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

You're training for a graduate designation of Professional Auditor. All right. That is granted to you. You're expected to go forward from there.

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

There is no large, wide demonstration of use included in that. We have to be fairly sure you can get results.

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

But your next grade up from that depends upon the use you have made of it. It depends upon your having gotten very wide usage out of it, and so on. Training in this field is not really a finite affair; it doesn't just suddenly start and stop. You get to a certain point where you know theory and practice. And then there's another point where you are practised in being able to practice. And then there's another point further than that where you're practised in being able to practice in a great many areas of knowledge and beingness. Now, we'll take all those things in due course.

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

And I want to give you the limits of what a professional auditor is expected to know.

Absolutes are unobtainable. Any datum has only relative truth.

You have a mimeograph sheet. Has that mimeograph sheet been issued to you? Has this class had this mimeograph sheet? [See Standard Operating Procedure for Theta Clearing in the Appendix of this volume.]

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

Male voice: Here's one.

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

Another male voice: Yeah.

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

Another male voice: Yes. I did issue them.

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

Do you have them?

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

Male voice: Yes, I think so.

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

A mimeographed sheet. One sheet of paper, and it's got all the lists of everything on it.

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

Now, we're expected to know the definitions of each one of these and how each one of these items on this sheet integrates into a whole subject.

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

Now, something is being asked of you here which has not been asked in the humanities. And man has gotten into a very sloppy habit with regard to the humanities. Nobody knew! Nobody knew! And I don't care how you want to compare this with psychoanalysis or compare it with ditch digging or do comparisons of lines, the point is that nobody knew; that's the horrible truth of the matter.

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

Your boys out there now, having valuable and important cases put in their hands, training allegedly good, and working in the field of the mind, do not know! They do not know anything. It is just fabulous! You haven't had that experience, most of you. I did not know that this condition existed until 1948 – it was so far outside my ability to grasp idiocy. And you know, you have to have a special ability to grasp something idiotic. It's remarkable. But you'll notice the tendency in yourselves of trying to make something sensible which is idiotic.

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

Somebody would put in here something with a lot of dials and meters on it and with a couple of lights that flashed on the top of it. And if you walked in and you saw that thing sitting in the center of the floor, why, you'd probably have quite a little discussion amongst yourselves as to what the purpose of this thing was.

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

You'd have assumed something very strange and that you didn't really have any right to assume – and that was that it had a purpose. Or that it knew anything or could do anything. The truth of the matter is it simply might be a gadget with some dials and a couple of lights on top. And what is its purpose? None. Why was it built? Well, maybe it was just built to use up some meters and some lights that were lying around.

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

And yet you would be surprised how man has strained his brains, has gotten down and just ground without first asking "Does it have any purpose? Is there anything back of this? Is there any reason back of this? Or is the reason back of this a logical or a good reason?" Instead of going back and asking that, he takes the accomplished item or datum and goes forward from that accomplished item or datum just as though it had a reason.

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

Now, you will find him proceeding in the humanities from high- level abstractions which were never proven. He assumes, for instance, that human behavior would be akin to the behavior of mice or rats. He assumes that in psychological laboratories. There is no reason for the assumption. Man is alive and mice are alive, but he has not proven anything beyond that – they're alive. He hasn't even defined what alive is.

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

Now, we take off from that in the humanities. Somebody paints a picture. Gorgeous picture – it has an emotional reaction upon you. You look at this lovely thing and: "Now what was the reason he painted it?" everyone wants to know. Well, that's a funny thing, but there doesn't happen to be any reason in the field of aesthetics. The battle in aesthetics is Why? and What is the reason? and There it is. There isn't any point in it. There doesn't have to be a point in it; that is not demanded in the field of aesthetics. So you have such things as art critics who write very logically on something where there is no logic. The essence of aesthetics is a wide differentiation – the very essence of it – not logic.

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

Now, I showed you these three categories of identification, association or similarity, and differentiation. As you go up tone scale, you'll find one getting further and further toward differentiation. Therefore, to go up tone scale one must be further and further able to differentiate.

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

Now, we have, through lack of differentiation in the humanities, fallen into a very, very sloppy habit of thinking here on Earth. We think nobody knew, so anything goes.

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

I was reading in a magazine the other day – somebody writing from the "Pathetic Foundation" or something – a guy I... Once in a while I used to try to get him to get me to process him, because we used to have trouble with this boy. He used to rush in and rush out, always wild-eyed and so forth. And he writes down and he says, "Well, we finally have figured it out that the real aberration, and all that aberration is" – this was in a magazine a very few days ago – he says, "is a departure from the will of God; a disobedience of what God demands. And when you disobey that, then that's aberrated."

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

Oh, by God, let's all go blow our brains out! And yet, guys all around the shop will integrate that as though that's Dianetics or has some shadow of Dianetics in it. Oh, no. No. You see, I told you before that there's two sides to this subject, as far as I talk to you here. I talk to you about data and laws of action, and so on, and I give you my opinion of them. It is pretty obvious to you what my opinion is, but it should be equally obvious which is the data.

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

This data produces results. It doesn't produce results in one case or two cases. You go down the line with these techniques and you will find that your preclear will respond uniformly to these techniques. One preclear may be tougher than another, one may be less solvable than another, but there isn't anything freaky going to suddenly step in on you. You're not all of a sudden going to find out that you really have to apply a crank to his left foot or something and wind it for a half an hour. Now, that's the field of what was called the humanities – those inhuman methods of controlling people that were laughingly called the humanities.

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

You place somebody in time and space and place him in time and space and place him in time and space and don't let him place anything in time and space, until he's finally in apathy, and then you book him up to a machine and let him pull a lever. Or you hook him up to a desk and let him make a certain motion with a pen. You got him. You got him nailed on the time track with possessions and necessity. You've got him in a body that will die unless he fits it into his economic system. And this was what was called "humanity."

You say, "How high?"

All right. What we're studying is a series of laws – we're not talking about general value, but we're talking about they have the same level or same activity of application as any other natural law. You'll find these things don't go varying on you. They are natural laws.

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

Now, very few people have the habit of either studying or looking at precision. It's not very well known and it certainly does not exist in what were called the humanities, but it existed in physics. It existed to a lesser degree in chemistry, but it did exist in chemistry. You put sodium in water in chemistry – you put sodium, a little blob of sodium, in some water – and it'll go bang! And you take some more sodium and you put it in the water and it goes bang! And you take some more sodium, you put it in the water and it goes bang! Now, that's what I mean by a natural law; it's a universally applicable law.

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

Now, in the humanities, it worked this way: You took the sodium and you put it in the water and it went zzzt! And then you took some sodium and you put it in water and it rang a bell. And then you took some sodium and you put it in some water and you had ink. And then people stood around and looked proud.

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

Now, when we say "You get your preclear to locate something in time and space – his time and space," that's what you do. You don't locate him in energy sometimes, and you don't locate him sometimes in Rolls Royces, and you don't locate him sometimes with a spade in his hand – you'd locate him in time and space. Time and space.

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

When we say gradient scale, we say it goes from nothing to almost nothing, to almost everything, to everything – with all the stops in between, and it doesn't have any missing stops in it – and that is a useful scale to you.

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

It perhaps is bad taste for me to mention the fact that these laws are precise. It would be if they were my laws.

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

Now, we have moved in on the science of physics and have gone over the top of the science of physics. And we can do, with our information today, more with electricity than has been done with electricity. Nail that one down. You are studying in advance of the electrician; you will know more about energy when you finish up than a nuclear physicist knows. It just happens that it's simpler. But the laws that fall into line are not unknown in other fields. They're not unknown, they're just not evaluated and they're not lined up. And if all of this thing was a dream-up out of the blue and it rested solely on my opinion, yes, you could walk around this material and say, "Well, maybe," and "I guess," and so forth. But if you do, it'll bite you – because it's been tripped over by about a hundred thousand human beings to date.

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

The chair of physics at Columbia took one look at the first book – as imprecise, really, as some of the portions of that first book are – and he had to come right straight over to New Jersey. He was upset! He was really upset! Here was a man who was trained in precision thinking who had suddenly, to his horror, gazed upon precision law in the field of thought. And he spoke of it in the terms of "the diabolical accuracy of your predictions as to what will happen when you do thus and so." He was offended. The reason why he was offended: he realized that somebody existed on Earth that could probably take him apart the same way he could take apart a radio set. That would have been unfortunate if it were true. We're dealing something that's a little harder to get up on a higher level of that.

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

But all this is leading just to this, and that is, that when you're studying this you're studying a law. And if you look at this law... Let's say it's in the field of physics and it's the law of "What is power?" Now, power means many things in the humanities, but it means just one thing in physics. And when you say "What is power?" now you know the definition What is power? Or you say, "What is inertia?" Now, you can observe those things, you can observe them very sharply. And your ability to use them is your ability to define exactly what's said; that is your ability to use.

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

Now, I can walk into a physics class down here – somebody's teaching physics and the first semester is practically gone – and we look at the students, and some of the students say to us, "Well, I'm getting along fine." Some of them say, "Well, it's sort of vague and I have trouble with this."

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

You say, "You have trouble with what?"

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

"I have trouble with... Well, all this stuff about steam engines, and so forth – figuring this out about steam engines. This is just silly – I mean the stuff about steam engines – because I can't figure this stuff out about steam engines and I never was able to figure out anything what happened with these steam engines!" And he's kind of mad about steam engines.

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

You say to him, "Hey, what is a British thermal unit?"

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

"Oh," he says, "it's a... Tsk! Uh... it's something those British have! And we have something different." And then he'll give you this terrific, imaginative rundown on the thing.

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

And you say, "Well, what's a calorie? Does that have any bearing on a British thermal unit?"

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

"Oh no, they'd be different things; calories come in food."

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

And you say, "Where the hell have you been all this semester!" That's just what you'd ask, because a British thermal unit is exactly so many heat units. And you measure that by raising the number of pounds of coal necessary to raise the number of pounds of water – it's 776 foot – pounds of energy. (Let's see, I have to go back over that.)

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

How many pounds of coal is it to raise one gallon of water one degree Fahrenheit, I think it is. Whatever that is (look it up somebody, next time, and tell me), it is the basis of measurement of steam engines. But we know what a calorie is. We know what a calorie is. That's a unit of heat. Again, we have precision units. It has numbers in it. It says so-and-so and so-and-so.

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

Newton's law of inertia is an interesting law, a fantastically interesting law. It says that "the tendency of a body is to remain at a state of rest or a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by outside forces." Ding-zee-abrhra-bong! And that's inertia. And that's all inertia is, and it isn't anything else.

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

If you've got a little ball and it's running down here on a frictionless line, and so on, that ball has the tendency to remain in that state of motion unless something stops it. That something can be friction, it can be gravity, it can be your hand.

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

Newton's law of interaction is "For every action there is an equal and contrary reaction." There's nothing to this; I mean, it's just zing! You take a look at it, you say, "It's a number of words" at first. And then you say to yourself, "Well, let's see, could I think of an example of this?" and you kind of get it unscrambled. And then you say, "Well, let's see, for every action there is an equal and contrary reaction. Let's take a croquet mallet and hit a croquet ball. Well, the croquet ball goes out that-a-way. Well, I guess they mean the mallet. Oh. The mallet is hit by the croquet ball as hard as the croquet ball is hit by the mallet. Hm, that's interesting. Never thought about the mallet before. So you've got that sort of an action. And then the croquet ball is hit by the tree it runs into as hard as it hits the tree. Ho, ho. Law of interaction."

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

Fascinating, but what do you know, those are a couple of the basic laws of motion. The third one is the law of acceleration. But here are your basic laws of motion. They don't just happen to apply to Earth or apply to the island of Palduvia or apply once in a while when a psychiatrist gets around to it. They work all the time on any planet anywhere. Anywhere you've got matter, energy, space and time you will find these three laws of motion operative. And you start to build something that has something to do with motion in an ignorance of these three laws...

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

Do you know why we didn't have a steam engine before Isaac Newton? We had some things that went whirr-clank-boom! and took the engineer with them. Or why we didn't have airplanes and why we didn't have railroad trains and all kinds of other things here on Earth? Because nobody knew the three laws of motion; it was simple as that.

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

All sorts of superstitious and wonderful things existed. Oh, just wonderful. There was the caloric theory of heat: Heat was really a fluid. And although you couldn't pour it from one glass into another, it was a strange fluid and it had various limitations. And it sort of ran uphill; it kind of defied the law of gravity. But that was all right, it was still a fluid! And a student of those days would have been flunked flat if he had dared say that heat was not a strange and mysterious fluid which got poured around.

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

Actually, heat is – demonstrably – heat is a transfer of vibration. Heat is something which is an increased motion. And then, as it touches other things, it increases the motion of other things, the speed of motion of other things. And that speed of motion is such that, when you, for instance, introduce your delicate little finger onto something which has had its motion motioned up the line to red-hottedness, your finger doesn't like that much motion and it has a tendency to come away from there real quick or cease to exist as a finger. It's very positive, very positive in its definition.

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

And at the risk of seeming terribly didactic and very mean – and I wouldn't for a moment be didactic or mean about this sort of thing if we had the next twenty years to kill on this subject. Just for the sake of speed – just for the sake of speed – when we run across one of these laws (there is a finite number of them, they aren't very many), we run across one of these Axioms, or something of the sort, take the thing, look at it. Don't examine it to find out whether or not it confirms your superstitions; we're not interested in your superstitions, we're going to wipe them all off anyhow. But we'll process you down to nothing if you persist in that line! I mean...

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

You just take that and look in the real universe, or in your own imagination, or in something, or in some energy level or whatever it applies to. Take a look at it and then say to yourself, "Let's see, how does that apply? How does that apply? Let's see, can I get an example of it? Can I get an example of it?" And you get an example of it. And you get this example of it and you think this example over. And then you say, "I wonder – let's see – how that would apply to other people and other things." And as soon as you see how that will apply to other people and other things, you own it. It's then yours; that law is then yours. And until you have done that, you could memorize it and memorize it and parrot it and parrot it, and all of a sudden there sits your preclear: Your preclear is screaming. Your preclear is screaming loud enough to be heard two blocks down the street. And don't think a preclear can't scream that loud, because they can. I have had neighbors from two blocks away sending the police down to see what was happening, and all I had done was get this preclear into a light engram. I didn't ever know before Dianetics that the human voice had that many decibels of sound in it.

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

Just recently I was processing somebody and we got a couple of those, didn't we? It's a case, a specific case, known as a screamer. The person is not too well off when they do this sort of thing. But I have seen a Foundation just so shaken to the core by somebody having processed a screamer all morning... Gee! But the human voice just can't stand the strain, that's all. And after you bring them up to present time and they're out of the session and everything, they walk out and they're smiling and cheerful and they're all happy.

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

All right. There you are. And you're sitting there, and this preclear has just hit eighty decibels, or whatever it is, and high G: Boy, that is not the time for you to take out a book of rules and look through and start wondering, "Let's see. What is the exact definition of a secondary? Let's see, what is a secondary? That means the thing you run second? Oh, that's what I should have done second in the case. Well, it's called a secondary, so I didn't think it was important. Oh, I guess that must be what's wrong with him. Or maybe... maybe... maybe he's got demoniac possession! Let's see, did Ron say something about demoniac possession? I'm sure he did. Or was that something I read in an old book? Let's see..."

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

Well, boy, if you get something like that on your hands and you're in that state of unknowingness, you want to watch out: Because that's the only time you blow up as an auditor. Other auditors will sit around unsympathetically running it out of you probably for a couple of days. It's just whether or not you know the definition.

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

Now, in order to know a definition you have to speak a language. And there is a language called Scientology. There's another language called algebra. There's another language called French. There's another one called English. There's another one called MERSIGS, which is merchant signal codes. There's another one called naval codes. There's another language called International Morse. There's another one called International Semaphore. These are all languages. And don't make a mistake on this; they are languages.

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

You walk in the room, you want a chair. And it's in France, and you want this chair and you say, "May I have a chair?"

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

And they say, "Comment?"

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

And you say, "May I have a chair?"

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

They say, "Comment?"

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

And you say... And they say, "Mm!" That's silly, isn't it? Well, that's because you didn't know the French word for chair, that's all.

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

And by the way, you very often use the oldest techniques there are. Preclears will come in to you and say, "Yap-yap-yap-yap- yap."

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

And at the end then you say something or other, and they say, "Yap-yap-yap-yap-yap"-same yap-yap. And you explain that away and then they say, "Yap-yap-yap-yap-yap."

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

And you say, "What do you know! This person is a dramatizing psychotic running the recording of a prenatal engram." You know that, you'll have his skin texture, and so forth, and that's what he's running. Unfortunately, that's what you run.

You say, "It has?"

Here I sat one time in Phoenix. I had a preclear, I had these brand-new, glossy techniques, all polished up with the dials bright, and so forth. And he sits down – and I'm just itching to run these on somebody myself. I'd been watching a couple of auditors that were researching on the line, running them, and so on, and I just – all set, see?

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

And he says, "Yap-yap-yap-yap-yap."

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

And I say, "Well, all right."

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

And then he says, "Yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap."

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

And "Oh, no. Oh, no."

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

What he was saying was specifically this, and this is the one: "Well, I've just got to get rid of it. That's all. I just don't know what I will do if I don't get rid of it. And it's something I've been thinking I ought to do for a long time, but I kind of have a moral feeling about it – like maybe I shouldn't get rid of it, but really I ought to get rid of it."

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

And you say, "Well, we'll try to run it if we can," and so forth.

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

"Well, really, I've got to be rid of it. But I have been arguing with myself about it. I don't know whether I ought to get rid of it or not, because it just doesn't seem moral to me to get rid of it."

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

You say, "Well, if you just think this over for a moment. Now, let's get..."

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

"Now – well, really, do you think I can get rid of it? Do you think it's all right for me to get rid of it if I want to get rid of it?"

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

And you say, "Oh, no. Mama in doubt about having an AA done. There it is: prenatal." Honest, we left prenatals clear back in 1950. Nobody runs any prenatals anymore, and yet here sits a preclear who doesn't know anything about Dianetics at all who insists on dramatizing this prenatal!

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

Now, what can you do about it? You use Technique 80 on it. Only he doesn't want to use Technique 80 on it. He never heard of Technique 80. He doesn't want anything to do with it. He wants to run a prenatal. He just thinks if he could get rid of it... So what do you do? You start him in on it and you run it. And he gets well!

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

So you say to him, "The somatic strip will now go to the beginning of the incident." Well, don't you be sitting around wondering what a somatic strip is. You learn your language. What's a somatic strip? Well, it's an old term, and so on, but it's there! It's there, and it's the only set of words – somatic strip – which describe this thing that is there. You could call it your focus of attention, but that isn't it. It's some kind of a preselector device that gimmeygahoodjits back of the whatchawubs, or does something – you don't know quite what it does. I don't know what this thing does myself. You tell somebody "Your somatic strip will now go to..."

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

And he says, "Zung-zung-zunt, it's there."

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

"Now, the first words of the engram will flash." And they will. And he'll be back down the time track a dozen or a dozen million years – wherever you told the somatic strip to go. That's what's fascinating.

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

Actually, what it is, is you tell the thetan that he knows this and to focus his attention upon it. But if you call this a somatic strip, your preclear says, "What is the somatic strip?"

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

"Well, that's something that locates aches and pains and incidents."

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

"Oh, yeah? Well, all right."

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

"Now, the somatic strip will go so-and-so," and it goes – kaboom! This surprises you.

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

But you're learning a language and the language is called Scientology. And if you are drifting around anyplace, if you wonder what these laws are all about, if you're not quite sure of what is taking place, it's because you don't speak Scientology. So you come into the room and you say, "Give me a chair," but nobody there speaks anything but Scientology.

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

And they say, "Comment?" or "Somatic strip?"

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

And you say, "A chair, a chair, a chair."

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

"Never heard of it."

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

Psychoanalyst comes in and he says, "Give us your libido theory."

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

And you say as a Scientologist, "What? What? What?" You see, you have to learn psychoanalysis to talk to a psychoanalyst. This is necessary. It's true! It is true! He won't learn your language, you learn his. And it's quite a language. There's a lot of language to it.

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

We only have one bridging word, and that is the word transfer. That is used in psychoanalysis and it's used in Scientology. And in Scientology the word means "the incident or a type of incident wherein the thetan is snapped into a head." It is a specific incident.

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

The psychoanalyst calls it, amongst other things, the feeling the patient gets by transferring to the psychoanalyst, and so on. And it's very interesting. But what he's really doing, probably, is restimulating something or other so that the psychoanalyst, after all, is the head – or something. I've mocked this up and tried to figure out just exactly why this worked that way, and that seemed to me to be the way it worked. But that's just opinion.

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

That's one word that bridges. All of the rest of the words are different. You might as well go to Turkestan and try to be understood as try to go into the world of psychoanalysis and be understood when you're talking Scientology – and that's on purpose!

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

We didn't ever try to reevaluate a single term which existed, but have tried, by the process of converting adjectives into nouns, to form a descriptive language which was exact and definite in its meaning.

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

There are no hazy words in Scientology. When you say TURN NINE in Scientology, you mean turn 90 degrees to the right. It's that plain.

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

There's only one really coined word in Scientology and that's anaten. I didn't make that word up. It's of limited use, but it means "analytical attenuation" or "a shortening of awakeness." It's going blotto; it's going unconscious. And that is anaten and that's a composite word. And it was dreamed up by a doctor and a nuclear physicist one night when it was very late. And I woke up the next morning and found this had been incorporated into an article and one of my words had been changed in the article and this other one substituted for it, and so it became a word. And here it is, it's riding there, but it's really the only example of this – of taking four or five words and maybe coining one word out of them.

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

The rest of them are either entire makeups or they are adjectives turned into nouns. And that's a good way to make a new language, because the language then looks kind of familiar; people are used to pronouncing words of that character, but they're now nouns. And do you know that there aren't very many words in that language? There are less than eighty words in Scientology. That isn't very many words. And you get the precision meaning of eighty words and you get the precision definition of each one of these laws which are listed and, boy, you've got it – you've got it. And you can think with it and you can use it.

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

But it works exactly. You want it to work exactly, don't you? Do you want to be able to do this and that to a human being and have that take place? Not this take place. When you want that to take place, you do this and that, and that takes place. And if that doesn't take place, then you do this and that to get that to take place again, and you go through this single cycle to get that to take place, and pretty soon you get it to take place. No matter how rough this case is, it will take place. The manifestation will take place. You want it to work that way.

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

Now, let's go even further than that: let's fix up the boss so that he gives you a raise. Let's get very, very common about this whole thing. Let's fix him up so he'll give you a raise. Just that – kaboom! How do you do it? Superior knowledge, superior skill – ought to be pretty easy. All you do is locate the poor guy on the tone scale. From there on, anything can happen because you know exactly how to agree with him. You know how he will go into a state of being a bosom buddy with you from there on.

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

He's at 1.5. When you come in, damn everything. Don't damn him, just damn everything. "Clerks are no good, the shop's no good, the people who work are no good; they all ought to be destroyed. Labor ought to be all blown up. Everything ought to be all blown up; it ought to be destroyed. Motion is taking place; it ought to be stopped," so forth. And you'd be surprised. You wouldn't think that talking to somebody like that about his business would get you anywhere at all. And the first thing you know, he's just: "Gee, there you are again," and is he glad to see you. He'll make you a partner.

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

You want to sell somebody a box of soap. He's a dead soap buyer as far as you're concerned. I mean, he'll buy; he can't help but buy. If he's in apathy, you convince him the soap is terrible and it will ruin him, and he'll buy it.

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

To sell a farmer in apathy a tractor, you would have to convince him that it'll break down, it'll be uneconomical, it will be very expensive for him to run, that he couldn't possibly use it on his farm – he'll buy it. He's on the succumb side of the tone scale and, as a result, he will want to be helped only to do one thing, and that's succumb. So you show him ways and means to succumb, and he'll succumb. He's very good at it.

To ducks, shotguns are no good.

Now, you take somebody who's in a level of covert hostility: How do you sell him something? You show him that it is damaging, but nobody would suspect it. That it might even damage him, but nobody would suspect it and he might not even suspect it either. He'll buy it.

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

You see, your uses and applications of these things are terrible, because here you've got as prey this poor fellow, Homo sapiens, who is a stimulus-response character who is usually below 2.0 on the tone scale and is having a rough time. This really surprises anybody and makes him ashamed of himself if he starts to use this on a control side of the ledger. And he generally will just back off and he won't use it on the control side of the ledger anymore. I don't. Because it kind of makes you ashamed of yourself. Supposing you went down the street and took candy away from every little baby you saw that had any candy – you just made a practice of this.

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

Or supposing you had rabbits who were tied up by the collar out to your fence. And you could go out there every morning, and you had a double-barreled shotgun that went off every time, and the cartridges cost you nothing, and that's what you're going to use to kill this rabbit? Oh, no. No. If you have any sport in it at all, if you're going in on the side of killing things, or something of the sort, the least you could do would be to take a lighter-gauge gun and let the rabbit run. But it's something like shooting sitting ducks; it's insidious, it's horrible and... The best thing that happens with it is when you start to use it on control. What happens? You say, "Ha-ha. No, no, no, there's no randomity there."

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

The fellow is a 1.5. You look at him, you look at his build, you look at his beingness and you say, "Yeah, that's what we're going to do." Then you suddenly say, "Well, it's a wonder to me that you really don't do more about these employees, in view of the way they think about you and talk about you and so forth. It's just a wonder to me."

Isn't that a forthright and horrible statement?

And the fellow will say, "Well, yes, I just have to restrain myself."

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

And you say, "Well, and it's too bad that there isn't a more effective control system over these employees," and so forth, "and it gets them longer hours and shorter pay," and so forth.

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

And he'd say, "Yes, there is; that's too bad – too bad there isn't. The good old days were different, you know? We used to have a feudal system; that used to be good. But they don't know their places these days."

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

And you say, "No sir! They don't know their places, that's what! They insult you!"

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

And he says, "You sure they do?" Boy, you're in agreement with him.

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

Fascinating. You go in to talk to a government employee. You want him to sign this voucher. He's in apathy, of course. He's sitting there and you say, "Well, I guess it's just... probably take too long to sign it, and it's overtime anyway. And it'll probably make you late to get home. And..." Just point out all the ways this voucher is going to make him succumb, and you'll get your signature on it. Fabulous.

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

And of course, you get up in tone, then you're going to run into something terrible. You're going to run into anti-enthusiasmism. That's a special cult that exists amongst Homo sapiens here, is anti-enthusiasmism. But you'll find a great many people – you've probably not been able to understand this in your youth – will resent with brutality any effort on your part to look at the bright side or the enthusiastic side of anything.

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

You see, they have it confused. They're so undifferentiative that they identify it with antagonism. And they think you're pointing it right straight at them and that you're being antagonistic. And they have it all mixed up. A man's pretty bad off when he does this, by the way.

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

So you walk in, you're all enthusiastic. You say, "We're going to do this and that! And how about this? And what do you know, I just walked down the street and I found this fellow down there and he wants to have done exactly what we're trying to do. And we're going to meet our payrolls after all, and everything's going to be fine!"

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

And the fellow says, "What's the idea coming in here like that?"

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

You just can't quite add that up. You see, he's in a stop-motion or a hold and you were in a state of flow. This person, by the way, at the same time, will keep you from being afraid. He'll be nice to you. If you seem to be afraid or ready to walk off from something, then he'll be nice to you. It's fascinating. What a contradictory character he seems to be. You try to tell him something good news, he hates you for it. You try to walk away from something, he tries to make you stand there and encourages you.

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

No. But you can be sure about this character, by the way: Every time he encourages you about something, he thinks you're scared. It's fascinating, but it's just the Chart of Attitudes at work.

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

Your people at your hold-motion positions hold motion, and the people on the flow positions flow.

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

All right. We add all this information together, we do get a control of human beings. You have a worse thing than that. You actually have, inherent in this subject, ways and means of making a human being into an abject slave – insidiously true. That is one of the reasons why the material never could have been released in its primitive form without very adequate methods of undoing what it could do.

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

The discovery that narcosynthesis, no matter how deep, yet was implantable as hypnotism – that a person was commanded by and would obey commands given to him when in the deepest state of unconsciousness – opened up the doors to the greatest black operation that ever could have appeared on the face of this earth.

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

What would have happened? Mr. Blow goes out for an evening's conference. He walks out of his house, he gets into his car... And he wakes up the next morning – and he knows he went to the conference – and he says, "You know, it's a funny thing, but I've been thinking it over and I think that I'm no longer in favor of the Labor Party; I'm really in favor today of, oh, Digism. It's something new and it's something I ought to do," and so forth.

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

Or worse than that, he comes home one night and his wife looks a little bit pale but no different otherwise. "Did anything happen, dear?"

"Oh, that was my first wife."

"No, nothing's ever happened, dear."

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

She starts to sell him on the idea of Digism, or why he should suddenly blow up the morgue, or the darnedest things. Because she's a woman and he has to obey women or something, he does.

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

What happened? What happened in the blank moments? That's all. Just a pocket handkerchief around the guy's neck, pressure against the two nerve centers in his throat, or even so far as a shot in the arm, lost consciousness, pain in the head – twist his ear or something – and say, "You will now do so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so. And any time in the future that you hear such and such, and such and such, you will do so-and-so and so- and-so. And you know this is the truth and you do not know where you heard this and you do not know who said this to you and you have no idea. And you will now go in the house and you will lie down on your bed and you'll be there. You wake up the next morning, you will not know anything happened to you at all." There he goes – black magic.

"Oh, I don't get anything."

Why, a certain one of these techniques controlled all of Asia once. The Sharif Mohammedan cult – hashshashin (from which we get the word assassin – controlled Asia by simply taking young men, knocking them out with hashish, making them wake up in a garden where there was milk, honey and a lot of beautiful damsels, and then telling them that they couldn't come back there again unless they performed a certain deed and act. "You really do want to come back there. This is paradise," they're told. "This is the only way you can go to heaven."

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

Out they go with hashish; the person wakes up and finds himself in far-off Baghdad. He knows what he's got to do: All he's got to do is walk up to Prince Ali Bullah and slip a shiv in his guts; that's all he got to do. Just as crude and as blunt as that, and he'll wind up in paradise. How can anybody stop an assassin who doesn't care if he's killed, but who wants to get killed?

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

And all hashshashin's – all that whole cult had to do, for three hundred years, was simply to write a note to any such Prince Ali Bull, anyplace in Asia, and say, "We would like to have forty- five camel loads of silk, eighteen trained dancing girls, one carload lot of ivory, F.O.B. your town. Signed ______." And it came. Boy, it didn't come slow! It came on high-speed camel freight with runners going along before saying, "It's coming! It's coming! No, no. It's coming, really!"

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

Three hundred years that went on and all of Asia was monitored by a small group of people who sat in a mighty citadel. That citadel was not reduced until one day in sport a fellow said, "What? There's a castle that hasn't been pulled down?" So he went over and pulled it to pieces. He didn't even know about what they did over there – force being as idiotic as the other force.

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

When you have an unknown phenomenon loose in a society, this is what it can do. So don't know this stuff poorly; know it very well. Because a lot of it depends on you figuring out what it can do.

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

If you could make a man well, believe me, you can make him sick. And if here we have the techniques to make people well and also the techniques exist to make those people sick, you, and the few publications which are around, are the only single bulwark that stands between a completely controlled society of man and a free man! So it isn't unimportant that you learn these things well. It's not even vaguely unimportant.

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

They did this weird trick with the atom bomb. My very good friends rushed in and invented an atom bomb. That was great! They let three billion dollars be appropriated to the construction of an atom bomb. And I said to Bob Cornard, "What was the appropriation for the force screen?"

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

"Oh," he says, "you're talking Buck Rogers stuff now." He says, "You've always been talking to me about Buck Rogers stuff."

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

"What about the force screen? Where was the money appropriated for the force screen at the same time it was appropriated for the atom bomb?"

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

"Oh," he said, "never heard of such a thing."

Just as silly as that.

I said, "Well, you've let loose upon the world an unlimited weapon against which there is no defense." That's how important the force screen was. You just don't do things like that and still maintain any kind of stability or advance or progress in a society. You don't make an unlimited weapon, against which there's no defense, and then use it. Because the result will be destruction on every hand.

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

And at this moment we don't like to think about it; it isn't quite nice, it isn't polite, it isn't anything we do. We like to preserve a rather quiet, detached attitude toward this whole thing.

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

But there isn't a capital of a nation on the face of the earth today which has anything like security. There isn't a government on the face of the earth today, if it came right down to that, that could enforce its sovereignty, because sovereignty, by international law, is dependent upon the government's ability to defend its own borders and its people. And its right to exist depends upon its ability to defend, against aggressors, its lands and people. And that's a national government.

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

And when you have an unlimited missile weapon loose in the world, which asks of no borders, which no army can stop, you'll get a decentralization and an enturbulence of central governments – even before it's used against them. They try to centralize. They recognize this. They try to pull everything in quick, try to make everything hard and tough, and stand up to it and hold on, because they know they're on their way. And nobody appropriated three billion dollars for the force screen. And so they unstabilized all of society.

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

Fifteen hundred B.C., horsemen with swords swept out of the steppes of Asia onto the plains of Europe. And for two hundred years there was no civilization in Europe – so much so, probably most of you in glancing through school histories don't really know that there was any civilization in existence in that day. It was wiped flat! It takes a very, very hard search ethnologically and archaeologically to discover that civilization, but it was a pretty interesting one.

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

Fifteen hundred B.C. until 1300 B.C. there wasn't an organization, there wasn't a village, there wasn't anything any larger, for instance, than the unit of one man that could organize or hold any commerce, trade, in Europe. And it was a time of pestilence, of famine, of disaster on every hand. No man could have a home, peace, anything. It was a world of brigandage, because nothing could stop this unlimited weapon. It was a horseman with a saber. And he could go through any foot troops. And anybody who could get hold of a horse and a saber became a missile weapon.

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

Foot troops – wasn't till ages afterwards they invented pikes. There wasn't anything to stop these people. Sweep through a village, knock down any existing armies, and the heck of it is, is cavalry can't fight cavalry. Oh, you read of these thrilling actions about cavalry fighting cavalry, and then you say quickly, "Well, who won?" And they say, "Well, the infantry came up and..." They're very thrilling, but they never held a thing because cavalry is a 100 percent striking force and no defensive force. That's military tactics.

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

And you have the whole world today involved in this silly operation of an unlimited weapon which can be aimed at any capital on Earth by any capital on Earth, practically, now. Nearly everybody's got atom bombs now. There's nothing to this.

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

One of these days the Argentine will haul off and bomb France. And France will say, "That was Russia," and bomb Russia.

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

And Russia will say, "Well, we knew the United States was going to do it!" and so they blow up the United States. And there we go.

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

Fascinating. No safety, no safeguard.

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

Well, we did it the other way around in Dianetics, because you have an unlimited weapon in Dianetics unless you have processing. And that's why we have to have fast processing. You don't want slow processing. Slow processing is a terrible liability. You want the fastest process that you can use, for two reasons: (1) The fellow goes back into his environment and gets enturbulated faster than you can pick him up if you have a slow process. You can process him and then he'll come back next week and he's in worse shape, and you process him and he comes back the week after, he's in worse shape. You're just watching the frog: he's climbing up three inches and falling back four. So, you've got to have a fast process.

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

You take him out of the environment, process him and send him home, and the environment says, "Yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap," and he comes back and he's still better. That's fast processing.

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

And on the other hand, it doesn't take very long to make an implant with Black Dianetics; it just doesn't take long. It takes ten minutes, maybe. And so, if it only takes ten minutes to make an implant, how long does it take to pick one up? Supposing you had to run it as an engram, then run off all the chain of all the implants there were on the track. How fascinating, how fascinating – you'd never get there.

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

So you need a technique that'll make somebody sane in the same ten minutes on that subject. You've got one. It would be impossible – particularly these dumb Ruskovitches. Oh, they think it takes seventy days to implant somebody in a cell. The last couple of fellows they did it to – Mindszenty, and so forth – they think it takes all this time and, oh, they make hard work out of it. I guess it's because they got all those steppes and wolves or something, and they figure... I don't know, I never quite figured it out. But the Russian, if it takes the Russian ninety hours to do something efficiently, he'll always figure out a way to do it in 880 or something. Because that's a fact about that – that he thinks it takes about seventy days to get a fellow's wits shaken!

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

It doesn't. It just takes ten minutes! All you have to do is figure out your implant – very restimulative – put in a lot of bouncers, groupers and denyers in your phraseology, read it right straight off, let him wake up again. Oh, is he in terrible shape! He'll be all right that afternoon; nothing will be wrong with him. Next afternoon he's all right. Next day he's probably all right. And then all of a sudden he hits the key-in. There he goes. After that on that subject, he'll be completely gone – he'll just run a record.

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

If you don't get him real good the first time, hit him again, hit him again, hit him again. They're always available. There aren't enough police on earth to stop anything like that.

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

One group, possessing only Black Dianetics, with no remedy for it, by keeping it secret, could run civilization off the rails. This has always been true, but nobody ever made it quite that efficient before.

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

We've got a technique, and we use this technique which will undo it as fast as it's done. And you are the first class to be taught this technique. And that's why I am stressing this at this time. And I can come out much more in the open about it in case somebody else thinks it up.

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

Now, the essence of any technique, however, is a precision knowledge of the language of the subject.

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

You are studying a point which has neither space nor time, but has the capability of creating space and time, and of generating energy. And this point has a personality and a beingness, and is the personality and beingness of a genus Homo sapiens. It is detachable from the body. It could actually operate and work in full knowingness, completely independent of a body. It could work a mechanical doll as well as it could work one of these flesh- and-blood things. It has been aberrated and used in certain ways. From thetan to thetan the history is almost exactly the same. They vary in their potentiality and beingness from thetan to thetan – there's a wide variety of them. It does not need a body to stay alive.

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

And you are studying what this thing is, what its goals are, how to increase its potentiality, how to cause it to better handle the physical universe. And you are trying to use it – on a very low level, you will think of it as trying to use this energy in an effort to handle or improve or control a body. That's the lowest level of application, and it's very usable in that level. But that's something like using your double-barreled, twelve-gauge shotgun to shoot a young rabbit who is tied by the collar; it's just too much weapon.

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

Now, here this beingness is. You, as you go through with training, will have the experience yourself, sooner or later, of all of a sudden taking a look at your body and saying, "What am I doing in that?" And say, "Well, here I am."

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

"Where are you?" the auditor will say.

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

"Well," you'll say, "here I am, over against the wall."

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

"Well, can you see me?"

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

"Yes, of course."

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

Or the fellow will be saying, "I know I'm outside. I can't see my body very well. I don't know where you are. Yeah, I can feel the wall. Yeah. I know something is there; it's cold. Yeah, but I guess the body is over in that way. Gee, this feels awful strange. Maybe I'd better get back in the body again."

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

Or you'll have these various variations of experience. What you're trying to do is to learn a technology which is in excess of the data which was possessed by this being hitherto to this date. You're trying to learn how to keep this being from getting into the state he got into – Earth, 1952 A.D. And that is as important as getting him out of the state he's in. You're trying to learn the techniques by which he can increase his perception and his power.

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

And it is a study of something which does not exist in space and time, which can create or perceive space, time and energy – create, perceive, destroy, change, space, time and energy. It's capable of doing that. And its level of capability includes being able to produce very definite beams of energy which will do the strange trick, for instance, of the thetan walks over to this meter and he keeps hitting one of the terminals of the meter and the needle keeps going bzzzt! bzzzt! There's nobody else near that meter except the operator. And the operator says, All right, make it go over to the other side of the pin," and it goes – bzzrruh! If a physicist were in there, he'd go mad. And yet, this would seem very ordinary to an auditor and a preclear.

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

Now, there are those of you who are pretty badly mired down. This thetan is so closely identified and associated with the beingness of the body that the thetan believes it's the body – believes it implicitly and completely – and that it's less than the body, and is so much less that it doesn't even exist, but only the body exists. That's the subzero tone scale. And believing it so, maybe this thetan is not only in a body, in the skull, but it's got energy ridges all around here. And every time this thetan tries to get out or to become detached, its vested interest in this body is such that it runs into these ridges – it cannot budge, it cannot move out of the line at all.

That's just so science will have a definition.

You've got to learn the techniques of how you solve that. And some of you, unable to get out, will have to learn the techniques anyway, and someday, maybe – who knows – get out.

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

All of you are going to get out. But you'd be surprised how fellow auditors can lose interest in a V. They're all flying around having a wonderful time, feeling good, and they're all polished up and life is wonderful and bright, and here's this poor Class V sitting there – he can't get out. He keeps trying. He can feel himself tug. Once in a while he'll get an instant, momentary glimpse of a side profile of his head, or something of the sort, and he'll say, "Yeah, it can be done. There is a reality on it. And I can't make it. Huh!" Just horrible.

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

How do you do this? Well, you're here to learn the theoretical height of this being, the capabilities of the being and how to make that being perform. And that's done by learning the language of Scientology and learning the laws and their application in this process.

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

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

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

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