There is some difference between a theta line and an organism, the difference being that an organism is MEST universe. An organism is a carbon-oxygen motor, low-heat engine, runs at a temperature of 98.6, has a circulatory system. You could actually, in a biological laboratory, build and grow a muscle engine. Wouldn't have a bit of theta in it. A muscle engine. You could hook up a flock of muscles to a crankshaft and grow the muscles and it would run the crankshaft. I mean, as simple as that. A carbon-oxygen engine should therefore not be confused with the human mind.

Now, the human mind, again, should not be confused with a theta line. When you consider a mind, you consider a unit mind. It is a – in most of your concepts of the mind, you think of the mind as something which an organism has to pilot and monitor it. An organism – one organism has this one mind.

I am very happy to see you all and I'm very happy to be here in Phoenix,

Well, that would be a subdivision of the theta mind or the theta line. The theta line would be a timeless, spaceless influence, capable of making recordings, capable of animating and motivating and controlling, forming, destroying, conserving: matter, energy, space and time. Now, that is theta, and you could consider that this sort of a situation existed.

Maybe you'd like to know something about why, and what it's all about, and maybe get some straight dope.

You understand now that I am not talking to you from the field of mysticism. I am talking to you from an embracive field which also embraces the field of mysticism. This data neither admits the principle of mysticism nor debars the principle of mysticism. It neither admits the principle of science nor debars the principles of science as it is practiced today.

The whole plan of operation in the past two years has, in the main, been in the hands of, well, "business people," I think they call themselves, occasionally. And although I was not without influence in the organizations, and although I did not occasionally make mistakes in the organizations, which I very definitely did, at the same time my entire and complete concentration actually was on research - advancing the line of research.

This is merely – these subjects, mysticism and so forth, are just routes toward discovery. A lot of data has been collected out of them.

During the first four or five months of Dianetics, it's very interesting that I didn't get one single scrap of new material down. Nothing. I got nothing written. And by October of 1950, although many new techniques had been developed, none of these had been codified into a publication of any kind, Everything that was being published was very old. This was October 1950. In October of 1950 I said, "I'm through with management; this is the end as far as management is concerned. Because it is impeding something which is far more important, and that is having techniques which work far, far better in more and more hands." Because by this time many occluded cases were turning up which were "uncrackable" by even the better auditors. It was up to me to find out what on earth I had been doing. This hadn't happened to me. And I found out that Dianetics itself was a sort of a crosswise education which would jam up a case.

Now, let's look at this subject both as to theta and the material universe and see if we don't have something vaguely resembling order coming out of the chaotic concept which most people have regarding mind.

So in October of 1950 I resigned from business and started in trying to back up enough to put techniques together. In December, early January - in December I tried to write Science of Survival in Los Angeles; I couldn't do it. So I went down to Palm Springs and started to write it. All hades started to break loose one way or the other in the field of management. I backed up, trying to write Science of Survival, clear to Cuba. That's a fact. And I sat down there and I wrote Science of Survival and I said, "There's a book. Okay. There's the Tone Scale. Okay. Now, what can I do to sort of bail myself out of this!" Because in my absence very many strange things had happened. And a fellow by the name of PurcelL had made an arrangement with one of the trustees of the old New Jersey Foundation to establish a Foundation in Wichita. They phoned the data down to me, and by this time I was pretty sick. And, as a matter of fact, chat's literally true. And I told Mr. Purcell that yes, it was all right with me. He had made some sort of a verbal statement to me, November before. He said, "If anything happens to the Foundations, if you loan the word Dianetics, its processes, and your name to one in Wichita - be very, very happy to straighten this out."

What I am telling you here is not necessarily true. It happens to be very workable and is relatively more true than anything which has been so far presented, since it embraces and organizes many fields which have been, in the past, merely specialized fields.

So I thought this was fine and I got in there. And under this consideration that the word Dianetics, its processes and so on and my name would be loaned to a local Foundation, incorporation was drawn up there called "The Hubbard Dianetic Foundation Incorporated of Wichita."

Let us consider the subject – the whole subject of knowledge.

One of the stipulations in this: that all debts were to be paid, all debts of existing Foundations and the entire business structure of Dianetics was to be straightened out.

Scientology would be the study of knowing, or the science of sciences. Therefore, the basic concept on which it is built should be of interest to you. This is an analogy which will tell you something about that.

June, July, August came without this having happened. And one day I was very startled to find out that the Hubbard Dianetic Foundation Incorporated of Wichita, Kansas, was in receivership. I was sitting over in Manney's print shop over at the Wichita Publishing Company. "They're in court; they're in receivership," There was no defense put up against receivership. I was stunned. So I worked everything I could possibly work in order to get things down on the line, because I found out that any document or contract which I had tried to issue and get agreed upon had not been issued properly. Everything was fouled up like fire drill, as we used to say in the Navy.

Up here we have what we will call bin 1. Bin 1 is full of data. Knowledge is perforce concerned with data. If you consider a datum broadly enough to also include a motivation, a cause or an existence, then bin 1 up here has nothing in it but data.

In September, I told the Foundation there that I was going to leave - they were kaput as far as I was concerned - unless they snapped to on an agreement. And they finally issued me a paper which stated in so many words that Dianetics, Hubbard, processes, were on loan to the Hubbard Dianetic Foundation of Wichita, Kansas; that all my copyrights were mine, and that nobody of the old Foundation (it was signed by the remaining trustee of the old Foundation) and the new Foundation (as represented by Don G. Purcell) knew of anything that would impede this or knock it out or do anything to it at all, And they signed that paper.

But let's consider that bin 1 has in it nothing but TRUE data. Here, for instance, would be, if it exists anywhere, the data considered in transcendentalism – the organization of knowledge which exceeds and goes above all knowledge. In other words, all knowledge is above the range of human experience, according to somebody like Kant, Hegel, – Hegel particularly. Hegel haggled around and got himself to be a very confused boy, and he got himself so confused that he says, "I'm just going to abandon the whole shooting match, and I'm going to tell you and me that anything that is worth knowing is beyond the realm of human experience. It cannot be sensed, measured or experienced by a human being. That gets me out of my difficulty and you're stuck with it." Typical Scholastic thinking.

October: I couldn't get any accounting. November: I was flat broke. December: I couldn't get any accounting. I couldn't find out what was happening in the Foundation, January came and things had gotten so bad on a businesswise standpoint that I was completely out of communication with the Foundation. I tried to install a school. They didn't want my school; they thought something or other, something or other.

And yet the world was stupid enough, by the way, for a hundred and some years, to let Hegel lie across the path of human advancement. For instance, the astronomer Piazzi discovered the eighth planet. Hegel simultaneously had published a monograph demonstrating conclusively that there could only be seven planets, because seven was a perfect number indivisible by itself and others and the Constitution or something.

Well, it was pretty rough. I see two or three faces here who know what I am saying is fairly straight.

And so do you know that nobody went out and took a look! Nobody went out and took a look at Plazzi's planet, They just read Hegel, And the planet was up there. All you had to do was look through a telescope and see that it was in – its path was influencing other planets, and there had to be a planet there. But it took them a long time to get around to being smart enough to say, "What we can sense, measure and experience is more valid than what we can guess." Now, oddly enough, the ... You know Ohm's law – that very important law in electricity? Well, I've forgotten how long Ohm's law was considered to be beyond bounds, but it was fought and not used by people of Hegel's complexion. Actually here was a natural law, and a person like Hegel could come along and repeal it. Well, of course, nobody would get any electronicking done if you didn't have Ohm's law. Nobody bothered to measure it. They just said, "Well, it says here on page 86 that Ohm's law ain't, so it ain't." I'm sorry to use the word ain't, but it better fits with the complexion of such thinking – thinking quote unquote (laughter) – as these lads were using.

And when it came to the 12th of February, I threw in the sponge and I said, "1 am resigning from this organization because I don't know what's going on, and I don't want to be liable any further for this organization." And by the way, I'd contemplated this since early January.

I had a doctor come in – he saw my name on a grip – down in Washington, DC, about a year ago. And this doctor came in and he was going to give me a shot. I'd just come across the country and I was coughing – probably had Service Fac One in restimulation. Anyway, a little penicillin would have fixed me up.

And the only thing that happened after that, actually, was the fact that all of a sudden the Foundation went into bankruptcy. Bang! It went into voluntary bankruptcy. This wiped out every dime the Foundation owed me. And by the way, that was the total indebtedness of the Foundation - was money owed to L. Ron Hubbard, because Don G. Purcell had taken any monies he'd put into the Foundation, and he had that in the form of a corporate note. And although he carried it on record, that was it. And there was one small debt of five thousand dollars owed to a lady who was - to whom Dianetics is very indebted, and that's Mrs. Carney, now Mrs. Campbell, back East. She gave the Foundation five thousand dollars to start it out with. And that note had been repudiated; nobody had even corresponded with her. So that appeared.

So I whistled up this doctor and he came in, and he saw my name on top of a grip. And he came in very sunnily, and the second he saw my name, he sort of froze up. And he said, "What do you do'" and "What are you?" and so on, He was a very nasty fellow anyway. And I said, "I'm an engineer," and – which is quite truthful. And he knew damn well who I was So he tried to give me a big breakdown on the fact – he said, "Well, there are people around that think things are useful just because they're workable and that people ought to have something to do with them just because they're workable." He says, "That's no argument at all" – jabs an eighteen-gauge needle into my gluteus maximus (laughter), and says, "I couldn't consider why anybody would work in that field anyway," pulls the needle out, doesn't bother to stop the blood flow, packs up his kit and leaves.

Then there was a bogus suit on it, that nobody ever intended to do anything about, on a rental property (this was all in litigation - never would have come up) and my note and any and all sums owed me for books and royalties and so on.

In other words, we still have Hegelism around. They'd rather read on page 82 that this is so than go and look.

Well, there went the Foundation. In the interim I'd started an organization known as "Hubbard College" in an effort to try to teach this subject properly. And a very short time ago I started to negotiate a lease on Hubbard College there in Wichita, I don't know what they're doing. We - Jim and I are not responsible for its management. We hope they will go ahead and conduct a good and adequate professional school and that they will be able to bring people up to the point where they can be granted a Bachelor of Dianetics.

Well, this bin of knowledge up here might contain absolute knowledge. It might contain absolute knowledge. And if it did, it would also contain all this knowledge which Hegel himself couldn't experience. There would be no limit to the amount of data contained in this, but it would all be true. It would all be true. It'd be close to absolute truth, if not absolute truth. Now, this is just for an analogy.

But as far as the old Foundation is concerned, the word Foundation itself and the other words connected with Dianetics with which you're familiar - these words happen to be, fortunately, personal property. They are maybe contestable in court, but my name isn't contestable in court. That is to say, whether or not I own the name Hubbard and can loan it to organizations, that's not - that's not contestable.

Now, if we consider – consider knowledge to be a circle, we find out that we have a continuing line here. At this point on the circle – just draw this circle, and then from the center out draw a line. Now, on the right side of that line – exactly on the right side of that Line – is one datum known. One datum, that's all. Now, existing right with it, but perhaps a tiny bit out of alignment with it, would be another datum. There'd be two data known,

And copyright - US government copyright licenses are not contestable. That is to say, an organization either is licensed to publish your books or it isn't. And when an organization that isn't licensed to publish books insists on grabbing manuscripts and publishing them and even issuing copyrights on them for themselves, they have let themselves in for a misdemeanor called fraudulent copyrighting: US Government Statute Copyright Law number blankety-blank-blank; date: something-or-other, 1919.

Now, as these would advance in a clockwise direction, we would find that we would be accumulating more and more data. This would be what would be known as thinking by figuring out a theory and then looking and seeing whether or not you found data to support the theory.

And although you see an enturbulence in this quarter, this move of moving out of Wichita and into an area where Dianetics could be stabilized has been under contemplation for a long time. Ross and I have talked about it; a lot of us talked about it.

Now, around the clock here would come more and more known, more and more known, more and more known, more and more known, until just before we got to that zero, we would have all things known – not a single missing datum. Everything known. They're right next to each other – everything known, nothing known, and two data known actually occupy the same spot. They actually occupy the same spot on this circle.

Another thing is, Wichita is a bomb target. It is sitting in the middle of all of these beautiful defense plants and airplane plants and so forth, and Dianetics doesn't belong there.

But as we move clockwise on this wise, we collect more and more and more and more data. And finally, as we go all the way around, it's all known.

So, it has been my contention for a long, long time that Dianetics did not have to be sold at one gallon of blood per lesson. And that's one of the main faults I had with it. The continuing expenses in Dianetics are actually the expenses of research, and out in the field, the expenses of living and maintenance of staff and offices on the part of auditors who are doing good in the public. Now these things can be paid for.

Now, philosophy, extrapolative thinking, that horrible word, pragmatic thinking... Pragmatism, by the way, used to be a good word until the universities got ahold of it, and now it says that it's – oh, the most wonderful definition. It says "humbuggery" and "bellicosity" and "thinking by induction" and it has about – oh, a whole bunch of meanings. I'm being jocular about what it says there, but there are all these meanings surround this word pragmatism. Actually, basically and originally all pragmatism meant is you just took some data and went out and found out if it was true by measuring it up against the physical universe,

So, the research line is paid for by books - when and if I can collect my royalties off an organization publishing them. So we're in the publishing business right here in Phoenix.

Well, if we started backwards from all things known, up this way, we would just getting into the – be getting into the more and more theoretical. Now, it's very hard to advance from everything known and keep abandoning things you know – keep abandoning things you know, counterclockwise here, until you finally get down to two data. In fact, it's practically impossible to do that.

Of course, the old books have a lot of material in them, but new books have that material codified and assembled more properly. And these new books I am writing at a speed that I have to keep a water spray going on the back end of my typewriter to keep it from smoking and the platen burning up!

But you can start here with two data known and inductively locate phenomena in the physical universe. You can do this. You have, then, a yardstick by which you can find out what's known and what isn't known. And you can locate phenomena. You can say, "Well, look, this phenomena is supposed to exist; according to – according to these two data, that phenomena – there's a lot of phenomena that exists. Let's go and see if we can find it." So we go and look and it's there. Well, that's fine; we find a lot of phenomena.

And we've got - the first issues of these books will be out on a mimeograph machine. Jim, without using a blackjack or anything - I don't know how he did it - suddenly appeared on the scene with a big electric mimeograph machine. That's lifeblood as far as we're concerned, We're doing it all with nothing - from scratch.

But coming back this way, you're just dumping things off the freight car, so to speak, all the time, and you're not looking for new phenomena. You're trying to somehow explain old phenomena by throwing away what you have, and so on.

This is just as bad, by the way, as Dianetics, 1949, when I would go around to various doctors and associations and try to interest them in this and say it can do something for you. And I'd go home and I would break out my typewriter and feed in a few pages of paper, and I would write a story for somebody and get in a check and do some more research in Dianetics. And we're just about on that parity of operation.

The latter method which I'm describing to you is the method which, in all seriousness, science has been using for a long time, It results in such things as super specialization.

But we've got something more; we've got something a lot more. Going to put in a free course in Phoenix, somehow or other, by some necromancy. Now this is quite important. I talked to Gordon over here, and Gordon - we talked about a summary course and so forth - I didn't hear much more about it and I kept thinking and thinking and thinking, and all of a sudden it occurred to me, "What is one of these courses?" Well, if you have a package of tapes which are highly codified and they are accompanied by text for each tape, and you've got a schedule and somebody to operate a tape machine and to announce what this next lecture is and what the study period is and what the seminar question is, you can have a classroom which is practically self-operative.

Why. you go down a hall in a medical building and you check in and you say, "There's something in my eye."

ALongside of that you run another classroom that plays nothing but an introductory lecture, and this introductory lecture just goes off every night on schedule. It's sort of like you set a time clock and it keeps going off on schedule. Now, that introductory lecture is for people who just wander in and want to know what is Dianetics. I don't care where these quarters are, if they sit out here in a tent or if we set it up alongside of a power line out here in the hills. We're talking about - we're talking about this kind of an operation. It's just someplace where somebody could go.

And the doctor looks at you and he says, "No," he says, "I'm an optic specialist and you'll have to go next door. An optic surgeon is next door, and what I handle is the cornea.

All right. There we put in such an institution as a little psychiatric museum eventually, and we put in a ... (laughter) That's right. And we put in displays of this and that and pictures of auditors and stuff, you know. And people walk in there and there's some free handouts that they can pick up and that's about the end of that.

And you go next door and you find out he handles the pupil. Well, this spot of dirt is in the white. And you have to shop around for quite a while, and you find somebody with this – that handles the white part of the eye, you see, and he takes the spot of dirt out ONLY if he is a surgeon for the white spot of the eye. By the way, I'm going along with old Doc Pottenger. I know the old man – he's a great old man. And he says, "If there was just some way we could break down this G. D. blankety-blank-blank specialization," he says, "maybe we could cure something."

And over here - here runs this course. And this course takes two weeks. And this course has a day school and a night school. And the day [night] school is organized on this basis: that it starts in from 8 o'clock - or, pardon me, about 7:30 at night - and plays on through till about 11:30 with some fifteen-minute breaks, and it just runs off three tapes of the Summary Course.

Well, this method of thinking, then, going back here counterclockwise, is scientific thinking "Let's go and gather a whole bunch of data. Let's gather a lot of data and let's look at a lot of phenomena. And after we've gotten everything we can find on the subject, then let's go find a theory for it. And let's just take any old theory that happens to come along and see if it explains some of this data. If it does, we're all set."

Those three tapes are played during the daytime; it starts off about 8 o'clock in the morning: hour's study period, hour's lecture, hour's seminar. And it just keeps going this way so that you've got three tapes. The day school is different in that it has study periods and seminars. The night school would actually be a review.

As a consequence, science won't advance around here counterclockwise, but just keeps sort of wandering off, and it gets off here and there and gets all confused about it. And it has been doing so, so that you get cytology arguing with biology, arguing with evolutionists. And these theories are all different. These theories were not arrived at inductively, and these theories do not predict new phenomena.

And in this wise, I think we can put together a two-weeks' professional course (and this - I said "professional course"; actually, it's a summary course) which will just go off on schedule: every two weeks it'll start and every two weeks it'll end. And it'd just keep going like that.

Scientology is an effort to go around the clock clockwise – to take data and then look for material, look for the phenomena predicted by that data and see if it exists in the physical universe.

Now, this makes auditor technique rehabilitation a very, very simple matter. How do you go to this course? Well, you walk in and you sign a little book and it says "student roster book." And there's - at practically cost - would be the pamphlets, because they take printing. You pick up the pamphlets that go with the lectures and you just go there every morning, and at the end of two weeks you've gone through a complete review course.

Well, it's an interesting – an interesting field, Scientology, because all it's trying to do is pick up all the loose ends of people who were trying to travel backwards in this circle. It's trying to get a unification of science, combine it with a unification of anything – the humanities, religion or even mathematics, aesthetics. It's trying to bring these things all into the same field so that they can all be used.

This, by the way, would not interfere with somebody teaching a professional course, nor would it even interfere with somebody in some city teaching a summary course. But it'd certainly make it possible for an auditor, at relatively little speed, to drift through here and pick up what he had to know.

Now, that all by itself is a worthwhile goal. It wouldn't have to have anything to do with processing or application, curing up anything in people, to be quite worthwhile as a goal. As a matter of fact, it does that. It does that.

Furthermore, you realize that this course does not offer any processing to anybody. People come in, they start through this course; they don't know anything about this, so it immediately makes a call on the initiative of the auditors in this area. It says they better have just an association of some sort and a directory, because people are going to go to that course and they're going to say, "I should have some processing on this." In other words, there'll be processing that'll have to be done in connection with this course. Nobody wants anything to do with it. You put together a little association directory service, and my office answer the phone for you and refer. Gordon would do the same thing. It's just simple.

It'll predict – by the way, you can take Scientology and you can predict what should be the whole field of biology and where it should mesh with cytology and where that should mesh with evolution. And you will come out with a package of data and phenomena which, if you presented them to the cytologist, to the biologist and to the evolutionist, you would find a point of agreement. They would agree on the data which you had there.

In other words, we're trying to provide a facility.

Now, I'm giving you that to show you that, theoretically, there is just one set of data, but that set is of infinite size, and if it were all true we would put it up here in bin 1. Bin 1, this square.

Now, another thing is, is your introductory lecture. We're going to be throwing handbooks over the air - that is to say, probably going to be selling some Handbook for Preclears over the air, something like this, to interest people. Your introductory lecture, if it just runs off every night, one way or the other, will find people coming in there. There again your auditors' directory service and so forth could pick up. This is just service, that's all.

Now, there would be a third bin, however. How do you get to be human? Well, as a matter of fact, the only way you can be human is by being wrong. Actually the wrongest you can get is dead, you see, but you're pretty close to it when you agree to be human. For instance, you sense that – a person, for instance, tells little social lies and he says – he's polite and he's this and he's that, and he doesn't exert his own self-determinism very much in social concourse with the rest of the human race. And as a net result, he is permitting himself to be thrown out of his actual course of existence. It's wrong – social lies are wrong and so forth. But he has to be wrong to be human. He couldn't be very right and be human.

The only way that this thing could be supported, of course - if there's enough book and psychometer sale in order to pay the rent and pay the salary of the tape runner - that's about all that you'd ask of this thing, and I think in that wise the course would balance itself out.

Now its the same way with all this data down here. This is bin 3. Down here is bin 3. Now, bin 3 contains in it relative truths, workable truths, things you can sense, measure and experience. You don't have to be able to sense, measure and experience anything in 1, but down here in 3, that's human knowledge. And this is varying and shifting continually. And there isn't a datum in it which is absolute. Every datum in it has a little bit of wrongness about it. It's only relatively true; it can be sensed, measured, or experienced.

Now, this does not interfere with - and I'm sure you'd agree if you thought this over - with any existing facilities in the area. Quite on the contrary. It'd probably pick them up if anything, since nobody is giving away anything anybody's selling in the area. We're not giving away any auditing and so on, but we're stimulating interest. We have another project going, and we're ready to cut loose on this project just as soon as we can. Los Angeles is probably going to hit Arizona in an atom bombing. The Southwest is probably a part of the country to which many people will drift (after an atom bombing). There's no reason why Arizona should suddenly have to roll up its sleeves and start working to support everybody who drifts in on Arizona.

This includes how to make clam chowder. It includes what they will be wearing in 1953. It includes the field of biology. It'll include literature, anything – just data, data, data, data, data – all relatively true, subject to opinion, subject to viewpoint and so forth. But it's what has passed in the human race for knowledge.

H. G. Wells in Things to Cone solved this problem merely by shooting all these wayfarers who came down the highway. (audience laughter) But we can make it more or less pointless if we could do something like this - we have this already in the mills - we have some very key personnel in civil defense alerted on this and uery, very interested.

It all depends on what strata of truth or what degree of truth you're demanding from this bin. And you can go out and get a lot of opinions – each one of them is data. You can learn all about painting simply by going and taking a critic's manual of the great masterpieces of the world and memorizing it. You don't ever look at the paintings. Something here is van Gogh, and it said there in the critic's manual – he's an authority; you just read that, that's a perfectly valid datum – he says in there, "Van Gogh was yakety-yakety-yak, wela-dee-da-blah-blah-blahdeblah-blah and showed at various times a tremendous inclination toward power and strength, but he blahdeblah-blah-de-dah-da-blah. Now, the list of his paintings are so-and-so. This is known in Europe. This painting is known here and that painting is owned there, and this painting is particularly good for being balanced on all seven tricycles," or something.

Organize an organization called "The Samaritans, Incorporated." And we issue them a card. We sell them, if you please, food, clothing and shelter on their arrival in this area, and we try to make it possible for - after a short period of time - for there to be some kind of work or activity here which could keep them eating in the event of an atom bombing. Fairly sensible solution to this.

And you get this – you get a whole command of the subject of van Gogh without even faintly getting any command of aesthetics. But do you know, you could go out, with having memorized that entire manual on the famous paintings and paintings of history, and pass for a tremendously aesthetic person. You could. You could go around and any time anybody mentioned something by – well, some obscure Finnish painter, and you'd say, "Oh yes, yes, his Blue Girl, I always thought was terribly 'rankatewa' don't you think?" And they would look at you and they would say, "Hm, an authority, an expert." And they would be very polite.

By the way, I'm not terribly foreign to this, because I'm a graduate of the Princeton military school of government on civil affairs, which is the naval version of civil defense. It was highly specialized. And it's going to be a big problem. We'd just be inundated by people in Arizona if they aren't very much on the ball about doing something about it.

Now, you could know all there is to know about painting, about music, in that wise, without ever knowing how to paint, never knowing anything about music, really, and with knowing nothing about aesthetics, having no more taste than a cow, and yet get by. And all of that's perfectly valid information. That's all – that's a valid performance. After all, people have been acting like that for centuries. And it's a perfectly valid performance to memorize a bunch of this data and say, "I am now cultured."

Well, what happens is we can sell this. We can sell a card that says, "This entitles you to food, clothing and shelter, and it's got your thumbprint on it. All you have to bring is your thumb. And you report in on this area ..." Particularly between here and Los Angeles you can put in some gasoline and water stations. And you start making a storage - that is to say, a dump, actually, of supplies. This card isn't cheap. But it's going to take a lot of people to get this organization - keep it rolling, and work with it and stay with it.

What's cultured? Well, that all depends on the time. For instance, a fellow couldn't be cultured two hundred years ago unless he was prepared to sit down and lose a thousand pounds every night at the gaming table. Well, our definition has changed – definition has changed. Now he has to lose it on dog racing or something.

And it's not too far out of line with Dianetic goals. One of the main reasons I thought about this is auditors in this area. We need things to do, we need something that produces income, and I've been trying to solve this problem any way I could. I, for some reason or other, feel responsible on it.

But all of... You see, I'm giving you this to try to show to you that the word cultured – without any definition of what we're going to agree on to he cultured, well, we can have all sorts of oddities here. A fellow memorizes a book and becomes cultured. Well, then, what's cultured? It's just whether or not we've agreed on the formula one is going to pursue to get cultured. That agreement will take bin 3 and rearrange what a person has to know or do to be cultured, you see?

Now, what do you think of these plans? We're trying to pull a hill here. All the funds that were available in Dianetics are gone by the boards. There isn't any. For instance, my books that are being sold out of Wichita right now - if I ever see a dime out of those, I will be very, very surprised. Very surprised.

So that a large segment of the human race that was more or less knowledgeable about data in the world could get together and sort of agree – sort of agree that hereinafter people who were to be considered in the line of the arts had to be able to practice the art. They had to know aesthetics and practice the arts – not memorize. And right away, all this alignment of data in bin 3 would change.

This is a new page, a new show. And I'm personally - I'm very glad of it because a lot of the people in management and so forth this took off the back of our necks will be very healthy to Dianetics. Don't think that it won't. I'm looking at a couple of faces here that just quit cold on account of management in another area.

The difference between bin I and bin 3, then, is what we happen to be using at the present time and what we've agreed upon is relatively useful to us. You see? That's all there is to it. In here comes fashion, styles, changes, and so forth.

We don't want management; what we want is action and activity. And I think we'll be able to pull the hill here pretty well. I don't want any existing organization, planning agency or anything to get the idea that we are trying to steal any shows. Let's get together and cooperate for a change.

For instance, fashions in physics have changed markedly. It was fashionable once upon a time to be entirely different and quite otherwise than the modern physicist. It's most fashionable now to use mathematics that he himself doesn't understand, and to sit around and hope that something won't blow up in your face. To – it's fashionable to say, "Well the law of conservation of energy is in question but it's not in question and so on. Fascinating subject right now. But just twenty-five years ago, this science – this exact science of physics – was quite otherwise, quite otherwise. It was a precision science. Nobody worried about a thing. All the data in here was just in beautiful condition – oh, wonderful! And nobody questioning it – everybody agreed on it. It was solid, It was almost a static. It was almost as though it was bin 1.

We got a terrtfic target; we got a big target. I looked at a map of the United States the other day and it said that there were a hundred and fifty million people in it and there was a lot of land there and so on.

And then, of course, somebody comes along and digs up a little more of Maxwell's work and Einstein's equations, and quantum mechanics gets invented and the Germans do this and we do that, and all of a sudden here's the whole subject – it's just up in air. You don't know from, actually, one month to the next, what's happening in physics: This month light is a particle, next month it's a wave and so on. And the fashions – fashions in the mathematics used in it change. So, again, the whole subject is in flux. It's random now as a subject.

As a unified, solidified front without all this argument, and without some wild man someplace telling us how Dianetics has got to make a million bucks a minute so that he can buy six more Cadillacs for his wife or something - we can make this show run. I know that. Do you know I've never been able to give Dianetics away? Every time I've ever tried to give Dianetics away, the MEST keeps moving in under it and then you start having trouble with the MEST, And if you just remember not to take too much of the MEST, you're all set. But it's very dangerous. It's very dangerous, for instance, to walk down the street and start tapping people on the shoulder who are crippled or blind or something of the sort and start doing something for them, because if you start such an operation, it's just like chain fission. I don't know how many of you ever had nerve enough to do that. Just walk down the street and tap somebody on the shoulder that's walking along on crutches and say, "My address is so-and-so. Come on over to the house," And he says, "Why?" "Well, I'm going to take you off your crutches." "What are you, a preacher or something of the sort?" "No? No, I operate in the field of science - has to do with the mind. And we do this quite regularly. Now, what is your phone number just in case you don't come?" He'll give it to you. They've spooked.

So knowledge changes in bin 3 in accordance with what we've agreed upon about the physical universe. It doesn't matter what we've agreed upon, that data can get into bin 3. And we can agree that something is true which is utterly false, and it'll still appear as a datum in bin 3. We can agree that all of us can make the tides of the ocean overflow and drown the Land on Shrove Wednesday or Ash August." And we can agree upon this. It doesn't necessarily have to happen. It's a datum. Now we can work on that.

When they appear, you take them off the crutches. You could even take only 50 percent of them off the crutches and you'd be in fine shape.

For instance, a lot of people agreed once upon a time that the Roman Empire – Rome itself was suddenly going to disappear in a boiling mass of lava, red hot lava, and that every Roman in the town was going to perish in that boiling mass of lava. And they agreed upon this and they agreed upon it and they agreed upon it, and everybody sat around and waited for it to happen. Every body hated Rome. And they waited for it to happen and they waited for it to happen and they waited for it to happen, and it just didn't happen! And this became discouraging.

Now, I wanted to give you just a brief briefing on what we're trying to do, and not only what we're trying to do, what's happening, because this stuff that I'm talking to you about is happening like chain Lightning. Going to need help. And the most help we can need and the most help we can use is a good, smooth, calm level of agreement and some ARC for a change all across the line. Good, calm activity, because I am sure that in Dianetics we have a target and a goal that'll fit any capability or skill which we have in all the field of Dianetics. I know this.

One time, by the way, they set fire to it just to make it come true, and then blamed the emperor. And then blamed him again when he crucified some people for having done it. Very interesting.

In the past, what people continually tried to do was pull it all together here, and say, "It's mine! It's mine; I own it! This is it, and you'll have to give me a million dollars before you get this thing," and so forth.

But the point is that they had agreed upon it. It was an accepted datum. It was so thoroughly accepted that men would have killed each other rather than to have overset this datum: "Rome is going to go up in a cloud of hot lava." And Rome didn't, so they had to invent hell. (laughter) And that's right; that is the source of hell. They finally said "So we're talking about a symbolical Rome." We couldn't make this town go, so we had to change data in bin 3. My authority for this is Edward Gibbon. Edward Gibbon is a thorough Christian – thorough. Only I'm very – I'm sure, I'm sure that the Church and so forth is very happy that he has written with such long words so that so few people read him. Actually, he reads like a dime novel, and his blasts on this subject are – they really char the paper.

Dianetics, to a very, very limited extent, is mine by sole virtue of production. I've tried to keep it on an even keel so I could keep producing. I don't think anybody will argue about my production. And that's just the sole reason why I exercise any ownership in this field. I don't want to see somebody messing it up before I get into a situation where I can say, "Okay, that's it; now I'm going fishing!" You see what my stand is.

But anyhow, there's bin 3 – even contains Gibbon. It also contains the endowment lists, that is – what do you call them? Oh, the index – what is that thing they called – what do you call it?

Well, I imagine - I don't know, I haven't seen any of the mailings out of Wichita; I don't know what's going on in Wichita - I imagine some of you are confused to some degree about all this. But I can assure you of one thing: you're nowhere near as confused as I am about it!

Male voice: "Index of Forbidden Books."

You get up one morning and somebody is on the phone saying, "We just went into bankruptcy. What are you going to do now?" I say, "You what? Why?"

"Index of Forbidden Books"! Well, it's something like that. & I knew the Latin. & Well, just to be blunt here, we have the channels between 3 and 1, and those are the channels of search. Mysticism, religion – all of those things come on this second-channel level. That's 2. And those are the routes of knowing. And the data in 2 is just how you get data out of 1 and into 3.

And they say, "Well, there's just hundreds of thousands of dollars in debts." Grim!

Scientology is actually a route which pretends to embrace everything here in bin 2. It doesn't matter what route is used, will be used, can't be used or anything else, or what argument is against using it – that is bin 2.

Well, all to that - due respect, let's get on to something constructive.

And what Scientology is, is bin 2: How do you get knowledge from 1 to its relatively highest degree of truth, into bin 3?

Some of you have listened, lately, to the Summary Course. Now, that was a pretty brutal rundown - that many lectures at that rate of speed.

I hope you understand that so that no holds are barred in this subject. If you can find out that the Arabs had a method of blowing sand into certain shapes and finding out what was in bin 1, believe me, that is in the sphere of Scientology. Just like a slide rule, topology, the science of physics, or US government orders – US government orders – they're all in the same bin. Now, they're all embraced by Scientology.

Female uoice: Uhh.

And I hope you get a little better understanding, then, of what we're trying to do. We're trying to get the highest level of knowing that we can get, and this is a system of trying to get that highest level of knowing. So, no holds are barred in this subject.

Yeah, "Uhh" is right.

But I am very glad - I am very glad that you listened to that rundown for this adequate reason: because if we start putting in a course which is about the same size and shape as that course, which is running off slowly, and people start walking into this course that want some tips or they want a little - buy some processing from you or something of the sort - you are an advanced line, now, that knows what this thing consists of. And that's absolutely necessary before you suddenly start something running. Because don't worry, you'll be drifting around the classroom, and they'll be saying, "Oh, you're an HDA. Oh you - you know about this stuff?" And you can say, "Well, ..." (audience laughter)

I'm not saying that you didn't know about it all before, but this particular package called this Summary Course is a codification which makes it, actually, to a large degree a different sort of a looking article, because it's all packaged up - it's got cellophane on it now - and it says over here that this is A and B and C and D and E and F.

Now, the lectures and so forth that some of you poor people have listened to by me... You come down on Monday night down in Wichita there and say, "All right, now it's like this" See? And I tell you, "Well now, it's so-and-so and so-and-so, and the Code of Honor Processing, and you know about Effort Processing, but we'll cover that next week," so to speak.

Nothing organized: it went E, G, X, Q, B, C! And I was listening to some of those tapes and trying to look them over as to sequence, and boy, there was just nothing in sequence all fall! There was nothing but new data, new data, new data, new data - it just kept falling down. Well, I can't help it; it kept falling into my lap. And the only thing I could do was to give it to you as I got it.

Well, I had a little time to breathe because something very significant has happened. We have moved out of the mechanics stage. Mechanics are buttoned up. Nothing mechanical about the mind or thought has now shown up for about two and a half or three months.

Mechanics, I'm talking about: "How do you process? How do you handle a facsimile? What is a facsimile? What is emotion? What is effort? What kind of efforts are there? How do you handle these? How are they packaged up? What is unconsciousness? What is ..." You know? Well, I'm talking about mechanics. There it is; there's nothing been added to it. That Monday night's lecture when I said, "Well, there's thought, emotion and effort," from that time on, it - just within two or three weeks - formed a button-up, and that was the package. Now it's sort of rote. These are the tools.

We have proceeded, now, just using these tools. What is the function of the mind, and how does it operate and how do you put it back into another form of operation? Or how do you put it over here into a completely different form of operation? We've answered those questions.

But by taking these processes - I've gone exploring, and all I'm looking at now and all I'm working with is incident - incident in the history of man. What are the incidents that are important, and what's the history of man? And that's all I'm looking at as far as a technique of processing. As far as thought, emotion, effort, engrams, all the rest of this stuff - locks, secondaries, how do you run them, what are the techniques to be applied and so on? Complete package. I don't think we'll see any change in it. I haven't seen any reason to change it for a long time.

So, there we have all the tools and how you use them. Now, it's just a question of this: Are there some incidents around to which you can apply these tools which suddenly bring a tremendous amount of resolution into a case? Now, what's the incident? What is the best incident to run? That's the whole thing: what is the best incident to run?

And I'm doing you a map; it's called a track map. And I've been working on it rather constantly here. And it just has to do with just about all the incidents that are important on the line.

That is to say - now these are being checked against an electropsychometer, they're being checked against preclears, and they're being checked against a very large body of data. So all we're doing is selecting targets, selecting targets. And you'll find out that an electropsychometer becomes more and more important to you because you have these incidents. There's this type of incident and that type of incident and that type of incident. And to get your swiftest results you just say, "Incident One, Two or Three?" You throw a guy on the psychometer and you - it's "Two." "Ah, Two." You don't have to worry about it any further - you can run "Two."

Furthermore, the incidents we're getting into are terrifically standardized. Boy, have there been a lot of 1.5's or something back on the - boy, really routine. You know, they said, "Well, this is the way we go," and then they handled the civilization or they handled this just exactly in this fashion and they didn't vary a hair, Like Service Facsimile One: that thing is just gorgeous as a piece of routine.

There's two kinds of it - the wide-open case has one kind and the occluded case has another kind - two kinds. Variation very slight. The incident varies from person to person, really, only with the intent with which he went into the incident. Some people went into it saying, "Urrrr? I'm really going to find out about this and tell everybody." And some went in and said, "Oh goody, goody, I'm going to - I'm going to become very religious." And some went into it saying, "Well, what's the use?" and so on, So you get this intent underlying the incident and so the incident changes in complexion and its operation on the individual, That's about all there is to it.

So, we're getting targets, Targets. Now, as soon as I get this track map drawn and a little book called "Principal Incidents" - it's a description of each one of these incidents, and each type of incident that fits on the track map.

Well, I wish I had more time to do this job because I would do the whole job if I could and finish it all off. Well, instead of this, what I'm going to have to do is issue the track map to you guys and issue these books and let you do some checking. In the meantime the thing will be going out to the field, so that we'll have track map issue five, track map issue six, issue seven. The incidents which appear on there will always be there, but there may be some spook incidents in between that have greater importance. And the outline of the incidents, of course, will vary if auditors will just jot down what their preclear is running, regardless of whether it's little green men suddenly growing horns or what it is, and send it in. In this way, let's get a nice coordination, see?

You see, we're looking at end of track right now on Dianetic research. We're sitting in a grandstand seat looking at end of track; it's coming right up. I don't know how many strings will be left undone after August, but I would say offhand that August is practically deadline, unless something like an atom bombing or something happens, of the sort. I can look at the scope of all this and I've been handling it for a long time, and I look at it and all of a sudden it's a sphere, It doesn't go off over thataway; it doesn't lead on and on. You don't keep looking over there at the horizon and then you run like the devil and you get over there and you see this big range of mountains and there's nothing there and you look and you see the next horizon and the next horizon and the next horizon. Well, what we've done is meet ourselves coming back and so we can do such an adventurous thing as drawing a track map.

And some more good news on this line of research: there are specific incidents on the track whereby the individual desired a certain thing to take place. The incident was such that he desired of his own free will - although he was forced to desire this, you might say - but circumstances were such that he was just forced to desire this. For instance, "to want experience." The individual wants experience. Well, that makes him start collecting these facsimiles, you know, and considering they're very valuable and holding them over here in a little ball.

And there's incidents where he "wants to be together." And about the main reason to run these, it suddenly works out to a fact that there are only so many desires that are aberrative and, evidently, an individual at each point on the track has picked up another one of these desires until he's got all the desires to be aberrated. The main purpose in running these incidents, then, is to knock out this.

For instance, why would a person want to be in a grouper? Well, you can hammer away at groupers and separate groupers and do things to groupers and just endlessly to some people, and they're still - the next week you see them, they've picked up another grouper. Now, why do they have this thing? Why do they want this track ballup? Because it boils down to the fact they must want it someplace.

Well, we go back on the track and we look and we look and we look, and finally in examining incidents we find out where they wanted to be a group - where they wanted to be a group. There is the grouper, because after that everything had a tendency to fall in on that point. That one gets restimulated, everything falls in on it. There's your grouping. You see how neatly this is working out?

Another thing is you've had trouble in the past (person to person) with people, for instance, who were paralyzed from the waist down or paralyzed on one side or had a twitch or something. Wouldn't you love to have a - oh, three-, four-, five-hour technique that'd knock it out - something at the outside, three, four, five hours. Well, I'm looking right at that technique. It's very simple. It's just a new address of what we knew about theta, and it had to do with discovering what is the anatomy of the theta body. The anatomy of the theta hodv is a different subiect than the anatomy of the MEST body, and when examined you find out that the theta body monitors certain parts of the MEST body.

What is the anatomy, then, of the theta body, and do you have to adjust anything in the theta body? Well, if you just adjusted something in the theta body instead of adjusting the MEST body, then the theta body would adjust the MEST body. Very simple. You just short-circuit this thing, in other words. Instead of working so hard on this MEST body and getting thoughts and incidents and so forth and what they're doing, what you do is work with the theta body to make it do it. And that's very simple: the anatomy of the theta body.

The next little trick that is coming up here very soon is a very fascinating little trick that I probably shouldn't mention. (laughter) What's the matter?

Female voice: You're going to!

Well, as a matter of fact I almost didn't, because - looking at a fellow that I promised I wouldn't! Can I have that promise back?

Male uoice: Sure. All right.

And that is to say, on the business of clearing; we're looking at the Theta Clear. The Theta Clear is a distinct possibility. It's so distinct as a possibility that I'11 give it about ten days for one to show up ...

Male voice: Possibly.

.. something like that. Theta Clear.

And a Theta Clear auditor can do almost anything he wants to do with a case. And the mechanics of how he does it are right now sitting in the form of notes on my desk. Provable. Very, very interesting. A Theta Clear auditor - that's what we want. We want an auditor to be able to walk down the street and see somebody who is having a bad time, who is cross or crippled or something of the sort, and the auditor say, "Whsssh!" - guy's all right! We want an auditor to be able to look at a little crippled kid in a school, and look at this little crippled kid and say ... And the little kid's not crippled anymore. That'd be an interesting phenomenon, wouldn't it?

Male voice: Yes.

Well, it's unbelievable; it's completely unbelievable - as unbelievable as Dianetics always has been. We want an auditor to be able to walk down a hospital ward between those beds and just have the patients get up as he goes by. Wouldn't that be interesting? And I'm not saying you'll all be able to do it in two weeks: some of you it'll take - three weeks!

One of the boys was out to see me the other night - the other afternoon - said, "Sometimes I sit up in the air above my body," so forth. But he comes down again. Now, why does he come down? Very interesting.

For instance, ask yourself this question: "Is there any reason why you had to have a body?" Hm? Stop and think about it for a moment: do you have to have a body? Is most of your time in this MEST universe dedicated to taking care of a body?

Audience: Yes.

Well, it's the body that can't survive, so that brings about death. But that's all the failure there is, is death or pain. Isn't that right? So if you didn't have to worry about a body, but you had a body and so on, then you wouldn't have to be at all concerned about failure, because you couldn't fail because the worst that could happen to you is you'd be killed, and you can always pick up another body.

I see some of you girls now; somebody like Susan Hayward or Rita Hayworth, something, walk into a lecture and sit down. Look at them accusingly: "What did you do with her soul?"

Very tough method of identification, by the way, when people go around stealing bodies and things like that, I mean, I ... So we'll have to have a code of honor about this whole thing before I spring it. Well, of course, I'm just joking - or am I?

Female voice: You're not.

Male voice: You're not.

Mm-hm, that's right. You see, some of you have been very impatient about this and have been ramming around at it and yow-yowing a little bit in my way because we weren't there, we weren't doing this, and you knew innatively [ natively and innately - Ed.] and inherently we could. But you know, it was much better to build a very careful bridge to it. So we built a bridge through the MEST universe, we built a bridge through the MEST body, we built a bridge through what you might call "MEST theta," so on, up into the theta body, up into the operation of theta itself. And we are suddenly standing at a point where we're at theta, now, looking back. And it's an interesting viewpoint. For instance, your electropsychometer will tell you faster than scat that there is an enormous difference between a facsimile and a theta body. It'll tell you right now, because its needle operation is entirely different - entirely different,

Well, I just wanted to give you all the news. Supposing we take a two-minute breather and I'll give you an hour's talk on theta bodies if you want me to. You want me to?

Audience: Fine.

Okay.