mock up dimensions.

You take the decimal system. Uh… the decimal system is a method of thinking about object;, and particles, and so on. And it says if you take ten of them and then multiply them by ten all you have to do is add another zero. Uh… that’s a very fascinating system and this has a great deal of argument, however, from something I think is called the sept-signal system, which I think is by twelves or something like that. Sixes, twelves, and so forth; they claim this is a much, much better numerical system.

And then the third thing we’re dealing with is anchor points. Now an anchor point is that point which origin „I“ assigns so that he can have dimension and motion. Now he has either assigned it or just agreed upon it, or agreed that he will assign to these understood things. It says: That is a room. A room has eight corners, therefore there are eight anchor points to a room. Every time you go in a room now you know this, there will be eight anchor points and you will accept immediately the anchor points which everybody around accepts as this room’s anchor points. Is that understood? That’s good. Now we’ve made you dependent.

It goes along so and so and does such and such. And the odd part of it is, is it forms a different structure of logic. So you could change logic by changing the basic postulates on which the logic is based.

So, there’s origin I and that is a viewpoint from which one can perceive anchor points, and these anchor points actually assign dimension or boundary to space. And these anchor points are called anchor points because they’re actually used as electrodes or terminals as on an electric motor. Whenever there is motion, one holds the anchor point and perceives the motion. It’s very simple. He also perceives the anchor point, holds and perceives the anchor point and then sees something changing without those anchor points moving. You get a… at sea and you give some ensign a maneuvering board problem; you’ve got a picnic on your hands, because you’re telling him to use as origin points the center of a board which… it’s an abstract center which has no real reality, which is probably moving.

You could simply say, you could simply say, now it is logical to state the plus and the minus of a thing, and that is all you should state, the plus and minus of the thing. Plus you should never state the plus without stating the minus. And that is going to be logic.

And then you say, „Now look, here are three or four anchor points. Those will be the ships in the problem and these anchor points are all in motion. Now this is a maneuvering board problem. When will the anchor points coincide and crash? Or when will they rendezvous? How far do they have to go in order to get any…?“ That’s a maneuvering board problem. That’s very rough stuff.

Now we would say something like that, you get something interesting about – the logical statement will be: I think I would like to eat dinner, perhaps I will not. And that would be a reasonable statement, and that would be a universe called maybe. A universe… a universe in which homo sapiens is quite at home.

Now, if he doesn’t have an instructor who merely wishes… if he… most instructors, you see, merely wish to obfuscate, and if he doesn’t have an instructor who wishes to obfuscate, the instructor will point out to him, „Look, it doesn’t matter how fast that origin point is moving. It is static. It’s right there in relationship to the outermost limits of the graph.“

All social intercourse is apparently a long series of maybes. You know, you say, „How do you do? I don’t care how you do.“ „Would you have something to eat? I hope you won’t eat too much.“ Except the second maybe in social intercourse is never stated.

One of those graphs, simple looking affair, but uh… you’ve got anchor points which don’t move and they’re not moving at such and such a postulated rate, well, who cares? Who cares how much they’re not moving? They’re anchor points. And if you’ll just take the center of the board and the limits of the board, and then figure out everything else on the board as points in motion in relationship to these anchor points, he’s all set.

So it’s a long series of maybes and if you want to find somebody who’s been very very social for a long time you will find out his ARC relationships lie all in a ball. All wound up in one small tight ball, because everyone of them has got a plus on it and a minus on it, and the minus is never stated.

But if he goes at it in reverse and tries to… to figure it out that the anchor points are in motion, and the origin points are in motion too, of course he has nothing to tie any motion to, so no motion can occur and he can’t see how any motion could possibly occur and he’ll just sit there with his mouth open.

Now in view of the fact that Scientology is the science of knowing how to know, we have to have some definition of knowledge. Now these logics as they are written here have to be rewritten slightly for the echelon of Scientology in which we are operating, which is to say the make-break of universes.

That would be the same thing if I told you the two forward… forward corners of this room – if you believed it – the two forward corners of this room uh… were moving four miles an hour to the right except the right-hand forward corner which occasionally went in a circle. And those were the only two points that you could perceive anywhere around.

This is very very true of homo sapiens, these logics, but they have to be refined just a little bit in order to fit them into a wider category.

Now you were supposed to tell the velocity of something that was between those two points. I just… just wouldn’t… just be horrible. But you could do it because you’ve got one point and you could possibly plot the other point. You could stretch your minds to do this sort of thing, but it’d be an awful job.

Logic one is knowledge as a whole group. There are lists of these around, in these various books. Knowledge as a whole group or subdivision of a group of data or speculations or conclusions on data or methods of gaining data. That pins knowledge down as data. And that’s true for homo sapiens. And that is true for the type of logic homo sapiens uses.

Now, anchor points, then, are assigned or agreed upon points of boundary which are conceived to be motionless by the individual. He’s on a train. He looks up and down. Somebody walks down the aisle of the train; he knows somebody’s walking down the aisle of the train because he holds the forward end of the car as one anchor point and the after end of the car as another anchor point and the individual, who is in motion, has a shifting dimension, from one to the other of these two things so somebody can walk.

That does not happen to be the highest level of knowledge. The highest level of knowledge is the potential of – it’s an action definition – the potential of knowing how to know. And that consists of simply the potential of knowing how to know. I’m sorry, but that’s all there is to it. And how do you know? Well, in order to know how to know you have to be free to postulate knowledge. And the freedom to postulate knowledge creates the data which then arranges itself as bodies of knowledge. So, you want to know what your highest echelon of knowledge possibly could be, it would probably be complete freedom to make the postulate to form any… any datum or group of data without even making the postulate to do so.

But let’s look out the window. And there we see the countryside flying by like mad. Sure, it’s the countryside flying by like mad. You have to explain to a little kid how the countryside is not flying by. The countryside is motionless; the train is what’s in motion. He knows this from past lives and so forth, but a little kid can get awful kinda fooled on this. And every once in a while he’ll sort of grit his teeth and say, „All right, it’s actually doing that – but it doesn’t look that way.“ So actually the countryside is flying by with relationship to the two anchor points, the forward end of the car and the back end of the car. Those are what’s motionless and the countryside is flying by, of course.

And that, that would be knowing how to know, so logic… logic one should be rewritten: Knowing how to know is the definition of the highest level of knowingness. And that the level of knowingness is the freedom to state a postulate which then can become knowledge. Now that’s very simple.

Now if you say every telegraph pole there is an anchor point and those anchor points are shifting, then you can conceive that the train is in motion. You can even sit in the train then and feel the train rushing forward and the countryside sitting still. But it’s quite a trick. But you can do that with great ease.

Logic two, a body of knowledge is a body of data aligned or unaligned or methods of gaining data. Well, that’s… that’s interesting too. That just simply says it’s a… a body of knowledge could consist of one postulate or two postulates. And that’s all. And that would be a body of knowledge and if they were stated from… for this universe, they have to be two. And they were stated… they have to be two to be a unit. I’ll explain that a little later. Uh… but, then… then a body of data could be any two data to make a com… a very complete workable body of knowledge.

A race driver does this with facility. He goes so fast that even he knows he’s in motion, because the track is shifting so fast with relationship to the bonnet and the shoes of the car that he… he could feel that. Why? He’s got an up-and-down vibration and sideways and so forth.

Now, let… let’s have a whole body of knowledge. Now let’s think one up, let’s think real hard for earth here. Let’s postulate good and evil. Now let’s postulate from good and evil enough other data to make a full body of knowledge which would be very satisfying. Let’s think in a nice wide curve here. We say good and evil. That can lead in two directions.

If you want to really drive a fast car, get one with small wheels built close to a track; that’s a very fast car. If you want to drive a slow car, get one with great big wheels and a big powerful motor, and with… it rides awfully easy. And that’s really a slow car.

That can lead to God and the devil, complete bodies of knowledge. But those are sub-bodies of knowledge to the body good and evil. Now on the other side of it – justice and injustice – and what do we get? We get the church and the state – that’s immediately descending from the postulate that two things can exist called good and evil. Now we say what is good? We could be Aristotelian and say: Good is something which isn’t evil, and what is evil? Evil is something which is not good.

What’s this got to do with miles per hour? It has nothing to do with miles per hour except in relationship to anchor points which the driver isn’t perceiving. You see? Uh… that’s very interesting.

Now we can have a universe in which all things good were purple and all things bad were magenta. So that people would get snarled up between the two when they were a little color-blind and that would cause randomity.

In some countries they tell you they have very fast railways. That’s because their trains go over rough tracks, terrible tracks; they’re built rather close down and the countryside isn’t ever observed. But what is observed is the way you bounce around in that car – boy, is it taking off. Furthermore, everytime the engineer starts one of them up he goes it from zero throttle, full throttle – BOOM. And you go crash across one car and crash the other way and you know that thing is driving. You know that thing is really going.

In this universe we have more or less conceived that good is white and black is evil. So we get the black and white and good and evil and we really get the opening of aesthetics. Now we’ve got church, state and the arts, proceeding from one set of postulates.

But let’s take something with 120 lb. rails, built well up off the ground and let’s take it at 120 miles an hour down the track. Thing isn’t moving, obvious. You sit there, have a whisky soda, something of the sort, in the parlor car. Finally railroads became so despairing about people believing trains didn’t move fast that in most of those very fast trains, back in the parlor car they have a speedometer.

See, that becomes a body of knowledge. Now we’ll just… we’ll just put bric-a-brac on these things. And hang all sorts of bric-a-brac in various directions. We’ll put all the speculations of Martin Luther and uh… confront these with the speculations of Sigmund Freud. And uh… we’ll mess that up with Bismarck’s attitudes and throw in the writings of Machiavelli, sort them very nicely into one big bin of scrambled facts and you have the humanities.

All right, then what… what is… what is this whole business motion? Well, let’s get right into the second stage here.

Uh… first we have then this… that’s a body of knowledge. But don’t, in Scientology now at this time, confuse the potentiality to make a postulate with data. Because the two are not related. The two can be connected, but just because one has the potentiality of making a postulate which then can become a body of knowledge does not mean that one has to make a postulate.

What’s matter? Matter is not simply condensed space, it’s relatively unoccupiable space, and the solider matter is, the more you have postulated that it is unoccupiable. And when you get out as a thetan you’re travelling on a high wave length, the first thing your preclear may do is slam into the ceiling. And then he realizes suddenly that he does not have mass, and the second he realizes he doesn’t have mass he goes on through the ceiling.

He might never make the postulate but this doesn’t. take away from him the right to make a postulate. So a body of knowledge, we might have… this fellow might have a… a whole great big pile of whuf – a huge pile of whuf and there it is. And never do a single thing about it. He’s got it. Other people could come along and say, „Well, why don’t you whuficate that stuff.“ But it wouldn’t matter a darn whether he did or not. He’s… he’s got the whuf.

Sometimes he has to fish around for a little while to find the wall of the ceiling in order to… to come back through it and use it as an anchor point. He has to practically repostulate it in order to get back into the body, and when he gets out and first realizes this, of course all time and space scrambles to him, scrambles all over the place. The reason why is he has lost what most people are holding on to madly as the last anchor point.

Now that is a much lower echelon than not having anything. Not having anything is about as high as you can get. You know the old Chinese legend that the uh… the uh… head of a Chinese state or the emperor or his chamberlain or somebody had a daughter and the daughter is very, very ill and the doctors all got around – they were members of the American medical Association. They all got around and they said, „Well, you’ll have to cover them with the shirt of a happy man, and wh… that is our equivalent of penicillin. We’ve made a postulate that that exists and uh… have to find the shirt of a perfectly happy man and put that upon her and your daughter will then be well.“

I call this, the point of origin is in the body – well, let me extend that a little bit for your clarification. The only anchor point he has is the body, that he can be sure of. His level of certainty has diminished and diminished and diminished throughout life. He’s become so dispersed, any other anchor point has been found to be so reliable, that they disappear if you sneeze at them. And this unreliability of anchor points has finally brought him down to the fact that when he pinches himself, he knows it’s real. He knows he’s not dreaming because he can pinch himself and get a sensation. This is the same thing as saying, he knows he can perceive his body because he has not been chased off that as an agreement.

And so the chamberlain and the king called in all these couriers and messengers, sent them north, east, south and west, and they all rode and rode and rode and batches of them started coming back all footsore and weary and… and with their horses caved in and they hadn’t been able to find a happy man and she was just about to expire and… and the last… the last doctor was being hanged and in came the last messenger and he looked at the king or the chamberlain or whoever it was and he says, „I did find a happy man,“ and very eagerly because the last breaths were just coming out of the girl by that time.

See, he agreed to all these anchor points, and then other people broke the agreement. They kept taking anchor points away from him. So the one thing they haven’t taken away from him is his body and he has this body then as an anchor point from which he cannot be robbed.

The King says, „Well, give me…“ and the fellow said, „He didn’t have a shirt.“ So you see, there is… there’s a large difference though between… you see the reason man’s, by the way, never been able to resolve that little lesson, the reason he’s never been able to resolve it, is because he considered himself potentially what he was, was something that didn’t have to have, didn’t have to want, and so he knew very well that the way to be perfectly happy was to have nothing – no objects, which didn’t give you any time. And you could sit down on a pink cloud and there you were. And you could just be serene. You could be serene for just ages and ages and ages. So what do we have? We have a fellow down tone scale who is in the situation of having to want. He is running a body. He has responsibilities added up in his society which consist of families, and employers, and pieces of MEST in general, other pieces of MEST and he’s got to work, in other words, in order to keep a supply line going because he’s in a time track because he’s got objects already running.

So his reality consists of anchor points to the body and other anchor points around are kind of vague. He doesn’t perceive them very well because he knows other people haven’t agreed to them. Why? They’ve taken them away from him, haven’t they? So when we start perceiving, or as this person starts perceiving, he’ll perceive the body more and more and more and the environment less and less and less until we get the dwindling spiral which finally leads not only past the normal homo sapiens, but on down to a six and a seven case level of Standard Operating Procedure.

And now we tell that fellow, now we try to tell him this philosophy: well, the happy man is the fellow who has nothing. Boy, he sure knows you’re wrong. He knows he’d only really be happy if he had this twenty-eight room house and nineteen hot and cold running servants and he… he’d only be really happy if he had these things.

And this person doesn’t even know it’s real by an anchor point of the body. A seven has lost the body as an anchor point. No longer has the body as this anchor point, so he cannot be sure where he is because he knows the body isn’t real either.

And yet, yet, uh… if he gets those things he just reduces himself that much further to MEST. So he’s on a cycle which is very difficult to interrupt for him without knowing how to know. If he doesn’t know how to know, he cannot interrupt the cycle of having to want. Because having to want procures and procurement has to be selective between procuring what is desirable and not procuring what is not desirable.

But as a person goes down the tone scale, down the tone scale, down the tone scale, his environment contracts on him. The lower emotions are contracted environments, less motion capable, more solidity, harder to move through. A person can actually feel this. You get… run him through a moment of shock, he will feel the environment close right in on him and become practically no-dimensional.

And one begins to make this selection back and forth this way and that, and he gets to have more that he doesn’t want and want more that he doesn’t have and his confusion on this line gets to be such finally that he is MEST and that’s the bottom of the actual cycle, to be an object.

He’s abandoning every anchor point in the environment because he’s saying, „It can’t be actual. It can’t be actual.“ That’s the same thing as saying, „It can’t be happening. I don’t want this motion. I’ve tried to stop the motion itself, in order to stop the motion, all I can do is abandon the anchor points and that will make the motion stop.“

So the object of that sort of thing is to be an object. Well, you try to tell him about… about this thing – the way to have is to be happy is to not to Have and that sort of thing; he knows you’re nutty. Now a Hindu has a terrifically workable lot of data lurking in the midst of a terrific lot of very treacherous data.

Only that doesn’t make it stop either because he’s still got the body. And he’s got the body and the motion continues in relationship to his body as an anchor point and so he feels the whole environment contracting down and he’ll finally abandon the body as well in order to stop some motion which he conceives to exist beyond his control and beyond his ability to withstand the perception.

And so you get a rustic, a fakir, or a yogi low level sitting on a bed of spikes to discipline the body and telling himself, „I am training myself not to have and by this I shall ascend to and rise to the highest of controls and nirvanas.“ And there he sits with a body.

All right, this gets right into motion, anchor points, dwindling anchor points. You’ll find that individuals who move the least have the fewest clear anchor points. You will find that the ability of an individual to tolerate speed depends completely upon his ability to hold anchor points. And his ability to hold anchor points depends only upon his belief in his ability to hold anchor points. And anchor points come down to being postulates.

Now you can talk about playing tricks on a fellow – he’s playing tricks on himself; he… he’s got something that has to want continually and here he sits with something that does and he says at the same time, „I will be only… I will only be happy if I do not have and therefore I must deny everything.“ And so he gets where? He gets on a maybe. And it’s from that datum it can be said that the very confusing quality of Indian practices arise.

How do you remedy this situation then? How do you rebuild this ability? You just have a person start postulating anchor points, dimensions to space, that’s all, and contract them and expand them and contract them and change them around and then put in new dimensions and change the old dimensions and then age the dimensions you have and then decrease the dimensions. And then decrease the space and expand the space again and scramble then the anchor points.

He knows by instinct that he’d be happiest if he didn’t have, and he’s still holding on to something because he doesn’t know how to get rid of it completely. He’s holding on to something that has to want. And so he’s on a maybe. And he gets: „Is God there? Isn’t God there? Am I in communication with Him? Am I not in communication? What things are around me? Is it true or is it false or what is or what isn’t?“ and on this big maybe he rides himself right on in. It’s no joke; I’ve known a lot of those boys.

Have the anchor point that is over to the right move and be the left side anchor point and so forth. Turn the space upside down backwise to. Interchange these points and then throw in a whole bunch of random points. Then throw all these random points together in a pile, thereby collapsing the space. Make some matter out of it and then bring those anchor points back out again and move them around as anchor points.

Logic three: any knowledge that can be sensed, measured, experienced by any entity is capable of influencing that entity. Too true. Just too true. This is, by the way, an interesting logic in that… in that it is aimed right straight at a fellow by the name of uh… I think it’s Kant. Uh… I guess it’s an impossible name like that… and with a name like that you’d sure expect that he wouldn’t be able to. And he sure couldn’t.

Now take these anchor points and set them way out somewhere and then fill that space full and then defy the laws of space in the MEST universe (which laws of space have to do with our agreement on how much space can hold in relationship to oneself) and start dumping into that space things it obviously cannot hold and have it remain the same size and just keep on doing this, then empty that space again and then dump things into this space. Now empty this space and throw them to places where there is no space, and bring them back into places where the space is much too small for them and have them fit very adequately.

Now that’s our friend Kant and that’s… all knowledge that is worth having will be found to be beyond the bounds of human experience. So you better quit right here at this barricade, fellow, because us scholastics have got it all nailed down. We got a machine gun and barbed wire across here and anything that’s worth having is over here and this is the last outpost toward it, and if you try and pass it we’re going to fix your crock.

Shift the anchor points around again, throw the anchor points away. This starts in on a gradient scale. Take one point and move it around, and then take two points and move the two points around and then move them close together and then further apart. The first thing your preclear will find – if he’s down around five and so forth – don’t pick this up if you don’t do it – is, the first time he tries to hold two anchor points in relationship to each other, they’ll snap together and go zero on him. He’ll try to put two points out there and they’ll keep going snap.

For a hundred and sixty-two years that philosophy pervaded Western philosophy and monitored it to such a degree that today you go out in Podunk and down on Ray Street and ask people offhand; you say, „Now what, what would you think of somebody who would dare to investigate the actual beingness and soul of man?“

The distance between them will collapse. Not only will they snap together, but they’ll snap back onto his body. Of course they will, because his point uh… anchor point is his body. So in order to be sure of any anchor point he naturally has to bring it back and feel it on his body, If he doesn’t feel it on his body, it isn’t an anchor point.

„Oh, you mustn’t do that. No, that’d be very, very bad, because if you found out there’d be no more universes or something.“ Now, that’s the… that is the… I think that’s called transcendental logic or realism or something; it’s wonderful stuff.

Eventually get him to perceive an anchor point at some distance from his body. And then perceive two of them and be able to hold them apart and shift them around at will. Be able to move them farther away and closer up. Shift them around all locations possible, these anchor points. Change the character of the anchor points. Make them different.

Any datum worth having, then, is beyond man’s power to know. And that is sure enough sheer by the bucketful class A quality hogwash. It’s not true, it never has been true because it states that in this universe a one-way flow can exist. It says you can never backlash up a communication line and that’s sure wrong. There isn’t a piece of wire in any electronics laboratory nor a piece of MEST anywhere in any planet, not a piece of space manufactured anywhere in this universe which will not conduct both ways.

The next thing you know you’ve clicked out the belief he must have that the anchor point must be furnished him, and he will find out suddenly, „Gee, what do you know, heh, I’m… I’m the viewpoint of dimension.“

Now that engineers can figure them and figure them, and rig them and rig them and rig them but they still won’t get one that will put up one hundred percent butterfly valves along the whole length of it. If you pour juice in that way, there can juice go back that way again. That’s the wrong way to think about it, that there can be a one-way flow.

Now the second step of this merges straight on into force and it goes into the first level of force, which is sensation. Sensation has a lot to do with ARC – ARC, it gets pretty crude when you can define it as ARC. At first it is merely sensation. It is rather undifferentiative. It is still a flow; the ridges on it are quite minor, and then the ridges start to get heavier as the person comes down the tone scale.

They’d have you think that this… and we are the puppets of some sort of a monitoring agency which could command us and affect us and influence us and yet we would never be able to contact nor experience the puppet master. Well, to hell with the puppet master.

So the first thing you do on a mock-up drill is to put something out there and put an emotion into it and then feel the emotion. Because that’s what a person does all the time, 24 hours a day. There’s no sensation coming off of anything except what sensation he puts into it and pulls back off of it again. Just as he neglects continually to postulate his anchor points in space for the sake of automaticity and interest to himself, so does he neglect continually to perceive this little step. In order to see something and feel about it, one has to project onto it the generally agreed upon feeling about such things. And one projects onto it this generally agreed upon feeling about such things and then perceives back off of it this perception, and the first step he wishes to enter his awareness is „I perceive a sensation emanating from.“

That is the philosophy. I hope no man ever falls into that trap because it blocked human thought and human progress. Philosophy became completely abandoned as a subject. Would you believe it that even at this moment, this subject has been in existence for… more or less for two and a half years, and even at this moment they still give a Doctor of Philosophy degree in universities which demands only this of the student: that he know what philosophers have said. Now that’s incredible; if you had a Doctor of Philosophy you would expect a Doctor of Philosophy to be able to philosophize.

Now he’s got to have space in which to do that because it’s emanating FROM and you can’t have anything emanating from anything unless you’ve got some space there first. You can’t have anything emanating to anything unless you have some space there first, too,

And a person… the professors of those courses would just be shocked beyond shock if you dared come in and infer that the end and goal of their students should be the production of philosophy. No sir, that’s how you keep a society static.

Now what’s the drill? What’s the drill? You just put things out there and you just take the emotional scale and the emotional scale from 40 to 0.0 as will be covered, is the zeros of MEST and the 40.0 is space. Now matter is really a 0.0 and 40.0 is space. So what does this coincide with? It coincides with the action cycle. At 40.0 you have start, intermediate you have change, at 0.0 you have stop. At the top of the emotional scale you have space, at the middle of it you have action, at the bottom of it you have matter. And this coincides with an experience: emotional experience, with the top of it being serenity and then, about 20.0, on a very high exhilaration, then exhilaration dwindles off and we get… we just skipped enormous array of emotions, by the way, and we skip right on down into what the homo sapiens and low level beings in general experience as emotion, which is enthusiasm, caution, boredom, antagonism, anger, fear, grief and apathy.

This society… this society actually was penalized to an enormous degree by that block on the philosophic line. It’s much more intimate to thee and me than you would suppose, because in the field of science they long since learned that in the natural study of use of natural law and the exactness of the agreements which had been made, that an enormous number of effects could be produced.

And as we go down that, we’re going down the action cycle. We’re also going down the creation, change and destruction cycle. And all those cycles are coincident cycles. So your preclear will be able to perceive only at the lowest levels at first, usually, and he will only really be able to perceive at a certain height. This is the only way I know of swiftly changing the emotional tone and therefore the position of the preclear on the tone scale is to shift his position on the sensation scale.

And since Immanuel Kant, assembly line rifles, automobiles, assembly line machine guns, rapid-firing naval cannon, steel ships, aeroplanes, atom bombs and H-bombs have been invented without what happening in philosophy? Just… just a dead blank. Now if somebody had been actually with some… some sensitivity that we shouldn’t really override the humanities just because we have a clear road here…

That sensation scale and the emotion scale can be considered to be coincident scales: that is, to have him put anger onto an object and feel its anger, to put fear onto an object and feel its fear, to put grief onto an object and feel its grief, to put apathy onto an object and feel its apathy. Now what would that be doing? That would be moving your preclear in order right on down the tone scale, wouldn’t it? And if you went through that order and you said, „Now put some antagonism on this object. Put some anger on it. Now put some fear on it and perceive the fear, now put some grief on it and perceive the grief. Now put some apathy on it and perceive the apathy. And you just went through that cycle in that order from 2.0 down each time as the drill, you’re agreeing completely with the MEST universe. You’re agreeing and therefore he will on go down the tone scale.

There ought to be some other road in the field of humanities there. There ought to be some parallel track. We haven’t got a society that knows anything about these things.

But now if you just vary that and then make it slightly random and then vary it upwards and then make it random and then vary it upwards again, why, you’ll eventually be able to boost him up because really what you’re doing is changing postulates. You’ll be able to boot him up to exhilaration.

Well, what are we doing? We got atom bombs around here and there’s no danger with the control of an atom bomb. All you’ve got to do is push a button and there’s no danger about it. If you don’t push the button it won’t explode, and if you do push the button it will explode; the control of the atom bomb is an assured fact. It’s utterly certain that if you push a button of an atom bomb it’s going to blow. So you… there’s no danger or trouble with control of nuclear fission.

The fellow who goes initially and immediately into serenity, very fast into serenity, without realizing what he does for emotion has simply backed off from experiencing sensation. He has mistaken serenity for sensation. I mean this… he’s mistaken this sensation of backing off from sensation for serenity.

The boys have done a very good job, but how do you control the human being who pushes the button? And so we get Uncle Joe, uh… Uncle Joe and other characters around that may rush around, and they think the hottest way to do this to to make a… a secret society out of atomic science, as their first answer.

Down a little lower on the tone scale, of course, a person is fixed in what they feel. Just like a piece of MEST is fixed with what you felt. You put this MEST out on the table and it’s on the table. You know a table is there because everybody feels that table. And you agreed that you are everybody, so there you are out there and you feel it.

Now we’ve got to have a sort of an atomic police and none of this data can get out in any way, shape or form; and we’ve got to throw the barricades down, not just on trade but on the free knowledge of science which should circulate amongst all lands and which itself is the best guarantee of peace.

Now, you can put something on it and take an emotion off of it. But that is a little hidden step and most people very successfully hide that from themselves and they’ll be quite startled when they suddenly find out that their emotional a… volatility is considerably increasing and also that their complete and utter slavish dependence upon the MEST universe as such is itself decreasing.

So not only do we produce the ultimate weapon but we produce at the same time a new barricade. Science is out of circulation with science today. And it’s going further and further out. Now that’s very interesting. An imbalance like that has been happening almost by the square. It is happening with a rush. We’re seeing the fruition of all of that misconcept at this time.

Why, they never saw the like of this, it’s very strange. They… they… they… they feel better. That’s the only way they’ll say it. Probably won’t even explain it to you at all exactly why this is. But up to this time they’ve said „MEST universe will deliver sensation to me.“

Actually, the only real danger an atom bomb is as far as thee and me are concerned is simply that somebody might bust loose with one of the doggone things and cost us some time, that’s all. We’ve got a spielplatz here called Earth and… and uh… uh… it’s… it’s… we need it for a short time and they keep trying to mess up the playing field.

The reason a guy gets down to apathy is he’s no more willing. He thinks he has to receive the sensation without putting the sensation out. And the more he believes this, the less force he employs; and the less force he is willing to employ, the more he will do this; and the more he does this, the less real sensation there is for him; and he gets into the null of no sensation lower band, which apparently is just flicking around sort of grief and apathy and maybe a little fear. Once in a while he becomes annoyed and he said, „I was in a rage the other day.“

I’m trying to do something about it, but not… not a bad sad hope either.

You know a real good rage is an interesting thing to behold. If a fellow started postulating rages on something he could probably bust agreements which other people had hanging on it. Let’s say he levered a rage at the window and everybody has still got hold of that window, and it’s a window, and they’ve all postulated and so forth, there’d be such a kickback from the window that they’ll say rumph, and the window will go kablam – there’d be no window. This is how you produce sudden shocks in MEST.

All right, that knowledge which cannot be sensed, measured or experienced by any entity or type of entity cannot influence that entity or type of entity.

All right, what then is the first… first requisite on this motion? Space. And what is the first requisite of motion? Is that you can shift postulates about anchor points. That’s the first requisite, that you can shift postulates about anchor points. That gives you real anchor points and that then you can observe something shifting in relationship to anchor points.

If nobody to date has been able to actually spot with a meter the existence of commands from a Supreme Being… you see, he’s got no reason or right to keep insisting that people receive commands from a Supreme Being. He has no reality on it. He… he couldn’t… he couldn’t get a good agreement on this except on a stampede basis. It cannot be scientifically established the geographical location of a fellow by the no… name of the Supreme Being, MEST universe. That can’t be established.

Now the essential step there is of course to perceive that something is changing in relationship to the anchor points. You postulate it’s here, and then you postulate it’s there and then you postulate it’s over here. What are you doing when you’re doing that? You’re saying, „It’s here, it’s there, it’s here, it’s there, it’s here, it’s there, it’s here, it’s there.“ Look at that thing vibrate.

A lot of fellows been trying that. This does not say that there aren’t such things as gods and makers of gods. But it does say that this cardboard thing-a-ma-bob that they sell by painting signs on the rocks probably isn’t sending out anything for us to experience at all.

Now, this apparently and obviously requires time, doesn’t it? Because what did you say? Time? What’s time? Well – time – well, you’ve got a watch, haven’t you? Says in the old axioms, a single arbitrary is time. Uh-huh, this MEST universe for homo sapiens has as its arbitrary time. Because he’d made time an unknown thing which can be given… experienced only secondarily, and he’s sort of agreed that this is what it is.

Why? We can’t measure it. That’s a heck of an arbitrary scale, isn’t it? Well, the dickens it is. We’ve been able to measure everything else. In absence of that we’ve been driven to this incredible length. In absence of trying to find a Supreme being for this universe, why we’ve been driven to the incredible length of having to discover that uh… uh… probably the mostest god you’ll ever know is you in this universe and uh… for lack of a… lack of a nice big fellow who anthromorphically sits on a throne and uh… has a greed for adulation which would be found disgusting in any mortal (I’m quoting the Greeks now. The sources of Christianity, Plato, the great pagan, he’s their sole reason for authority). Anyway, didn’t you know that, that Christianity is based upon the writings of Plato, and the Catholic Church at all times when challenged about its doctrines has uniformly referred to the authority called Plato? You understand I’m not… not in any way, sense or form against the Church. I think the Church is a good organization. But we got a better one now.

Now in order to have motion you’ve got to put into existence two anchor points, and you’ve got to have a shift of dimension. Well, when you have two anchor points, you can say those things exist without dimension, but that isn’t very handy.

Now there’s something else that goes with that which I ought to say to an auditor. He’s going to discover more half-known thing-a-ma-bobs and what-nots in preclears with this stuff than he cares to count up.

So let’s put something with its own dimension there and certain solidity so if somebody runs into it they’ll know it’s there. Let’s make sure that’s there. Now when we get something shifting there let’s say it has a certain unenterability and let’s get it shifting real good, right to the left, left to the right, right to the left, left to the right. Now let’s get that going real good. Now we got that.

If he had one of these Chinese things that does addition in incredible numbers – I think it’s above an ENIAC in the number of figures it will carry or something – he would not be able to count off in a career of one year of auditing and Dianetics all the screwball things that he will run into and it’s a very, very good thing, a very good thing, to go along the line of what you actually know as a certainty and to lay off in receiving communication from your preclear and in trying to establish this, that and the other thing about the preclear, what you cannot discover as a certainty.

All the time, by the way, we’re sitting there watching it and being very surprised, very, very surprised that uh… and affected and amused by all that action that’s taking place that we don’t have anything to do with it. We’re not doing that, no, no. We’re doing that with complete agreement, so we put an object there.

The E-Meter is a fair certainty of establishment. When your preclear starts to tell you that he is immediately in connection with the upper, higher key of the left-hand side of Betelgeuse, when he tells you this and says that he has positive information that you are about to be wiped out at thirteen-thirty o’clock, you say, „Okay, now let’s get a mock-up of…“

Now what’s this object? This object is a particle. It has an unenterability of a certain dimension of the space which we’re dimensionalizing and that is a particle. That’s very simple. This particle could be a sheet, a cube, a lightning bolt, anything you want to put it there. Hut let’s say a particle. And let’s get this particle being first, second, third, fourth, so that there’s an order of position.

I told you when the class began about that thing about the Prince of Darkness. That’s routine. Sure, sure, there’s all types of odds and ends of communications that are coming through and being taped onto your preclear. But, you’re underestimating the power of thee, you’re just completely underestimating it. Nothing can tamper with you unless you agree to permit it to. And there is no stronger law in this universe really than that, as far as protection is concerned.

Now we could go first, second, third, fourth, just agreeing that there’s an interval of sh… shift. Unless we’ve got a solid agreement on an interval of shift, unless we’ve got that one, nobody will ever see anything travelling at the same speed, and we couldn’t have that.

If you start saying this is destructive it can only then become so. Now, people can be hit with force because they have agreed that force is destructive and only then can force hit them. That person who has not agreed upon the destructivity of force would theoretically be untouchable by it.

So let’s get that thing and then you can shift it to one, two, three, four, as positions. And then you could shift it to positions as I’m going to write as follows up here on the board, and your shift of positions would be first one… positions one, two, three, four – notice this is in relationship that you’re seeing it, by the way, to those two anchor points up there.

We tell this story. I ran this out of a preclear one time. Didn’t run it out of a preclear, preclear told me about running it.

And uh… so then we could… we could do this change, we could do this change, this uh… in two ways. We could say one, two, three, four, or we could say one, two, three, four, or we could say one, two, three, four, or one, two, three, four, or one, two, three, four. And that last one, two, three, four all piled up on each other there would make it look like it was standing still, or that it wasn’t there, which it isn’t in the first place.

Way back on the first area of track… there are three areas to these tracks, you know, for each person. There is thetan plus thetan, there is thetan versus bodies. And then there’s bodies versus bodies. And you can divide the track roughly into those sections. The earliest portion of it is thetan versus thetan, the middle portion of it is thetan versus bodies and the latter portion of it is, of course, bodies versus bodies.

All right. So you ever see anything do this? You ever see anything vibrate broadly and then narrow and speed its vibration and then narrow and speed its vibration until it’s practically standing upright and vibrating like the dickens?

Now that means that if you’re looking for basic-basic on DEDs and DEDEXs and so on, you’re going to find them rather uniformly on thetan versus thetan, not thetan versus bodies.

Well, now it’s… it’s going to shock you sometime to find out how fast you really think because you don’t think measured against time. And when you think your time against MEST time as such, running a clock or something in the MEST universe, you’re going to be flabbergasted to find out that you’re thinking brrrp. And you’ve just thought out this whole book. Or you say brumm and there it all is. Oh heck, you… you can do that and you’ve got a condition… you’ve got a condition… you can go brrrp and you’ve got a condition. Well, you’ve got a condition – that’s very interesting, isn’t it? You’ve got a condition. There it is. Very interesting.

Although, blanketing is a very easy place to go to. You have to know that on mock-ups by the way. It’s a lot more beneficial to take a couple of lighted electric light bulbs and turn them on and off and have the preclear smashing them together and breaking them and doing that sort of thing than it is to have the preclear doing the things with spots of lights on the body.

You want to sit there with nothing else to pick up your interest? Time is for the purposes of interest. Time is made to interest one. So we get time to be a particle, a motion, an object. Now look it, don’t… don’t… don’t get too slippy on this. Time is not, definitely not, at any moment, anything as silly as a change of motion in space. That is not time.

Well anyway, way back on the track… he is sitting there doing nothing and life was interesting to him and very pleasant and a bunch of thetans came around, about a hundred thetans, and said, „Do you know that you can’t fight a hundred thetans?“

To say that there’s time and then to describe an action of space and particle and your postulates and then say, „Well, there’s time“ is to put out a weird sort of a thing that some kind of an unknown thing that goes on that we don’t want to know anything about. So that compares immediately to something on the automaticity scale. Not wanting to know in order to produce randomity. Time is… is the object, call this particle an object. Sounds awfully strange, doesn’t it? Time is an object. Call this particle an object, call anything which becomes solid as a result of that as an object, call any energy flow which is a whole particle or made up of particles, whichever way you want to look at it – call that whole energy flow an object, or call any section of it an object. But let’s kind of use the word OBJECT. There’s a good reason for this. It’s an object; because you can change a person’s time sense and time beingness and alter his time just with objects.

„Aw go on, I’m not interested in fighting a hundred thetans, go on your way.“ And they tried to flip energy at him and of course he wouldn’t tune up to the energy; he didn’t think it was dangerous – it was just going right on by him and he wasn’t paying any attention to it. And they said, „Well, how do you know you can’t fight a hundred thetans? Why don’t you try to… you haven’t convinced us that you can’t fight a hundred thetans.“ Well, this got him kind of sore, which is the trick.

So let’s divide this thing up for clarity of thinking in order to compare it to experience as an object… objects. Let… let’s… let’s class… let’s forget about the clocks and their hands going around in circles for a moment and see this as an object, and the chair as an object and the place as an object and so forth. And there is a lot of change of space matched up in each one of these things on which you’re agreeing like mad. It’s really… you’ve got no idea how bright you are. Why, you’re so bright that you can keep all these postulates running simultaneously. That’s brilliant!

And uh… they got him to turn on so he would start blocking energy and then about a hundred thetans started dive bombing him with force beams and so forth, and started running around and around and he’s very successful at the first part of the battle; he’s knocking them left and right and then all of a sudden why of course he’s not. So he goes running around after that telling all the thetans he’d run into and so forth, „Do you know that you can’t fight a hundred thetans?“

Well, let’s… let’s… let’s take a look at this now and let’s take a whole lot of objects. Let’s take a great big pile of objects. Let’s not do anything with the coordinate points, the anchor points for those objects. Let’s just take that great big pile of objects. Now unless you come along and do something about them or unless they’re motivated to have something done to them, or unless internally something will happen to these objects, there’s no change.

Well, it’s an incredible thing now there that… that gives you an example. Let’s say you’re sitting there and your preclear says, „You know ah anama and I da da and I was da da and these Venusian psychiatrists and so on and it’s just going to happen to you any minute and uh… so on,“ or „We should get into contact with this,“ so on. Why, give me then the modern equivalent of „Go over it again“: „Let’s get another mock-up on this now,“ because uh… if you say, „They are? What? By golly, you know, maybe you can’t fight a hundred thetans; I’ll have to find out“ – because these characters don’t have a MEST entrance point immediately handy.

And if you were to walk in there according to the MEST universe time of 1200 and take a look at that pile of objects and you were to walk in there in the year 2000 and take a look at those pile of objects and there was no change. You were there in 1200, and when you went in there at 2000, you were there at 1200. Well, when you went in there at 1200, you were there at the year 2000. See, it doesn’t matter a doggone. It doesn’t matter when you came in that area, that space, and examined the objects; if there’s no corrosion, no loss of the object, you’ve always got the same time. You never have anything else, but the same time for those objects.

Just remember that, they don’t have a MEST entrance point. So deal in certainties. Deal in certainties. Know only that you know and go on from there. And when you know that you know, why operate. Work on that data. That also tells you that you should separate data out into various bins.

You have a change of object out in the environment beyond this space by which you can judge whether or not… you’ve got an alteration of anchor points, postulates shifting for your own interest, out here in the anchor points of the environment, and you’ve got this big pile of stuff there. Now you say it went from the year 1200 to the year 2000 not because they changed – no change. You… they had just duration. There’s no change; that’s duration, that’s also matter. All right.

You take these bins and… and you… you can have, say you have several bins, and it’d be a gradient scale. You say, „All right, and we partially know about this and we know a little more about that and we don’t know anything about this over here on an evaluation of data; we haven’t got anything to measure this up to, but this we can correlate and coordinate and work with pretty well, now what part of it as we’re working is the most valuable to us?“

But you could go out here in the environment and you could go around and… and you get… you… you… you postulate you’ve got a Ford and you postulate you’ve got a building, you postulate you’ve got a moustache, and you postulate you now have a family. And you got this and you got that and you got this and you got that and you got this and you will have this and you won’t have this and something else this and that, and so forth, and this whole cycle goes along for an awful long time, and then you come back and take a look at this room. There’s no change, but you know it’s been a long time. Not because anything happened in the room, but because something happened on a broader set of anchor points. Only when you make a broader set of anchor points for observation and include that room in them, is there any change in that room.

It is always that portion of it of which you were the most certain. Now that is a conservative way of looking at things in one way, at one… in one direction it’s a conservative method of looking at something but actually it isn’t. I consistently have done this trick in investigation. I’ve taken all the maybes and thrown them out the window and hung onto a few certainties.

Timelessness is an apathy and time itself is an apathy. Timelessness merely means something that endures across long spans of time. That’s silly – something that endures across long… one is a long span of time.

And then with those few certainties looked for some more certainties and then evaluated again and thrown out any less certain thing that was there and I’ve gone straight on through in that wise. That meant that you couldn’t work with MEST universe what is laughingly called data – and so this work is not a product of MEST universe data, but it’s an investigation of the track of the MEST universe. All right, an investigation of its track alone would be the same in the investigations as it would be with the auditor.

The Egyptian pyramids obviously have changed. They are not timeless. You could measure the amount of change of the Egyptian pyramids. People came along and took that nice marble facing off of them and built doorsteps and privies and things out of them, and did different beautiful things with them. That’s a fact, they did, and the desert sands came up and hit them and corroded them and blew them away. There are big nicks in them and the space of the… space of the Sphinx has all corroded; there’s been a change there. We know they are changed. But if those things existed as the day they were built with the same condition as the day they were built, we’d walk back there and it might as well be the 3500 years ago as now.

The investigation is a parallel to an investigation that’s being carried on with an auditor, and every preclear is an adventure. They all have their differences, some of them are wilder than others, some of them more interesting than others. But in every one of them you are examining, first, a member of a universe in which you are also an inhabitant and, primarily, you are looking at a universe.

The more solid apathy is… you see, apathy can be this no motion apparency. It’s an all motion which has no space to operate in, all postulated, all collapsed on itself. We have, then, an object.

And that universe itself might be very strangely constructed. You’re not even vaguely interested in how that universe is really constructed, only insofar as how that structure has been knocked to pieces and its functions disrupted by an agreement level of which you have a very adequate track.

We’ve got duration. We have duration. Mostly because another guy, some poor little weak guy can’t come along and take a look at them and say, move this way, move that way, move this way, move that way, and they get all changed. No, sir, these exist on changeless postulates. They’ve been agreed upon so hard and so thoroughly and so carefully that nobody can come up and in a few little weak postulates alter them. There’s no time there. Things would stop.

So deal with certainties, not with uncertainties. Be sure that you’re sure and operate. That doesn’t mean that you have to have 100% absolute certainty in order to operate, just take the one that comes closest to it in your estimation and work with it. If you knew eight techniques, let’s say, and you were darn certain of technique two, you would do much better to take this technique two and operate with it than you would be to try to operate with all eight.

Now if that existed, only on its own anchor points, there’d be no time. The place might as well be empty on its own anchor points. It’s empty on its own anchor points; it’s full of matter on its own anchor points, you still have no sensation of time, until you put a particle in there.

You know, I ran into a fellow one time who was learning how to play the piccolo. And he was playing piccolo for the band. And he was just learning how to play this piccolo and I kept hearing this excruciating noise. It would go on all evening. So I found this fellow who was making this noise, and he was making this noise with his piccolo and what was he doing? All evening long he would hold one note until he was absolutely sure of that note. And he was sooner or later then going to be absolutely sure of every note on that piccolo. And he got to be a pretty good piccolo player. That’s kind of cautious!

So let’s just forget about this slippy, stupid word TIME, let’s forget about that and let’s get change of position. Now that’s theoretically the definition of it. And the only reason we’re interested in this is not interested in it from a physics standpoint even remotely. They’ve been too long running around in that squirrel cage. Going round and round and round, space is time is MEST is a particle is space is time is MEST is a… I mean we’re… space, time, energy, these three things are related. Related, hell! There’s no difference except in terms of experience. And the second we put these things in terms of experience we can handle the problem in processing. And that’s all we’re interested in. You just say, anytime time factor comes up, you just say have and have not, and you’ve got it. Sounds awful simple, but, boy, the case is just ripped to pieces on this one.

A lot of the difference between speeds in people is that some people have more certainties than others. Two people can get to the same goal really at different times – one simply holds onto his certainties and examines them longer than another.

Essentially, by test, if you will treat an engram which is held in present time as something which a person still will have or is trying desperately to have not, you have the essential ingredient of time and it’s present time for him. And that’s what brings your engram into present time.

Now a person who’s trying to succumb will take the most uncertain data he has and use that. He’ll use that for all of his thinking processes and everything else. When he gets so far down the tone scale anything that has got an uncertainty principle to it, he’ll use. He won’t use any certainties.

Your engram is in present time because the person still wants it and hasn’t got the actual object, so he takes the picture of the object. Guys are always packing around little pictures. They can’t have the object itself, so they’ve got a picture of the object. That’s a facsimile and all that a facsimile is, actually… they know they can’t have the object, they haven’t got sense enough to make it again right there; besides this would overrule the law of scarcity and so… so they… they… they… they carry this little picture of the object around and that’s permitted in the MEST universe.

You as an auditor just reverse the process and you’ll bring him up tone scale. That’s why these people float around with maybes all the time. They’d actually rather have a maybe than a certainty. And you start him going up the tone scale and you’re just finding more and more certainties.

But all of a sudden you’ll… you’ll open up the preclear’s track a little bit and you’ll take a look and for heaven’s sakes here is… here is 8000 B.C. and 5 trillion years ago and so forth all there together. Well, he’s had enough change that he more or less estimates – because of what?

This… this raving psychotic may be confronting you if you’re unfortunate enough to process psychotics and uh… uh… these techniques work on them. But uh… here… here he… he is… he’s raving around about this and raving around about that, and he appears to be quite certain.

Planets alter. The havingness of a sun, determined by some prior set of postulates, the havingness of a sun is scheduled. And the havingness of a sun is scheduled. The sun is as long as it has, as far as a… as a… has what? Has change. And if it doesn’t have any change it might as well not be there, because it isn’t going to emanate any light or isn’t going to do any other thing as far as you’re concerned. You can readily tell the kind of matter that isn’t supposed to emanate so you… you say it won’t emanate and it doesn’t.

Lord knows he may be apathetic about it or wild enough about it, but if you question him even vaguely about this thing, you… you shake up what little certainty he’s been able to accomplish on this terrific uncertainty in which he’s sitting. He’s not even certain of anything, truth is.

Now, let’s… let’s be very specific about this, then, in terms of energy. Now I don’t care which one of these energies is which. There’s two energies.

Well, the wrong way to treat him is to challenge what he’s got because he’s really got what’s to him a pretty good level of certainty. But he will go away from any big certainty because he’s headed down scale toward MEST and the mostest you can say about MEST is maybe.

I mean, just might as well go round the other way and call the minus the other one and so on. There’s the have and have not energy. And there’s stuff which you approach and that says, „Have me.“ It really does sort of say, „Have me.“ You can… you’ve got an idea that that’s the kind of motion that should be in this environment and those space coordinates and so you, „Have me.“ It has… sets right there. That’s very good.

MEST is plus-negative and in confusion and chaos. And so it’s the big… biggest maybe there is, is MEST. So let’s go up scale with this psycho and let’s find out the least thing of which he can be certain, with confidence and complete certainty, and it will break a maybe.

Now there’s the kind that says, „Don’t have me“ and these two things get together and they go flick flick flick flick flick flick flick across and you get randomity.

And you can just… if you follow that principle, not running engrams or anything else, but just follow that principle as a general operating principle with psychotics, you’ll watch cases breaking with psychotics – bong, bong, bong.

Let’s take the animal kingdom. The animal kingdom rushes around with two thoughts in mind: „I’ve gotta have“ and „I don’t want to be had.“ That’s all; that’s what appetite is.

I haven’t any uh… qualms much about treating them. I hate to advise auditors to treat them for the good reason that psychotics are very hard to re… they’re quite restimulative when you approach them in a body. You can approach them without a body, just take your perceptic band off and just let it go through, don’t put up screens. That just builds up a stop and you get glee of insanity all over it. Horrible stuff.

Your engrams break down immediately into those two classifications: the engrams „I’ve gotta have“ and the engrams „I don’t want to have“. So there’s two haves. There’s a „have“ engram and a „have not“ engram. The trouble is, with a have not engram the fellow has lost his ability to have not. He no longer is able to say „I won’t have it.“ And so of course anything he says, „I won’t have it“ to, why, that’s gotta say „l have… have not.“ And it will back off and then stay in suspension.

Well, anyway, you take him up scale in certainties. If you have a raving psychotic you can at last say, you can at last say to him, he can recognize a MEST object, or he can recognize you, or he can recognize a window catch. You can just say to him sometime, „Is there anything in this room that is real to you?“

It’s right there; he can’t run it either because it’s… it’s ready to punch him all the time. He says, „I don’t want this,“ therefore he says, „I’m not responsible for this, so therefore it keeps hitting me and I keep creating it, but it keeps hitting me and here it is right here and it’s knocking hell out of me and therefore I don’t want it.“ And the harder it hits him the more he says „I don’t want it,“ and the more he says „I don’t want it,“ of course, the more it’s a have not. And the more it’s a have not the more it kicks him because he… he owns it less, so we have a standpoint that’s horrible.

„No.“ Yeah, no.

So you have big fish flying around in the ocean and they say, „Gotta have, gotta have, gotta have, gotta have.“ And all the little fish fly around in the ocean and they say, „Have me not, have me not, have me not, have me not.“ And the more they say „Have me not,“ the more the big fish say, „Gotta have, gotta have, gotta have,“ till the fisherman comes along and he says, „I gotta have“ and there goes the big fish. At that moment the big fish has changed his postulate and suddenly says, „Have me not, have me not, have me not, have me not.“

What you’ve done is make him hold on to two new anchor points, and then post something in the room. And he’ll all of a sudden look around and he’ll say, „The light switch… the light switch, yeah, that’s really a light switch.“ Now he can go from there to „That’s a window. That’s a washstand. This is a bed. That’s a floor.“ Don’t think he’s just chattering. This guy is in momentary ecstasy of certainties.

So we… we get a system of interdependencies along the dynamics. You ought to trace that out just for your own edification. It’s the cycle or series of „have me’s“ and „have me not’s“, plotted against the cycle of creation, destruction, plotted against the cycle of action, plotted against the cycle of sensation which finally wi… and plotted against the cycle of experience. All these things plot together and you find out time is an object. Now there’s two kinds of objects, there is have objects and have not objects.

You’ve managed to direct his attention just enough up level to let him find and locate – what? An object by anchor point coordinates. And you just let him locate himself. And he’ll locate himself; he’ll find his hands, and his legs, and stuff like that. He’ll locate himself. He’ll get himself right back into present time, if you don’t suddenly think you have to get fancy and if you don’t think you have to get more learned that that. Really there’s nothing more learned to know about psychotics.

Now what to you find in the preclear? The preclear is always saying, „I had, if I had only had, if only I had not had,“ he’s putting it in past tense. Oh, it’s not in past tense though, isn’t that horrible? He’s still got a facsimile sitting right there in present time all the time he’s saying that it’s in the past, and the more he says it’s in the past and he doesn’t want it and… and so forth, and the more he regrets it, the more he’s upset about it, why, the more he’s got it because he hasn’t got it.

Because you have to give them reality. What’s reality? You have to get them back into some sort of an agreement with something because they’re out of agreement with everything. You can even get a psychotic over, by the way, into his own universe, or you can get him into an agreement with you.

So he can move his whole engram bank right up into present time by simply saying all the time, „Well, if I’d only had, the trouble was I had.“ He’s saying „had, had“ and pretending that such a thing as „had“ exists, and then all the time going on in complete agreement that he’s in present time, and then saying, well, „had“ really exists.

One of the oddest ways to get a psychotic over something is to get him into an agreement that something is what it isn’t. Don’t just keep agreeing with his… his… he says… he says, „That’s a hobbyhorse,“ and it’s obviously the windmill and so forth. Direct his attention someplace else; he’s got an identification on that windmill and he’s giving you the wrong name for it.

You’ll find this person’s incapable of handling time. There’s a way to handle time. The way you handle time is to handle objects. If you handle objects, you’ve handled time. That’s all, too simple. That’s because time is a word which talks about the interrelationship – you see, we aren’t quite on time when we say object; but time is an interrelationship of beingness, action, and object, and the interrelationship of beingness, action, and object become themselves time.

Get him over, mock him up an illusion, say „Do you see this little man, no, no, do you see this little man here?“ The guy will mock up a little man there for you, see? Maybe he’ll look at the one you’re mocking up and uh… he’s liable to say, „Yeah, yeah, I see that little man.“ Now you’d think you were leading him right straight off into hallucination and delusion; that wouldn’t be the case at all.

Uh… you’re going to flounder with this for a while; there’s hardly a homo sapiens alive that can grab on to time. You can make time happen brrrr, or you can make time happen pocketa, pocketa, pocketa, practically at will.

You say, „All right, do you see the little man jump?“

Do you know in the last instant before you hit bottom, that a lot of time can occur? It’s the degree you’re trying to have that makes a lot of time. Just get that – the degree you’re trying to have is what creates time. So you’ve got this urge to have.

„Sure.“ Yeah, he’ll agree with you, yeah. You’ve got a point of agreement. Takes two to make some universe like this one.

Now you go around you find these fellows who in… oh boy, are they in bad shape, are they way down tone scale and in horrible condition. It sums up under one… one heading which has two parts, and that’s… they have this idea: „I will have and I won’t ever get.“ He’s going to be punished and he’s not going to get any good out of it. It’s in terms of havingness.

Now, what is a datum? Logic four, a datum is a facsimile of states of being, states of not being, actions or inactions, conclusions or suppositions in the physical or any other universe. Too wide, a little bit too wide a definition. Let’s modify that definition by this: It’s a datum resulting from a postulate.

His future is in terms of havingness. If you cut off a man’s havingness he has no future. I mean, if you cut off all of his havingness his future’s done and that is the one condition about death – as far as the current lifetime and combination of homo sapiens, thetan and so forth, it’s the end of havingness. About the only thing he ever has that he’s really sure of – he’s got a body. And he knows he will have the body and so he sort of sticks on a time track. And he sticks on it like mad. He does everything he could do to stick on this time track, and it’s a very slippy job. Actually trying to stay on a MEST time track for a person who’s fairly aberrated is like walking a very, very high tightwire with greased shoes.

We’ve got a postulate, you know, up in the Q’s. Now let’s just say a datum is something that results from a postulate; can be an idea, a thought, or anything else. We don’t have to put that in terms of energy, because postulates are things that govern a large order of activity and any part of that order of thought or activity could be a datum, couldn’t it? And it does not have to be stated that it is engraved upon energy and that is the definition of a facsimile.

You get your psychos and so forth. A psycho will come around and he will hand you a moment, and you try to take a phrase away from him and he will finally give it to you. And I’ve had them reach in their pockets for it and hand it over. Phrase is an object.

It’s not engraved upon energy. This is true for this universe but it is not true for all universes. What’s a datum? A datum is anything which proceeds from a postulate. You say this room is yellow throughout. You made a postulate. You’ve said a postulate – you’ve already said there is a room, space, coordinates, location and so forth – is yellow throughout and uh… now we get a datum, that wall is yellow. That’s a datum. Uh… those walls are so far apart, and so on. You see you’re… you’re making comments and classifications and gradient scale data proceeding out of basic data. Very… it’s a good way of looking at it. None of these terms are absolute.

People who are pretty well down tone scale, words and symbols are objects, they’re not thoughts anymore, they’re objects. And these people are so literal with words. You… you tell them rrrrr and so on and so on and so on, and you give them this idea and he says, „Now wait a minute. Now what word did you use?“.

All right, five, a definition of terms is necessary to the alignment, statement, resolution, of suppositions, observations, problems, and solutions and their communications. Here’s a whole matter of definition. Definition is taken up so beautifully and expertly by Count Alfred Korzybski that it is very difficult to improve in any way upon his classifications of definitions or his understanding of definitions.

And it’s just as though they were sorting over a pile of rubble, you have suddenly changed a word. It offends them somehow. The… you… you use maybe a colloquialism or something like that, and, boy, they’re upset about this. It’s really hit them.

Somebody said it a little shorter than Korzybski, uh… Voltaire – if you would argue with me, define your terms, and uh… Korzybski is speaking in the main about this universe, he’s using that reference point, and he is in the main working in an effort to gain a therapy which he never gains. The therapy intended in General Semantics, it would be the therapy resulting from any education, but an enforced discipline of forcing people to stop and think for a moment about this and that just to communicate better, puts a stop on the line. So it isn’t a therapy; it’s educational in its therapy level. It is not a process or a therapy which they tried to make of it and which it failed on.

You wouldn’t be so upset with them if you realized that you had probably driven a bullet into them or something of the sort. The thought is the object because the person is in such bad shape that they can only think as an object. They are an object and their thoughts are objects, and they are objects, and they’re getting more objects every minute, and they’ll get pretty upset about it after a while because they realize that they’re on their way out.

But it was too bad that they did that because it is what it is… it’s uh… a dissertation and a very wonderful piece of work on the subject of definition. But we put down here… this is not particularly an agreement or disagreement with that. I don’t think Korzybski himself would disagree with these. He might even have a little fun with them.

Now what’s havingness. Havingness. Have and have not. Positive- negative terminals, so you get this positive- negative randomity as explained by the interaction between haves and have nots. So you get this in the political scene. Let’s just apply it in one time; that would be the most familiar thing to you.

Definition, a descriptive definition is one which classifies by characteristics by describing existing states of being. That would mean this is a table. Uh… this is a table. Uh… it has a flat top. And uh… it has uh… legs. And uh… it sits on things. Of course, that also… that also describes numerous things. That’s a descriptive definition, but that’s true of any descriptive definition that after you’ve described and described and described why, you still don’t have any great clarity on the thing. Even if you take a drawing of a rhinoceros you’re liable to get a unicorn.

There are the haves and there are the have nots, aren’t there? And they fight all the time. And the big joke is that the have nots are really the haves and the haves are really the have nots. The haves have no liberty, they condensed all their space and the have nots have got freedom because they haven’t got any space. They’re not troubled by objects.

Uh… the descriptive definition is very limited. A differentiative definition is one which compares unlikeness to existing states of being or not being. We say this is a table. Why is it a table? It is not a chair. Why is it a table? It is not a box. Why is it not a box? A box has no legs.

The haves are trying to keep having, that is, hold on to, and the have nots are trying to procure. So your progressives are usually found down along the level of the revolutionaries, or is that up along the level of the revolutionaries?

And we could say this has legs and a box doesn’t have legs, therefore it’s not a box. And we keep saying what this is not. The most wonderful fellow in the world on this is the German. The German can go on with this and on and on and on with this, of describing something by saying what it is not.

That rich man tries to buy duration, tries to buy duration, and he gets duration all right; he turns into MEST. That’s why the rich man can’t go through the eye of the needle: his ridges. These ridges are haves, and a person has ridges to the direct degree that they are upset about have and have not, in direct ratio; and they are stuck on the time track to the degree and the exact degree, and their time is unable to be handled to the degree, that they are upset about have and have not.

And actually there’s a system of Germanic logic which runs like this: it is not, it is not, it is not, and it can t, it can t, it can’t. They’ve proven those points and then they simply assume this about it. That’s a gorgeous piece of… piece of logic. They say it… it… it isn’t and it isn’t and it isn’t and it can’t and it can’t and it can’t and they’ve described what it isn’t like and what its disabilities are, and then they they say that’s all that’s left. And you say woooo.

They can have or if they could get the idea that they will have in the future, all of a sudden their track will free up and they’ll run like gazelles on it. But they’re sitting there with the idea they can’t have but they have had but they’re trying to hold on to, and you can get ahold of them and put your foot against their chest and pull on the ridges and have them snap back and go booong. And you try to pull out the tractor beams, and get alongside of that and so on and they go bing-bong and go right back into place again.

They… they’ve just got through assuming with typical Teutonic conceit that they have just exhausted all possibilities here. They… they’ve insisted that they’ve exhausted all possibilities of unlikeness and inability and therefore conclude an ability. And Germanic philosophy is full of this sort of thing. My God, if you do that you can prove one equals zero and two equals ten and that one over the square root is the acceleration of gravity. You can prove anything if you do that.

You can’t take anything away from this person. You’re trying to run an engram. You’re trying to get him to… get rid of a little energy. He isn’t going to be able to do it. He can’t get… do it because he can’t have, can he? Well, therefore, he’s got to hold on to it, hasn’t he? And those… those things are all have nots, aren’t they? So he can’t touch anything that doesn’t want to be had because he can’t use any force, can he? Because he hasn’t any space to orient against, and you say, „Run out that engram.“ And he’ll say, „What engram?“ Well he… and you think, „Christsakes!“

So an associative definition is one which declares a likeness to existing states of being or not being. So you say that’s a table, it’s pretty well like a… it’s like a… well, it’s like a big table and uh… it’s like a chair except it’s not so high as a chair and a chair has a back, and so on, just go on like that. Now an action definition would be one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose. And that’s very interesting. Although it sounds sort of garbled as you read it there.

The fellow keeps walking around all the time saying, „I’ve got to get rid of it, I’ve got to get rid of it. Well, I’ve just got to get rid of it. I wonder why I worry all the time about knitting needles, knitting needles, knitting needles? I’ve got to get rid of it.“ And he’s just walking around. He looks like he’s in a prenatal and there he is.

Boil it down to this, boil it down to this. What that thing’s trying to say is simply this: here, here we have the classifications of insanity of Kraepelin. It’s actually Crap-lin but I… audiences snicker when I say that, for some reason or other. He worked an awful lot, long ago, and he made this terrific classification of psychotic states.

You start to ask him to give up this prenatal, he’d probably start reaching and looking through his pockets when you start talking to him about an engram. He uh… he… he’d be unable to conceive that he was dramatizing, that’s why; it’s cause and he’s effect.

The Germans are morbidly interested in this sort of thing. And he goes on and on and on and on and on; he says there’s this state and that state and there’s this state and that state and this state and that state and woah rah, page after page after page. And then finally, having exhausted all states and having said so, he gets to the last classification and he says all other classifications are unclassified and so fall here.

So way up at the top of the tone scale, the individual is cause and as he dwindles down from beingness through action to having, he becomes more and more an effect of what he has.

This is the most gorgeous, by the way, piece of classification that has ever been done. And it hasn’t any use. Its level of use is demonstrated by the fact that there’s a place by the name of Walnut Lodge. I… I… They don’t see anything humorous in that, by the way; it’s Walnut Lodge. And that’s a spinbin down the line here. And uh… Walnut Lodge has… has… treats only… only uh… psychiat… oh uh… pardon me I… I said that accidentally, not as a gag, uh… uh… not as a gag.

That person’s span of life is freest where they have the least and expected the most, and became most stultified and ruined the time when they finally procured. And their instant of procurance is their instant of no time from there on. Your one-five who was holding on, holding on, holding on like mad, he’s holding on to the arthritis, holding on to Little Bessie, holding on to this, holding on to that, isn’t going to get loose of anything and so forth, and he’s going to destroy it, but isn’t going to… no motion, no motion, no mo… what do… what do you find in this person? Boy, anything that comes near him, just hits up against the body like a magnet. It goes spoing – thug. You run down, you get rid of this engram, you run this one-five through this engram, you run him through this engram from one side to the other all the way through the thing. You say, uh… „Well, let’s go through it again.“ They go all the way through the thing again, and you say, „How’s it feel?“

They… they… they sent three people to see, to… to see me and every one of them was under treatment. And this was their staff. But anyway, very good people there, I’m sure, didn’t happen to meet any. Have some fine patients though. Anyway, they… they treat only schizophrenia. And so they take only schizophrenics. Now how do they get only schizophrenics? Well, anybody sent to Walnut Lodge is a classified schizophrenic. And they take somebody who is a dementia praecox unclassified or a more modern definition, a mania-depressive and they take him from Saint Elizabeth’s and they take him over to Walnut Lodge and he goes onto the books as a schizophrenic.

„No change.“

Why? Because Walnut Lodge takes only schizophrenics. Now you can look at them and you say, „Now wait a minute, let’s go over this awfully slow,“ you say, „What’s a schizophrenic?“

„Let’s go all the way through it again…“ You’re not going to get anyplace with this, that’s all.

„A schizophrenic? We take schizophrenics here.“

You’ve got to get into this to a point where they can change. You’ve got to find someplace they can change, because they haven’t got any time and they haven’t got any time because they own all possession. And it’s all have not possession. And if they got all this have not possession and some have possession, they have to hold on to the have possession and that makes them hold on to the have not possession. And the first doggone thing you know, what’s the first thing a one-five tells you? He says, „I’ve got no time. I have no time for that.“ And you’ll see him sitting there at his office desk, hour after hour after hour. I mean, „I haven’t got any time for it. I’m awfully rushed, I’m so busy.“ He’ll look at you rather sadly and sigh wheezily, „I have no time for anything.“ There he is – he’s got no time for anything. That’s perfectly true. He’s got no time; he’s just so upset on the idea of time, his haves and have nots are so intermingled and balanced he can’t do anything about it.

You say, „No, no, no, what is a schizophrenic?“

From there on down he tries to get rid of possessions. A one-one tries to kick possessions away and get the hell out of there because he knows he’s in death. Now a one-one will destroy possessions covertly and try to get rid of them, push them aside, they won’t leave him. He hasn’t enough command value to do that. Your one-one, he starts to kick this engram through and he will sort of reach down to the side and move it over to the side and say, „Yeah, I’m all rid of that. Yep, yep, I ran that. I ran that“ – the end of the session he takes his foot off of it and it goes spoing and he’s got it again.

„You know what a schizophrenic is,“ they say, „a schizophrenic is a general type of insanity and so when we take schizophrenics here that ends the whole thing.“

You say, „What’s the matter with you today, I thought we ran that out yesterday.“

Actually, the modern definition of schizophrenia… actually the American psychiatrist does not define schizophrenia from its root word of shizoid or schizoid, meaning scissors-like, and it means a split personality. And you think that a schizophrenic today is a split personality person? That’s not true. It hasn’t anything to do with… it’s… I don’t know, I don’t know what it is. I go around and I get these guys and I hold them against the wall and I say, „Now look, what… what is this?“

„Oh, we did.“

And they say, „Well, uh… we had to go to school for twelve…“

Huh? There it is.

„Well, wai… wai… wait a minute now. All I want is a common English definition or a Latin definition or even put it in Sanskrit. I can find a translator, but I want you to tell me what so and so is or why.“ And you get the most… it’s… it’s just A=A=A=A explanations.

Their time. What happens to a one-one’s time? Boy, time is the master. Everything is an effect. He’s an effect to everything.

Well, he rowed a horse because he rode a horse and that’s on down the line – no sense. You get that way by treating psychotics. Don’t ever treat psychotics.

Well, now maybe you’ll understand this a little better on this scale. On this scale, 40.0 is beingness. This is in terms of experience. 40.0 is beingness. Now there can be beingness and individuality above 40.0 but space is one trick of beingness. And beingness in this universe is space anchor points coordinates. And that is beingness. And the most beingness a person could be would be determined upon the most space the person could embrace. Free space postulated. Now you find your big rancheroos out in the West. They owned one hundred eighty-five thousand square miles and so forth, they were big men them days. Yeah, they sure had an idea of beingness. Space! Nothing on it at all.

Anyway, this action definition merely tries to state, then, that the definition of something should lead to putting it into action or remedying it. You say schizophrenia. Here’s an action definition of schizophrenia which you might apply. This isn’t the definition of schizophrenia, nobody can find that. It’s buried in the archives of the Library of Congress or something.

You go out there, you also find that the biggest liars that ever lived probably come from spaces, big spaces like that. Out in space in your space crews and things like that, the guys who are really free and have lots of space. They wouldn’t know what the heck you were talking about, if you said, „What is the truth of this?“ „Truth, there is no such thing.“

It’s… schizophrenia is an idea that one is two persons, which is remediable by the discovery of the life continuums being dramatized by the individual. And that would be an action definition and when you’re defining things, particularly in Scientology, I wish you’d remember that. Define it by what it does or its cure. Don’t define it by what it is like or what it’s unlike or anything. Somebody says to you, „What’s an engram?“ Well, we have a technical definition which is a moment of pain and unconsciousness. That’s all right but that is not an action definition. That is a descriptive definition and so far is limited in use.

Now, we get 20.0 is action. And action is energy. Energy. But the funny part of it is that 0.0 gives an interdependency of objects and beingness which amounts to action. It is very hard to get into… very hard to get into action without an object. Just get… try to get into action.

So it’s the best… a clumsy way to define it but nevertheless a better way to define it, even if you say it this way, „An action definition of an engram is a moment of pain and unconsciousness which has content, perceptic content, which has command value on the individual and which when reduced brings a greater state of self-determinism to that individual.“

By the way… way, one of the ways a fellow dramatizes this when he’s a little kid, he says all the time, he’s saying, „If I only had the gun and mask and so forth of Red Rider, then I could be…“ And he gets much older and he has the wherewithal to buy all the guns and hats of Red Rider you could possibly imagine, but what does he do? He’s… all of his childhood was spent trying to get dressed so he could play a part in the play. And all of his adulthood is spent trying to get dressed. He’s forgot that there’s any part left in the play. He isn’t prepared for anything anymore.

Or you could define it this way, „An engram is a moment of pain or unconsciousness which can be erased by continuous repetition of its phrases and perceptions as though at the moment it occurred.“

So time is an object really. It’s an interaction between beingness and object that gives you action. And so it takes a full forty-to-twenty interrelationship in order to give us activity and energy. And out of this we get force and the production of force, and all of the other things in which we’re interested.

You see the reason I’m telling you this is a very interesting reason, that is the way you keep knowledge from being lost. The way to lose knowledge is to use descriptive definitions, associative definitions. It’s all very wonderful to say, that chair is like a hooblagobla. And it comes into a society which doesn’t have a hooblagobla. And then the information is then lost.

Now this lower scale here is S.E.T. related to experience. E.X.P., and that experience is the human experience and in human experience space is beingness. Action is energy, and object is time. And if you want to process a person who has no time, process if… in that s… way. If you want a person to increase his energy, you have to address his beingness and his object, in other words, his space and his object.

A chair is a four-legged object on which one sits and which is constructed by four legs, a seat, and a back, normally of wood. That tells them how to build it. Gives them some idea of how you build a chair.

So instead of processing too much space, energy and time as such, you could process beingness, action and object. Or instead of processing, as you have in the past, thoughts, beingness, object, abject, so on, so on, trying to get at it like that; you can process directly space, energy and object. Space, energy and time, because this time is just have-have not, that’s all.

And when you’re defining Scientology or you’re writing it down, please remember what I say on that. Give them as much of what you do to cause or cause an effect on this thing you’re defining in the definition as you can and still be brief… get an action definition. I do not know but what the concept of action definition is new – I don’t know this. It might not be, uh… but it… it certainly… it’s certainly something I’ve never before seen stressed in the field of philosophy.

You can process that directly and in that wise you can straighten a preclear out and make him run like a gazelle, but you have to rehabilitate force in order to do any of it. And force of course is the middle ground, and the way you get force is space and particles, which are objects. And that is the way it is done.

Uh… what is an action definition? Action definition is something which gives the remedy or which gives the method of use or construction. All right, you have to learn how to think in those terms by the way. You ought to have this stuff so that you can deliver it, so that you can can remember it without any textbook or anything else, so you can put it all back together again.

I’ll give you the mock-up drills in tomorrow afternoon’s lecture. Tonight we’ll be covering the axioms.

This is essentially learning how to think with it. And it’s much more important to know how to think with it than it is to quote it. Very much more important, that’s why I seem to labor some points, and so forth. It’s… it’s just I want them punched up good and hard so that the evaluation line on the thing, if you… if you, all of a sudden one day, if you don’t know this… this subject well, all of a sudden one day you’ll be walking down the street and you, orienting, and all of a sudden whirr click, and the knowledge is yours and you’ve got it in mind and you can suddenly think with it and there’s no strain on it at all. And that’s… that’s just, after that, it’s very easy, very easy.

Let’s get a bite of supper.

One of the best auditors over in England said, „Well, I finally uh… finally got it fixed in my mind one day that anything which didn’t consist of an optimum motion was an aberration and after that I understood the whole thing and it’s very easy.“ I don’t know if – that doesn’t get home to me, does it get home to you?

But he… he just told me this in his level of communication. Since that he’s been a wonderful auditor, everything going along fine. I don’t know what he got… what he got into the light, but something went click and after that the preclears are just coming off of an assembly line, click, click, click, click, click, click, click.

Now, all of the early logics then really boil down to the fact that you have a non-wavelength thing called theta which is capable of creating space, time, and locating matter and energy in it, and that uh… there are various things you can do, and at this time the mostest we know you can do with great ease is to make postulates and postulates are a statement of states of being which then go into effect, or don’t go into effect, as the case may be. And proceeding from postulates are bodies of knowledge and data.

And knowing how to know is being free enough to be able to make postulates which will stick or not stick as the case may be, as you desire it.

Let’s take a break.