The mind, after all, has been granted supernatural tendencies, it back through all of his lives has been very definitely connected with the supernatural, He has many things against touching the mind of somebody else. Quite in addition to that, Service Facsimile One, plus its overt acts, practically prohibits touching somebody else’s mind, Service Facsimile One says, “Touch them,” And then its overt acts finally pile up and says, “Don’t touch anybody else’s mind.”

Well, this is something which you as a - an instructor would have to overcome, You would have to demonstrate to this student that it was possible for him to do something to somebody else’s mind without himself blowing up or inverting or having somebody come along and issue him a summons to appear before the great temple priest or something of the sort.

Now, it is perfectly true that a person beginning to audit is subject to, to some degree, restimulation. It’s not very dangerous. Actually is overrated in the amount an auditor becomes restimulated and gets somatics, But do you know, I don’t know of any auditors going off the pin because they were auditing. So that theory and danger isn’t there.

You’ll find them superstitious to this degree: You will find that when they audit somebody, they think if they audit somebody, then they’re going to have to take over the facsimiles they’re taking out of that other person. Well, the way this really works out is quite simple.

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.

The student starting to audit, or the auditor starting to audit somebody else, suddenly clips some overt act of his own and he thinks - at the moment, he fails to differeratiate, and he thinks he’s actually rendering these pains to the preclear, and it merely turns on his motivator against himself. You see how that would be?

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.

So he’d pick up the somatics the preclear is picking up because anybody has literally billions and billions of incidents which they can turn on, and so they would just match up an incident. They’ll say, “Look what I’m doing to this preclear, I’m sorry I did to this preclear,” and so on. So he gets the somatics himself in an effort not to get the preclear to get the somatics.

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.

Actually if you want to play around with it, you can move over into the body of the preclear. You can move the preclear’s body into yours. You can do all sorts of weird, weird things that are quite valid, but you don’t have to. And just routine auditing doesn’t contain these things.

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.

All right. The best way, I would say, to get over this would be to demonstrate to your student, as an instructor, the existence of a facsimile and the storage of pain. Remember you’re probably dealing with somebody who has no indoctrination in the mind at all. Or if he does have any indoctrination, it has been in some other direction.

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

Let’s take an indoctrination that a psychoanalyst has had. He’s had a pretty good medical background and so on, and he still tends to treat with structure. He still tends to dramatize overt acts against his patient. He evaluates. There’s one of the main differences. Your psychoanalyst, in his attitude, evaluates for the preclear. He tries to own the preclear. He tries to get the preclear, his patient, to transfer to him. He wants to be boss instead of letting this person free, whereas an auditor is trying to set this preclear free - give him his own self-determinism back. See, that’s an entirely different viewpoint than your psychoanalyst has.Now, it’s interesting to note that if your student is grounded in some old-time psychotherapy, he will still tend to try to translate everything which you tell him into the terminology in which he was trained. This is something like taking MERSIGS [Merchant ship signal flags] and translating them into Japanese, and Japanese - translating them back into English, in order to get a signal through. You don’t need the Japanese as a step. If you could just translate it straight through, just as what it is, Scientology, and the application thereof, you find it much easier.

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.

Your Jungian, your Adlerian, and your Freudian - classic Freudian - are doing a wonderful thing. They have taken Facsimile One without recognizing what it is - Freud did this right out of the blue. He must have keyed in Facsimile One in 1894, the second he started to work on somebody else’s mind and burst forth with his libido theory. Because Facsimile One has a lot of sexual shut-off in it; it has a lot to do with sex. And Lord, it’s got a censor in it - the censor that keeps you from doing anything else. All of these various conflicts and complexes in it are just set up as a routine.

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.

In other words, he did have a map of Facsimile One, but he was trying to say that Facsimile One is the human mind, and it’s not, The human mind doesn’t operate that way; Facsimile OIle operates that way.

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

So you’d have this trouble with a person grounded in psychoanalysis. He would try to tell you all the time, as you tried to instruct him, how this translated itself into the censor, the libido, the thisa, the thata, and he’d keep on restimulating for himself, and try to restimulate for you, Facsimile One. That’s why their people don’t get well. They come in and they have all this stuff pointed out to them and they - just getting Facsimile One, Facsimile One, Facsimile One - restimulate yourself, boy; restimulate yourself, boy. This is the way to get well, this is the way to get well. Restimulate yourself. They might as well be standing there with a machine and cranking it.

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.

So, training this student, it is absolutely necessary for you as an instructor to demonstrate to him the existence of a facsimile and the extreme simplicity of this facsimile - the very, very simple thing this facsimile is. And that’s what you should do immediately and right off the bat.

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.

The best way to do it is with an electropsychometer. Set him down, put the cans in his hands. Pinch him - good and hard so he can feel the pinch - and show him the needle of the machine, Watch it dip the second he’s pinched. He watches that thing dip. And pinch him hard enough till it dips. And then say, “All right, go back to the moment I was pinching you” - well, he can do this easily. “Now run through and feel again this pinch.” He does and the machine dips. Well, that’s very, very peculiar - the machine dips.

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.

“Now run through - run through your resistance to this effort I’m putting into your arm. This effort I am putting into your arm, run through your resistance to it.” And he’ll watch the machine dip, dip, dip, dip. Many times you’ll have to go through it a lot more times than you’d have to through a real incident. And shift his attention, if you have to, to get that up, shift his attention to the top of his shoulder, whereas you pinched him on the arm. And get that effort. And get that effort to register on the machine. All of a sudden, he says, “That’s very strange. The pinch that went into my arm was stored or recorded somehow.”

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.

Now get his emotion as he was pinched, and you’ll see that there’s a little emotional curve bob. Particularly - you want to pay attention to this - do it suddenly. Pinch him suddenly Just reach out suddenly and pinch him, without telling him you’re going to pinch him, and you’ve got a nice emotional curve to show him on the machine.

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.

Now, he knows he’s got the somatic out, Now show him this curve bobbing. Very often they’ll run the somatic and the curve. You see the effort - somatic is part of the effort.

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.

Sometimes they’ll just run the pain without running the effort. But you direct them through on this, time after time, and get their thoughts when they were pinched. And then have them try to get some feeling of your emotion while they were pinched. And they’ll see all of this registering on the machine, and all of a sudden they will see the machine settled back to where it was before you did this to them. And you see - “Now, you see, you recorded a facsimile, and I rubbed it out. And it was on record.”

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.

Actually, as simple as this may seem to you, it is quite revelatory to some people. It would knock a psychoanalyst practically off of his chair. He would try to say, “Well now, let’s see, you got a delusion or a hallucination or something of the sort that this was taking place, and that hallucination deluded it?” or something of the sort. He would not care to look at a real recording unless you were to show him a picture and you were to say, “Now look, that’s a picture. It’s got a house in it. And I take this eraser and I erase the house. I’ve still got the sheet of paper. Now, that’s all we’re doing. Simple. Nothing to it. But let’s not try to make it complicated, because it’s easy.” All right, The next thing that you could do, still showing him the machine, would show him that his thoughts had recording value. You say, “Do you remember your father?” The machine does a little bob, rather, “Did your father ever punish you?” The machine does a bigger bob. “Let’s recall a time when your father punished you.” The machine does a big bob. “Now let’s remember it, remember it, remember it.” Bing. All of a sudden the machine isn’t bobbing, and he is not bothered. And he realizes suddenly he isn’t quite as bothered about this.

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

Now, that’s straight memory. That demonstrates that he can be in present time without very - any close contact with this facsimile and pick things out of it.

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.

That’s memory: picking things out of a facsimile which isn’t even brought up.

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,

Or, as in the case of being pinched in the arm, you can take the euhole picture - the whole facsimile - and hold it up and run it across him again. This demonstration will demonstrate to him that this exists and that something happens. You demonstrate phenomena to him.

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.

That’s the first thing your student has to know. The phenomena exists. And you show it to him with a psychometer and with pinching him and a few other things - just the basic phenomena.

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.

All right. The next thing, if you’re teaching him to audit, is not to ask him to try his skill 100 percent on a preclear the first time. Actually, he’ll be scared to death. This is something he mustn’t touch. He’s superstitious about it. He has gained the idea that the phenomena exists, You can even show him that past lives exist by the machine behavior. You can account for various things for him. But this still has not gotten across this one bridge - he hasn’t touched a preclear’s mind yet.

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.

Now, he expects the preclear to blow up or something strange to happen if he does something to this mind. So what you do is take a - old copy of Self Analysis or the Handbook for Preclears, even better, and you put it in his hands and you give him a preclear. And you make him read this thing to the preclear, Make him make the preclear recall these things. And give him a little indoctrination along in this line and his confidence will come up the line.

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,

Then have him run what you might call emotional curves on the preclear a little bit: feeling this emotion, feeling that emotion, getting it here, getting it there. He’ll find out the emotional curve exists. And then you can assign to him running a secondary.

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.

Now the running of the secondary, as you know, is not very complex, but many secondaries are badly shut down. You have him run a secondary: have him go from the beginning to the end, get the exact moment and all the perceptions on the preclear when the preclear received some bad news, and run those through to the end of the incident - maybe ten minutes later, maybe an hour later or a day later - and keep running that through, over and over and over and over. But remembering that if it doesn’t spill, it has overt acts before it, so have him go find the overt act again. But again, this is just emotional. Just emotion - that’s all you want out of these incidents. That is running a secondary.

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.

You could even permit him to run an engram and validate for himself, either in himself or on a preclear - particularly on a preclear - the fact that things are recorded during periods of unconsciousness.

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.

Now, oddly enough, this is not hard to demonstrate. Your psychologist, whenever he moved in on this science, tried to give somebody a PDH and then run it out. And, of course, the PDH would lie on... That is to say, he would drug him and say things to him and so forth, and then say, “Well - well, this - this science doesn’t work, you see, because we can’t get it back.”

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.

Well, every time you PDH somebody, it’s liable to lie right on top of Facsimile One, and it’s impossible to pull the thing off. So therefore they say he can’t record during unconsciousness. Great.

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

Now, you see, it isn’t necessary to do that. If you want to prove this, just shut off somebody’s blood flow. There’s a jugular vein here - their blood flowing on either side of the esophagus. And you just press those with your thumb and forefinger a little bit and the guy will get a little bit dizzy. And then you say, “Run back through it again,” Ask the fellow, “Now, did you perceive anything in the room while you were feeling that dizziness?”

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.

He’ll say, “No.” Or “Yeah, I know everything that was going on,” One way or the other.

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."

Run him through this little period of uncon- you don’t have to hurt him. He goes through it a few times, and all of a sudden he becomes aware of the fact that there was an automobile that went past when he did that, there was this that went past, there was this or that that happened, the sensation of him sitting on the chair. All of these things were there. But to straight memory they were covered up.

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."

Now, better than this, take him down the track to an incident where he hurt himself - the preclear hurt himself. And take him back to a time - maybe he hit his thumb with a hammer. Crash! Well, obviously he knows everything that was there. But after you’ve run him through it a few times, all of a sudden the incident gets wider and wider and wider and wider. There was more and more data concealed in that hammer blow. And this demonstrates to him that effort and emotion do cover up perceptions - effort and emotion cover up perceptions. And that there was data buried in a moment of unconsciousness, because there was a moment of unconscious when he hit his finger with a hammer. You see? So you can demonstrate this phenomena to him. Very simple.

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.

If you want the student to get a further reality on this subject, make him be masochistic to this extent: have him take his right foot and stamp on his left toes. And then take his left foot and stamp on his right toes. And then run out the right foot only. Run out the right foot only. And he will be able to see that his left foot keeps on hurting, but his right foot isn’t hurting now. That’s a very simple experiment, but it demonstrates to him that a facsimile was what kept his right foot hurting, and it demonstrates to him that you can do something about it. And that that’s what auditing does. These are little proofs, easy ones.

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.

But his first address to the other mind, as I say, ought to be the handbook. Let him take it easy. He will get up to a point where, if he hit a terror charge, he would run it out instead of run away from it. Let him become accustomed to his tools, little by little, each time gaining reality on what he is doing.

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.

He has to have subjective reality, furthermore. An auditor who does not have subjective reality on this subject finds it very difficult to understand what is happening to the preclear. He can study until he is the best-read person in Scientology, and he still will not be a good auditor if he has never touched physical pain in himself, if he’s never experienced an emotion out of a facsimile. If he doesn’t have any reality on this, he is not a good auditor. And he will actually cut down the preclear.

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.

Now, I have seen somebody trained in an old psychotherapy doing a jobs of auditing when auditing had never been done on them, And I stress this “an old psychotherapy” for this reason: there you’re going to have the most trouble. A medical doctor with a terrific, terrific fund of information, with enormous backlog of skill, with obviously a basic purpose of making people well, would apparently be the most valuable student that you could get. And so he is the most valuable student that you could get. But unfortunately, when you try to train him, you’re training up against preconcept that structure monitors function, not the reverse.

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.

And you’re going to have to scan him through practically his whole medical education. Because he will do this to a preclear: He will run the preclear to find some reality for himself. And he’ll keep asking the preclear, “Now, how do you know? Are you sure this wasn’t just this right hip’s calcification?” or something of the sort, And his unreality to a preclear who is a bit foggy with anaten will knock the preclear right straight on down the Tone Scale.

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.

So when you’re training a person who has been in psychotherapy or in medicine, you take particular pains with the establishment of subjective reality to that auditor; otherwise you will be losing a potentially very valuable auditor, because he’ll be a bad auditor when he ought to be a good one.

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.

Now, you pay attention, then, to establishing subjective reality in him, knocking out preconcepts, his old postulates - not so much what he has been taught, but what he himself concluded during his boyhood and during his medical training with regard to the body. It doesn’t take much time to swamp this up. And he can then reevaluate an enormous amount of data, which immediately becomes available to Scientology and to his preclears.

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.

There is one doctor in New York City who was taught Straightwire. I taught him Straightwire. He learned it crudely. He hobson-jobsoned it; that is to say - the reason I use this word hobson- jobson is because when the British soldier went to India he learned how to speak Hindu, or something of the sort - at least he thought he did. And the Hindus had a word they call - that sounded like hobsen-jobsen. And so the British Tommy went in there and he said that that word after that was Hobson-Jobson. That’s what you call hobson-jobsoning something.

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.

You will find these people will hobson-jobson, They’ll take a word... All of a sudden you say, “Now, this machine goes whirrr, whirr, whirr and bap, bap, bap, and this guy is told that he will no longer be able to experience sexual pleasure,” or something of the sort.

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.

And the psychotherapist is liable to say to himself - without telling you - he’s liable to say, “Oh, yes, yes In other words, that machine restimulated his libido theory and gave him this concept.” “Oh, no. The machine installed the libido theory.”

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.

“Well, how did it install it? I mean, after all the human mind works in this fashion and ...” You see, you’d be off to the races immediately.

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."

So you must be careful when you’re training students to know that they know what you’re talking about. Don’t leave anything hanging up in the air with them.

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.

All right. Now, all the training in the world is not going to overcome a lack of this subjective reality. And all the training in the world is - that’s only education, after all - is not going to make an optimum individual or a Clear. Your best auditor is euay up the Tone Scale. He has been completely swamped up himself. Then he can commit all the “overt acts” he wants to against this preclear. In other words, he can make him get well, and that might be an overt act to the preclear, you see?

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?

And he can do most anything in this. Furthermore, he can think faster. And furthermore, he doesn’t have any difficulty with the realities of the thing, because his own sense of reality is very, very high.

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.

So any time you’re training auditors, you better encourage them, by this process of taking it a little bit at a time and a little bit at a time and a little bit at a time, to get their hands wet, you might say, and dirty up to the wrist in other people’s engrams. And get them to work on each other and get your advanced students to work on the earlier students up to a point - with good auditing - so that you wind up with students who are cleared.

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.

Now there’s - you got all the tools, there aren’t any bugs left in this. There are no bygs left in it. There’s nothing left hangincg out. You’ve got the tools, you learn the tools, you apply them with good reality, with good confidence, well learned - you get Clears. All right, then you’ve really got auditors. Then you’ve really got auditors.

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.

If you could, for instance, clear a medical doctor, you would have somebody that could go around creating more miracles in less time...

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.

Now, as I was saying, this medical doctor in New York City was doing very, very bad Straightwire. He was unable to give more than about fifteen minutes, at the outside, to a patient.

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.

Patients come into their office just in streams, you see, one after the other. And they have to do a short stopgap something or other for them. The patient wants something done for them; they’re not going to stay around there for hours and audit and be audited. One of the ways a doctor can do this is have some auditors around to handle his patients - but, beside the point.

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.

This doctor was a specialist in Parkinson’s disease. And people would come in there with Parkinson’s disease just on assembly lines. And i this doctor knew enough about Straightwire to knock out some maybes... And, by George, he was turning off Parkinson’s disease something like three out of five.

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.

And how much time was he giving on the thing? It was just patient after patient. And he called me up one day and he said, “Someday I’m going to learn some more about your subject.” He says, “It must be able to do better than this,” And I went over and talked to him for a little while over in New York one day and found out that he was using the lowest possible order of Straighnvire and was getting results like this. Why?

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.

He was a doctor; people went there to get well. He would knock out a maybe; it gave them an excuse to get well. Bang! So their Parkinson’s disease would turn off. He was completely unaware of how long it would stay turned off, but, mind you, he’d never been able to get anybody turned off on Parkinson’s disease with regularity before. So he was quite interested. But the odd part of it was, he was taking it as routine. Nobody said to him, “Well, there’s times when this can’t be done and times when it can be done, and so forth.” He just happened to come over one day and heard a talk by me, and he said, “That’s a very interesting idea.” And he went back to his office and went to work and never talked to anybody else about it.

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?

By the time he was talked to and told “Well, this can’t be any good,” and “Really you should do all of this with a globe of the world hanging as a pendant from the left chandelier,” or something - when he was told that “all this other stuff ...” and “it was a modification of something else” - he had so much reality on it that he just looked at these people and he said, “You’re crazy! This works,” And went on collecting twenty-five dollars, twenty-five dollars, twenty-five dollars, twenty-five dollars. It was a wonderful business he was generating over there. I think he’s still very, very much in business. I haven’t heard from him from [for] ages. He never did learn any more about this subject than that.

Male voice: "Index of Forbidden Books."

You get the person out of the maybes, and then he gets well. He went away with this thought firmly fixed in his head. He didn’t even know some good smart ways to get them out of the maybes. He just sort Of said, “Are you in a maybe?” and “What was the last time you felt indecisive?”

"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 the fellow said, “Well, I guess I was on the train going in from Long Island,” “And what were you doing?” “Well, I was reading a paper.” “What were you reading in the paper?”

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, about a stock market crash. I remember the incident very well. As a matter of fact, that was about four days before I got sick,” “Oh, yeah? Stock market crash. How did that influence you? What did you have in the air at that time?” so on.

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

And the guy says so-and-so and so-and-so. “And I didn’t trust my partner,” “Well, has your partner worked out since?” “Oh, he turned out to be an awful crook.”

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.

“Oh, well, then you found out that he was crooked and the stock market crash was imminent and so forth, and this...” And the doctor doesn’t even know what the fellow’s business concern is, you see? And the fellow says, “Yeah?” and laughs suddenly and stops shaking. Well, so he said, “This is fine.”

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.

Now, you understand that if you give an auditor just the conviction on one tool - like your Chart of Attitudes There are auditors out all over the country now, they have the Hundbook for Preclears. It gives them a chart of attitudes. They’re not even working overt acts with that chart, by the way. They don’t know about it, most of them. They’re working it as counter-attitude. “When was this done to you?” And they take this chart and they take this book, and they’re giving a few hours this way and that. They’re using it. Sometimes they don’t even give this book to the preclear, They just work with those techniques.

And the next thing you know, you have a preclear who is way up the Tone Scale, And they call these people swamped-up, optimum, super, something of the sort, merely because they never saw anybody up that high before. It’s somebody - like saying, “Look at that fellow standing up there on the Empire State Building.” Look at him, clear up in the stratosphere!” Oh no, he’s not in the stratosphere.

But what I’m telling you is that a broad, foggy, unreal knowledge of this subject is nowhere near as valuable as one scrap of real information which you have seen produce a result. The techniques in the Handbook for Preclear will produce that result.

If you were to take these students and train them to deliver Straightwire processing - just straight memory on all the attitudes in the charts as overt acts by themselves against the other dynamics ... If you were just to teach them to use this chart, to ask the questions column by column, and you were to tell them - by the way, there’s two additional charts on that. There’s two additional columns - there’s fourteen buttons, not twelve.

The top of the column is “win” and the bottom of it is “lose.” A preclear who’s low on the Tone Scale can’t win - he won’t win - and up at the top he will win. And the next button: He’s completely free at the top of the scale and at the bottom he’s completely restrained; he’s dead. So what you do is run “restraint” and “degrees of restraint.” When he’s tried to put restraint on the world around him, he has restrained himself. Now, you just run these, then, as a Straightwire process.

If you trained a student to do nothing but that and sent him out to the old soldiers’ home to practice, he would come back saying, “Well, what do you know, what do you know. Gee! There’s a couple old fellows out there in the Spanish-American War, and one of them had lumbago so bad he couldn’t walk, and you know, I worked on him for about a half an hour this morning, and he’s walking!” Sure, we know he’s walking, It works.

But that is a lot better than to give him a whole bunch of odds and ends of technique which he unclearly understands - willfully misunderstanding - and he has no subjective reality himself.

In other words, introduce the subject to him step by step with all the reality which you can give him on the subject - not by telling him he has to believe, because he natively, inherently, is himself belief.

Not by telling him he has to have faith, because he natively is faith, but by telling him that “Here is data, phenomena which you can understand, which can be understood, which is real. We’re only asking you to find out for yourself that it is real and then apply what you know out of it is real to others and get results.”