Okay, this is the question period of the tenth lecture of the 20th ACC, July 25th, 1958.

Hiya!

Yes?

You look...

Male voice: You covered mass and space and time but didn't say much about energy.

Audience: Rocky.

The whole lecture concerned energy. The whole lecture concerns energy because that lecture - that lecture itself defines what energy is.

Boy, it's - practically every person here is mediumly stuck. Boy, I just better give you a morale lecture.

Yes?

Yes, this is - maybe this all comes from my playing Peter and the Wolf last night.

Male voice: You say that on the guy that doesn't have any field, you have to do a patch-up procedure. This looks to me to be - it's the only thing I see to be different about the handling of it. Now, what would you do there?

& I was telling Nibsy I

No, it's not different. You're doing the same thing. You're trying to get an integration of some part of his Rock and you're just approaching this integration on a more gradient scale. You've got to get him to integrate something and get basic on something and get these particles a little bit more together, and a little bit more into their more basic form. So therefore, in exploring, „What have you had to be responsible for?“ is a covert method of asking him what he created. And you get someplace with this if you do find some stucks.

Played Peter and the Wolf in full and put it on tape with very hi-fl quality and so forth, and I looked at the thing and I said, „You know, that's a standard Russian issue: they get all through, the duck's dead.“ You know? So I took the thing - and with sections of the theme music and so forth - then took it on from a full recording, brought the duck back to life, squared it all up and gave it a happy ending. Boy, Khrushchev would be upset if he found out about that! Absolutely wonderful recording there, though, by Basil Rathbone. It's too bad it really isn't made on a hi-fl record. It's the old pressings brought back to life. Old Basil Rathbone.

Have some of you done this on these cases that were way high now and you found out that...

Well, here we have the tenth lecture of the 20th ACC, July 25th, 1958, and this morning we are going to take up - the Rock.

Male voice: Yeah.

Now to get into this - you realize that all the lectures of this week are a prelude - no more and no less than a prelude to the Rock.

..you'll get some odds and ends of stucks. And then you'll find some other patch, and that'll kind of go together. Well, you're putting together the whole Rock from scratch. See? You're putting together the whole blasted Rock. And I do mean that as a pun. Do you see that now?

If there wasn't a Rock there wouldn't be a case. The Rock is an apparency in present time observable by the dramatizations in the preclear.

Male voice: Uh - yes.

& Nibsy said a while ago it's an apparent cause point which isn't. Yes, that's true but then that's true of any aberration.

Supposing you blast a blasted thing.

Now, let's look at this. A Rock is, please. A Rock is. It is. Now feel your chair under you - it's there, isn't it? Take a look at your body - it's there isn't it? Similarly, the room is here, isn't it? Well, so is the Rock, and if I catch anybody of you auditing it on the basis that it's an idea and is attackable and approachable solely through the form of idea, with never having any contact of any kind with energy I will be able to point out an auditor who will never clear anybody.

Male voice: Yeah.

True enough, the thetan is held to it by vias of ideas. But it is. Therefore, two processes are necessary to totally relieve the Rock: one is Help and the other is Step 6. Until you give an individual actual practice in the creation of energy itself, masses and spaces, he will never be totally immune to a thing called the Rock.

Let's say we have a stone quarry. At one time it was the side of a hill and it was totaled. Then they took some stones out of it and carted those off someplace else. You get that as a dispersal of this original mass called a hill. Got it?

So, although you may knock the particular Rock to flinders by running Help, your pc is simply set up to acquire another one unless you give him conscious and knowing ability to create matter, energy, space and time.

Male voice: Yeah.

Because he reneged and said, „I am the effect of matter, energy, space and time,“ because he backed up and said, „It is over there and I am over here and it is the effect of me,“ he then becomes the victim of matter, energy, space and time.

All right. Now supposing the buildings which were built out of those rocks are blown up. Now supposing the rubble of brick and that sort of thing is used as an airport fill. And then supposing somebody goes in there someday after airports are no longer necessary and decides that that's a good place to get some dirt, and they cart those things off someplace, you see, and integrate them into some new types of mass. And then one day these get blown up.

Basically there is nothing whatsoever wrong with matter, energy, space and time or any form thereof. Do you understand there is nothing wrong with this, but then some old philosopher said, „There is nothing wrong on heaven or earth save that thinking makes it so.“ True enough. True enough. But the basic reason he has a Rock is not because he has some misaligned ideas about Rocks. The thing is and he has become the effect of his own creation and we have denial of self as it has been for the last five years as the highest level of aberration.

Now you've got this case, which is the dispersal case, removed about that far from the Rock. It's too many blow-ups. And they've already begun a recombination of things. Now, as you scout back you'll start taking apart their own recombinations, and you do that simply on a gradient. And you're now not working, however, with such a case on the second postulate; you're working on the - you're working them from the 110th postulate back to the 109th. You see? And from the 109th perfect mass - which isn't a perfect mass, it's 109 separate operations removed - it'll work back to the 107th, and it'll work back to the 105th. And as you run these things of responsibility, and so forth, why, you'll start knocking them out.

So you have denial of self. But in this case denial of self includes matter, energy, space and time, and so including it we must realize that the significance wrapped up in a Rock can never supplant the fact that he has become the effect of simply this: space, energy, mass and time. These are the significances of the Rock. And these things are.

What you're knocking out is their recombinations of resistance for the resistance of things. You're knocking apart their recombinations of fields. And you can walk one of these cases with just such a proceeding right on down. You finally are working on somebody who merely has a field which, when it integrates, turns out to be the Rock.

Now, of course, he's gotten the idea that... and he's modified his ideas this way, and he's modified his ideas that way, and it's all very pathetic. But this just makes it impossible for him to change his mind as to „which is cause around here?“ So if there's any idea going to be involved in the thing, it is placing the preclear at cause, and his concept that he is at cause. But without the cause of what or at what and without understanding that he is the effect of and what he is the effect of and without the clear-cut idea that space is space, energy is energy and matter is matter and time is time, you're up the spout.

Male voice: I see where the misunderstanding is. In the case of the guy who doesn't have anything...

He has to make space, not get the idea he can make space. Boy, that's lazy, see? Maybe he just makes it by thinking „space!“ And true enough, maybe you could interpret this as being a thought, but what is the thought? The thought is not a significance. The thought is space.

Yeah? That's not true, but go ahead.

Now if you'll just view the space of this room, you will understand what I'm talking about. Now, can you view the space of this room and conceive that it can exist without your thinking anything but looking at it?

Male voice: Well, okay, so he says there's nothing there.

Audience: Yes.

Yeah, that's right, there's nothing where he is.

By the way that's a dizzying exercise if you want to carry it out particularly in the West where they have space. Look across some space that you're not accustomed to. Look out there across the rolling grain fields or the prairies or the deserts to where the curve of the earth is clearly visible in the flatness of the land, and don't think a thought, you know, just think - if you can call it „think“ at all - just „space,“ see? See? It just is. It isn't for anything; it isn't because of anything. It just is. And this itself is the most baffling conundrum that has ever been conceived by a thetan - the conception of isness.

Male voice: Right.

Now the person you are processing, the person you have under the guns of the E-Meter right at this moment, has wrong with him just this fact only: that the significances surrounding matter, energy, space and time are so overwhelming that he cannot easily approach the isness of things, and this is particularly true of the Rock.

All right.

The Rock has such terrific significances connected with it: „violations, survival, not to survive, thisa, thata, the other thing, identifications, cross-references, see file B, see file A 1,002,642, cross-reference Navy Department,“ you get the idea.

Male voice: This would still apply, then you'd use the same procedure to...

„Bulletin of War, Space Command, planet Exnoo [X-Nu], figure-figure-figure-figure, think-think-think-think-think- think, figure-figure-figure-figure, thought-thought - thought-thought, thought, significance - significance - significance-significance...“ And when he looks at this particular piece of matter, energy, space and time which is all it's conceived of, he doesn't conceive of matter, energy, space and time. He thinks „Cross-reference: Space Command, 8,000,000,682, general order to all torpedo-men. Following: pursuant to the orders of the admiral...“ See? Now, this unfortunately cross-references with „Order of the Day, Monastery Platitude, Mount Zenu [Xenu].'There shall be peace.'” Which conflicts with „Dear, I know you are dedicated to holy orders, but I need a new pair of shoes.“ Which in itself is very vastly in conflict with „Order of the Mount: Honor thy father and thy mother.“ Wait a minute, how'd that get in there? And that's why the preclear's so baffled.

No, you'd use this special procedure of: What has he had to be responsible for?

[Note on the above paragraph: The clearsound transcription says Mount Zenu but older freezone transcriptions say Mount Xenu.]

Male voice: Okay. Thank you.

It's so easy for a thetan to consider himself thoughts or knowledge or data. That's why I've been stressing it this week. It is so easy for him to consider himself these things, that he identifies very easily with these things. And because he does not do a perfect duplication - communication with space, since he is not space; he doesn't do a perfect duplication with energy since he is not energy; he doesn't do a perfect duplication with matter because he is not matter; and he doesn't do a perfect duplication with time, he is not time. These things, particularly in processing, he is very shy of being a duplication with or of.

Now, when you said that there was nothing there, you're under a mis-concept to some degree. There is nothing immediately where he is, apparently, but that is still space. And one of the weirder things that happens is, you start to run a „What have you had to be responsible for?“ proposition here, „What have you had to be responsible for?“ this damn thing of recombinations of recombinations of recombinations moves in on him. He's liable to find himself sitting in a torrential hurricane before you get through.

But boy, can he identify with thought - figure-figure-figure- figure-figure-figure-figure-figure; significance-significance- significance. Boy! Man, if there's any thought at all left in the Rock, he'll have had at it. But he'll just leave that big thought called „space“ alone.

But remember he still had some space there at the time you started out, and if space is nothing then he had nothing.

Now, you could say it's a thought because it is a creation, but it is not a thought called space, see? It simply is. Well, getting him to conceive of the space as just is permits him to confront space at cause.

Male voice: Yeah.

To most people, „Space is that which encloses me and holds me trapped.“ Oh, how fascinating, and this is never so true as in the Rock. Definition of a Rock: that which encloses me and holds me trapped.

But in this tailored-up space this thing starts to move back. It is less tough to take apart than it sounds because he gets back to the original disintegrated particles with great swiftness if you run an exploratory or a scout of the character that I gave you yesterday of exploration on the basis of „What have you had to be responsible for?“ You start getting these things chewed off, you'll find more and more stucks on the case, which is interesting; you are more and more clearing up the case and it sticks worse and worse, but gets lower and lower on the tone arm.

Some of you've been following down the line on the subject of theta traps. Some of you have been following down the line on the subject of „How do I get out of this?“ or „objects that you could not get away from,“ and have been happily looking at stick and other things.

And you clear up one thing, like a church, in this lifetime and the next thing you know the case has a vague idea of having to be responsible for a tremendous number of slaves. See? And then this thing kind of washes out and they're kind of vague now. They don't quite know where it came from, but it got awfully real for a moment or two and then floop, the needle washed up. And then you have to find something else, and this condenses and goes ffft. And then you'll find something else and it condenses and goes ffft. And the more times you do this, the more things you find on the dial.

Well, look, you're never going to find the Rock by finding theta traps; that I guarantee, absolutely. Every theta trap is simply a lock on the Rock, because you're looking reverse-wise, and you won't make a preclear well by running theta traps, just as such. There's got to be some creativeness or cessation of creativeness involved in this Rock.

And the only difficult area of search is the first five minutes of play, finding the first one. Trying to get them to assume, even vaguely, the idea of being responsible for anything. And that will sometimes just totally boggle them. And it'll boggle them so much that you sometimes can't enter the case with responsibility at all; you have to go back and pick up change. What have they had to change? Now we're processing the Rock quite directly but very fundamentally, without any thought concept coming off of the thing and it resolves less rapidly. See? But at no time is he out of contact with the Rock, or the particles of the Rock, except the particles that become smaller and smaller and more and more removed, more and more chaotic and less and less identified until at last he's just in a total not-knowingness. That explain it now?

Now, let's take up what I said before about first postulate, second postulate. This is a brand-new concept in the world of religion. All religions I have ever heard of anywhere state, „There was chaos. God made some chaos and then made some order and form.“ We have Adam and Eve as an example of this. This story of Adam and Eve, by the way, is so far from being exclusively Christian that you find it in almost every barbaric race. I have investigated twelve barbaric cultures, so-called primitive cultures, practically on down to the bottom and I have found all the elements of Christianity involved in them existing long before the Romans wrote out an appointment sheet for one Pontius Pilate and issued him one basin and some water.

Male voice: Yeah, that explains it very well.

You'll find the story of the Flood in almost any primitive culture. There was a civilization and it went bad and the Flood came along and... See? So we can consider this is probably in the last 7,000 years the earth has been totally flooded. Somebody probably flipped a hot bomb or something into the Antarctic and the surface of the water of Earth rose - I think the calculation is 136 feet - and somebody found someplace to hang out in the Rockies or something.

All right. He is a parallel to the MEST universe, you see. He's a total parallel to the MEST universe, but that corner of the MEST universe where there's nothing but space. See? But space is all full of electronic particles, they tell me. I never run into any myself, but they tell me, that is.

But it doesn't matter where you go and create a new civilization when the waters receded and refroze in the Antarctic. This might happen on any planet, and is not necessarily even this planet, since the traditions of all these races go back as far as yours does.

Let's see what we've got here.

So, as they talk about Adam and Eve as the first man and the first woman, they uniformly say manitou, or Black Hactcin, that's the Apache equivalent of Yahweh. I don't know how to spell that by the way, because Apaches can't spell. He took some mud and he made a man.

Male voice: Well, I could ask a question here, Ron. In reference to running „What have you had to be - well, any one of the buttons?“ - this has been run on me; I'm a preclear at this time - and I find that I do run and have a considerable number of consideration changes along the line here. And there are these periods where I have a complete, well, everything seems completely unreal to me. Even the command, it seems to have completely gone. It's not real. She has to take me through it again. And, well, I'm a little confused as to what...

And we have the Aleut, the Tlingit, the Chinese; we have race after race after race. God took some mud and he made a man. And the Flood came and somebody built a boat. This myth has just been going on for a very, very long time - but God took some mud and he made a man. He took some chaos and he created a form.

You're describing right straight down the line the not-knowingness which occurs between the first and second particle. Every preclear runs through this. He doesn't know what it is. And as you run it, he even more and more doesn't know what it is for a little while. And then he starts to run - he more and more knows what it is. And then, boom, he has some cognitions, you see? Now he knows what it is, but he's going through an earlier phase immediately after that, and of course he doesn't know from nothing again. And it's all very unreal, and people have to repeat the command, and all that sort of thing. What you're talking about is standard. You have to recognize that the not-knowingness is secondary for the responsibility. He can't be responsible for something he doesn't know - even know what it is.

Ah, fascinating that our very irreligious modern scientist completely imbued with all the principles of modern research and truth would tell us a myth: there was some mud and then there was a man.

Well, when he starts to be responsible for it again, he begins to know what it is. But then, he's beginning to know what is now unknowable and he gets the full impact of the confusion of not-knowingness, and he go duhhh. This is this funny manifestation of the Rock, „Well, I never thought of that before. All this life I have never even thought of being an athletic director. Isn't that funny? And the whole last life I must have been one. Well how weird. And how would you help an athletic director? Oh, it's very simple, you would put him in a deep hole and cover it all up with cabbage.“ The cabbage and the deep hole and all of that sort of thing, these are possibly fragments of earlier considerations concerning some part of the Rock. And they get all mixed up in athletic directors, and that sort of thing.

Perhaps in such a wise it becomes easy to penetrate the delusion of civilized and cultured thought, which they would like you to think exists before the portals of universities. This line of thought has never brought about anything but chaos and so science as practiced will never bring about, unless understood thoroughly from some much higher level, anything but chaos. Why? First postulate, second postulate. The power of any creation exists in its first postulate. And persistence is always achievable by the first postulate giving force to the second postulate and then living with and in only second postulates; then you never tap the dynamite.

You have to look at this - you have to look at this. There's a parallel of thought that parallels the formation and disintegration of the Rock. And, as I told you, it's that parallel of thought which louses the preclear up horribly, because thought isn't „is.“ He is thinking about; he is not thinking it. The considerations keep coming off of it with the answers to the command with the final result - as you go down the line - with the final result that you get an isness. And the moment you get an isness so that is the picture - you've had it; that's that. Okay, has that got it?

So if you always pay attention to chaos, and if you always concentrate on chaos, and if you always say that this man rose out of the chaos of mud, if you always invent gods who uniformly, routinely took chaos and made something, you're safe because you're well south of that first postulate, you're way down the line, away from the power in this thing.

Male voice: Thank you, Ron.

Let's look at an aberration. A girl can be bad only if she's running on the first postulate of good. There is nobody quite so wicked as a girl trained in a convent who has gone bad. Oh, this is a wonderful thing. Would she have been bad had she never been so thoroughly grounded in being good? Look at many ministers' sons. Do you get the idea? Now there is an example straight in human behavior of this thing I'm calling chaos. Chaos is the second postulate, not the first postulate.

You understand that now?

All religions say there was chaos out of which God made something; and so they never tamper with the root production of matter, energy, space and time.

Male voice: Yes.

Oppenheimer the other day said somebody - he said nobody in the United States was trying to get at the root of matter, energy, space and time. And I think he's probably had about two or three hundred letters probably by this time telling him to eat his words. Yes, it was about time somebody got the root of this thing. But the last person to conceive of it would be some routinely practicing and unthinking nuclear physicist. He's studying the particle, studying the particle, studying the particle. Why? He wants to learn the composition of things. Or you can study chips and maybe learn about the whole, but the truth of this one is apparently, watching the behavior of preclears and studying this whole thing again, but there was a perfect form and it had a homogeneous mass. It was not composed of particles. It was the same all the way through. It was a whole. It was real mass. And then it got chipped up somehow or another and the pieces flew around and somebody seeing all those nice pieces grouped them all together and made something with them. But now you had a mass which was composed of particles. And then that mass blew up and you had smaller particles.

It's inevitable he'd not know about it. You don't know about these things before he starts processing. Isn't that right? You don't know about these things. Well, where's all that not-knowingness come from? It is itself a sort of a thing.

Now, the great oddity is, nobody has ever seen an electron and nobody has ever proven that electron - by electron we have exactly the same mass in each electron. We want to know why then there are classes of chemicals and that sort of thing. Well, this is not too hard to conceive but is outside our particular field of investigation.

Well?

Why are all of these particles - silicon - why are all silicon particles similar to all silicon particles? Well, I'll clue you in: we don't even know that they are all similar to silicon particles, don't you see? But if you had a natural whole which when chipped up would feel like silicon, then you would have a lot of silicon particles, don't you see? But each mass might have been disintegrated in some peculiar way. And just by integrating the thing back together again and blowing it up again and integrating it and blowing it up and so on, we are using the same system over and over on some perfect whole, and of course, we would get some difference of particles or some similarity amongst the particles.

Male voice: I have a question on a general area that I haven't quite integrated, and that is games and no-games conditions. You haven't talked about that for quite a while, and I remember that you said a couple of years ago that effect on others and no-effect on self would be a games condition. And in terms of flow, that would be the self-outward flow, which you said yesterday could run indefinitely.

If you saw a board with a saw you get one kind of sawdust, but if you cut the same board with a piece of sandpaper, you'll get an entirely different kind of sawdust, don't you see? But the sawdust will have a similarity. And I think probably this is what the nuclear physicist is boggling at today.

Self-outward flow will run indefinitely, that is correct, if you run a high enough a button; that's the modifier. You can't run outflow on composing music indefinitely and forever. See? Someday along the line, why, listening to music is going to get in its road something fierce. Just running the doingness of composing music, you understand, not responsibility for composing music. I'm talking about, „Now, just get the idea of composing music. Good. Get the idea of composing music. Good. Get the idea of composing music. Good. Get the idea of composing mus-,“ deuuuhh. The guy all of a sudden - E-Meter start looking funny and he's running into a stuck flow, because you haven't a basic enough consideration doing any as-ising there, don't you see? Now, that's games condition. Games is an „outflow doingness“ which always balances with an „inflow done to.“ And these two things will get locked up.

But boy, you talk about running Help; I wouldn't help a nuclear physicist in his present project now if they paid me all the tea in China and threw Khrushchev in with it. I just wouldn't. Because his idea of help is that if man is suffering so much and anything is so bad off that the only thing you can do is destroy it all. He doesn't even have the idea though that you can start over. So the man must be terribly apathetic and very abandoned along the line and he is studying recomposition of matter from particles. And he'll never know anything about it.

A games condition is based on individuation of self from teammates. Any games condition is a violation of the optimum solution. So all we were running with games conditions were violations of an optimum solution. And theoretically you got all the violations of an optimum solution off the case, the guy would be capable of - more capable of an optimum solution. But unfortunately he wouldn't be Clear.

That's an adventurous statement that he never will, because some of you might meet him someday and slip him the word and he's liable to do a double take. Every time you try to impart this to a man who is thoroughly grounded in modern scientific thinking, he does an interesting thing. He misunderstands you for quite a little while. He just doesn't get it for a while. And if he does get it, then he can't understand its significance for a while and he tries to brush the thing off, and it's liable to hit him - whap! Because he is so thoroughly mired, that he's the hardest person to tell about it, because he's too thoroughly mired down in this second postulate! He's got the idea that he's studying chaos and the more he studies chaos the more he's going to fix himself in chaos. And as you try to talk to him about it, you're moving him back up the track to the first postulate which was a perfect form, a perfect mass.

Male voice: So you're processing above the level of games...

Now this is very revolutionary what I'm telling you. There have been several revolutionary things to come out of Scientology. One for instance as innocent as the definition of zero. Zero is a wild variable; it has no mass, no energy, no wavelength, no nothing. So every time you throw a zero into an equation, even an algebra teacher can tell you that you can always make 1 equal 2 if you throw a zero into the algebra formula, right? Well, why didn't somebody investigate this a little earlier? Every time a zero is thrown into an equation you'll come up with a variable. Well, if you come up with a variable each time you throw in a zero, then an equation itself cannot possibly be true and equating things must be some method of synthetic balancing that would throw out the entirety of mathematics. - You'd say 3 minus 2 equals 1; 3 minus 2 equals 1. Well now, as long as you haven't introduced a variable you've got a fact. But what if you said 4 minus 2 equals 2? Sounds innocent, doesn't it? But if you'll transfer by algebra rules the second 2 over to the other side of the equals sign, it will be 4 equals 2 plus 2. Well, that's perfectly valid, too, isn't it? Nothing wrong with that.

Hm?

But let's throw some x's in there and surreptitiously get something which adds up to this: Where you move a 2 to the other side of the scale you get 2 minus 2, and any time that you got 2 minus 2, you would throw a variable in because that is zero.

Male voice: You're processing above.

So if you had x minus y and they were both the same value, both x and y equaled 8 you'd have 8 minus 8 equals nothing, of course. And if you had z equals x minus y, and the value of x was 8 and the value of y was 8 you would get z equals 0 and everybody would be happy about it and say, „it proves, it cancels out.“ And then they'd be very flabbergasted to find that some days you have some, and some days you don't have any, and as they apply this thing to the real world, they discover that they have to throw in, as they do in quantum mechanics, what they call a „bugger factor“ just to make equations balance.

Oh, just 89 billion light-years above it, see? I mean we were high with the Chart of Attitudes way back in 51 and 52, you see. That was pretty high. But you notice these five buttons are - just find the ghostliness in the Chart of Attitudes. The Chart of Attitudes are a splinter-down of these five buttons, you see? And we have a senior Chart of Attitudes now that resolves the old-time Chart of Attitudes.

And every time you come up against the matter, you keep throwing this thing in there to make the equation balance. Why do they have to keep doing this? Very, very simple, they accidentally create zeros anywhere in the equational line and one of these zeros thrown into any equation gives you a variable, because there's no such thing as an absolute zero. And they think that zero is an absolute like one. One can be quite absolute.

Well, that doesn't mean the old-time Chart of Attitudes is not valid; it just means the five buttons you got now will undo the buttons on the Chart of Attitudes. And the Chart of Attitudes, to some degree, will undo the old Tone Scale. Interesting. You'll get all kinds of Tone Scale manifestations coming off if you run top-bottom Rising Scale Processing - bottom-top on the old Chart of Attitudes. You get the guy with various emotional responses, and so forth, to these things. Although ARC is still very fundamental, you are running right along with ARC all the time you're doing this.

One apple sitting on this desk is simply one apple. But no apple sitting on this desk can be „maybe there will be an apple; maybe there has been an apple. Nobody will ever put an apple on this desk. There may be bushels of apples on this desk,“ don't you see? And so the second we move anything in time we get variability.

You just have to recognize that relegating something into a new order or place does not tamper with its truth; it simply tampers with its value. Got it? You run into games conditions in processing a preclear right now; you jolly well ought to know what they are. You'll find yourself in a games condition with your preclear sometime. All you have to do is study an ARC break to know you're looking at a games condition. The second you make an ARC break you put your preclear into a games condition with you.

Because if we said there was no such thing as time, then you could say that zero was an absolute. See? In this given instant of time which has no past and no future, the placement of one apple on this desk and the removal of that apple on the desk alike are absolutes. So you could have no apples if you had no time. But if you have time you have the possibility of an apple.

Individuation depends on ARC breaks, and the more ARC breaks there are the more games condition there is. Therefore US diplomatic refusal to have any conference with the Russians is about as psychotically dramatic as you can get, see? Talk them to death.

And so saying „There are no apples on this desk“ is true only for the instant you say it. There might have been apples on the desk - after all it's used as a teacher's desk; there probably have been apples on this desk. Now, I dare say because of this lecture somebody is going to come in here tomorrow and put an apple on that desk. So every time you say, „There are no apples on the desk,“ you have to say when.

Male voice: Sure.

Another thing that came up, just as an aside, because this „zero“ is very applicable to what we're talking about with the first and second postulate; we had another thing: „space is the viewpoint of dimension.“ That's brand-new, see, and when you throw this in at a physicist and so forth, if he can grasp it at all, he'll say, „Wow, this is terrible.“ And one guy went up one time in an electronics plant and promptly turned off three or four of the generators around the place before they blew the joint up. „Space is viewpoint of dimension.“ He integrated this in some of his equations and it knocked him flat. So don't think that we don't generate some interesting things here when we're examining the mind. And this is one of them; this comes right into this same class.

See, but down here at the State Department, all the pantywaists and spat-wearers that we call diplomats - I shouldn't express contempt for them; they're beneath contempt. I know these boys; they're from Georgetown, most of them. They're actually trying to avoid a summit conference with Khrushchev this morning. You see? They're just having a hell of a time: „How can we get out of this? How can - how - how can we fix it so we don't have to confront this guy?“ See? „Oh, it would be a disastrous thing if we talked to him. Oh, how horrible!“ And they think the most horrible thing in the world would be talking to somebody. That's because they get in an obsessive games condition with Russia. And the more breakdown there is of ARC, the more games condition there will be, and inevitably you will face a war. I don't say inevitably there will be a war with Russia. We got a hand in this game too. But if it comes to them or us, it's them.

Things proceed from perfect form to a disintegration of that form as the second postulate. The first postulate is an integrated, but not put together, form. It is not a mass made out of particles, it is a mass, without parts.

Female voice: Wow!

Now you have to influence it to outside forces to get that mass to disintegrate. It is a mass with a potential of disintegration. But it is not made out of molecules, electrons, or anything else, the first time that it is made. The universe was not a chaos to begin with. Its first space was perfect and its masses were actual masses.

See? A games condition results from ARC breaks. Because of the power of ARC, a games condition is then subordinate to an ARC break. A games condition is only one thing that results from an ARC break; many other things result, too. So, a games condition was pretty important at one time when we didn't know anything above it. Now, we know that just a plain old ARC break clear back to 1950, see, is more important than a games condition.

But as these proceeded down the line, we added the variability of time, and we'd get no masses, and masses and disintegrated masses, and maybe masses, and recomposited masses. Until you've got every planet there is in this system right now, I am sure, is made up of particles shredded off the original and basic planets, recombined and recomposed into a changed form which could be called chaos.

A lot of things pursue from an ARC break beyond a games condition, but you'll find yourself playing a game with the preclear the moment you get an ARC break found with him. Make a snide comment about one of his answers sometime just as an experiment, and then you'll find out he considers himself an opponent. And after that he will begin to dodge and duck; he will no longer be straightforward with you. And because he's doing this and now just dramatizing the thing, his profile will drop, see? And that's the anatomy. A games condition is an anatomy of what happens from your viewpoint, but the causation of it is old-time ARC.

And of course they never disintegrate or disappear for the excellent reason that nobody has ever gotten to the original perfect planet; and this is probably the thetan's system of getting things to persist forever. But when he gets lost down the track in too much chaos, he begins to wonder „What in the name of common sense is this all about? Is a form a form or isn't it?“ Well, there'd be two forms, two masses. One which is built simply out of mass, if you can conceive such a thing. As a matter of fact, any girl here or guy who has never studied „compartmentation of mass“ as per modern science, considers this the silliest lecture they ever heard. „Of course there can be such a thing as a mass that doesn't have parts. Isn't that the way mass is?“ they sort of think.

Yes? Yes, Maida?

But scientific thinking along the line doesn't think this way at all and as a matter of fact, even this girl or this guy could observe quite easily that current masses which exist now are recompositions of chaos. They could examine with chemical analysis and find out that a brick is composed of certain earth elements, certain minerals and so forth. Well, how did all these different minerals and how did all these different elements get into this brick? Since it was basically way back when, when it was mocked up; an iron object was an iron object, it was iron. Not something made out of particles or electrons called iron. And because it'd got abrased or chewed up or because its solidity was different, as the erosion or corrosion of time evidently hit the thing and it started sliding into the second postulate, a violation of „things must endure and survive forever“ - it got distributed all over the place and when recombinations took place, the first thing you know, why, all kinds of elements called iron, see, many, many of these bits of the original mock-up called iron, started appearing in other things. And boy, after a while (consult The Factors) you didn't know whose mock-up what was a part of. You get it? Now, nothing is as visible as this principle as the Rock, and boy, I'm not talking about any high-flown theory to you at all, not one single moment's worth.

Female voice: Ron, when you speak of this business with a war with Russia, a potential war with Russia, and say that...

A mocked up mass of perfect form is primary; that's a primary isness. And then as things chip against it, rub it, erode it, corrode it, as we get a flow of time, we get the introduction of this variable factor; it might be there and it might not be there which all by itself can vary its possible future existence. „Is it there or isn't it there?“ Now, that's what your preclear is asking himself all the time, „Is it there or isn't it there? I'm sure it is there but it isn't there.“ You know? See, we got a variable.

I can't hear you, Maida.

If it's not there at all, then it might be there, so therefore you have a „variable zero.“ See? And this has been true of every mass he's ever run into anyplace because of the stream of time all by itself. See the Dianetic Axioms: „Time is the single aberrative factor.“ Variable zero. „This mock-up might disappear or it might stay.“ And when he doesn't see it anymore he says, „It might be there and it might not be there.“ One day he makes up his mind that it isn't there anymore, (and there is always a divine doubt hanging along the line) and then one day he says, „Well, I don't know. I feel bad today and I felt bad around that mock-up so maybe it is back! Who knows?“ The goal of all science, whether they knew it or not, and the goal of all thetans, whether they know it consciously or not - but this the thetan agrees to just wham! when you show it to him: how he'd love to see an absolute zero! An „absolute zero“ is the unthinking, unknowing goal of science.

Female voice:... if it comes down to them or us, I'm reminded every time you talk like that of certain lectures in the past where you said you considered „Who are they?“

If they could get a disappearance of something, a total disappearance or a vanishment of any element and it just would go and there'd be no tracing where it went to, they would then know that they had discovered something about the composition of matter. Whew.

Uh-huh.

And if a thetan could just be absolutely sure that the track was now missing and his past would no longer kick him in the teeth, he alike would say, „Whew! Boy! Wow!“ A scientist doesn't know this, but he'd agree to it after a while if you talked to him. You say, „If you found out the exact composition of matter, then it would be possible not to have any of a certain matter, isn't that right?“ And he would agree with you.

Female voice: Yeah, I mean, after all, who are they? I mean, who does this thing done to us?

Physics has actually hung itself with the germs of its own failure. All things seem to carry with them to some degree the germs of their own destruction. That's just an observation. That is not any real thing at all. It's not necessary that they do or anything of the sort like that, it just seems that way. Because right at the beginning of physics we have „conservation of energy“ as a definition which is that energy never disappears.

They are that combination of pigheadedness which one must understand totally and as-is.

Even if they were to know all there was to know about energy, they would find the disappearance of it would be a demonstrable proof that they did know. If they could make energy disappear and appear at will, they'd have it made. Everybody realizes that, even in the field of science. And yet their stable datum is that energy never disappears.

Female voice: Okay, so whose pigheadedness in the first place or in the long run?

Anybody who has studied physics has a hard time sometimes with processing. He doesn't have a hard time understanding Scientology but he has a hard time with processing sometimes because he's so stuck with „conservation of energy“ It's been around for so long. It is so demonstrable, and you notice that they never talk about „conservation of mass, conservation of space or conservation of time.“ They've just overlooked those things and they talk about „conservation of energy“ which tells you at once that they all come back to chaos.

Yes, this is perfectly true - this is perfectly true. Whose pigheadedness? But in view of the fact the world has experienced war after war after war because of continuous and obsessive breakdown of ARC amongst nations, then we must consider that a person who considers himself to be the spokesman of a nation must consider himself a person who breaks ARC. Therefore, they become a „they.“ They have identified themselves with the policies and habit track of a country.

Energy are particles in random motion. Chaos could be defined simply as this: particles in random relation to one another, susceptible to unpredicted change. You wouldn't quite know what a chaos was going to look like the next moment.

Now there's two things that can happen from there on: their considerations can be as-ised, you see, or their ability to so identify themselves with the people can be put back into its proper order. And when I say „they,“ I mean those people who have identified themselves with national policy to such an extent that they think of themselves as the nation. We are the nation; they are not the nation. So this concept all by itself, if remedied, would result in a world of peace.

When you've lost all trace of the source of energy particles, you of course have abandoned any idea of tracing them. The basic on the case is, „I can't trace the source of these energy particles and they just go around my head, whirr-whirr-whirr. What am I doing in all this blackness? What are these little rockets doing exploding in front of my face?“ Almost any preclear will run through some strata of this one time or the other. It needn't worry anybody now, because we got fields whipped and I mean but whipped.

Female voice: It's like looking at the aberration of the nation instead of at the being.

How does a field resolve? It resolves by the location and reduction of the Rock. What's the Rock? It's a perfect form without particles or randomness which has disintegrated into random particles, and its disintegration hides itself.

That is correct, that is correct. To as-is it - you're speaking now of the mechanics of as-ising it?

Now, if you have a picture of a field - it has to be stated this way occasionally to somebody who isn't up on his stuff - but if you have a picture of a „field“ as something which actually hides a perfect mock-up, you know - the thetan is making the mock-up and then it is covered with particles, so that the mock-up is one thing and the field is another, you got it wrong, see? That's not correct. It's a fast statement which will keep people from making mistakes and so forth, but it's not technically accurate.

Female voice: No, I'm speaking of one way out is not to look at the aberration but to look at the thing. I mean, you recognize the oneness rather than saying that „they“ are something out here that I don't like to be and therefore I'll say that they've got it.

The field is the disintegrated mock-up. The field is a later moment of the mock-up! So that people are very baffled to discover nothing in these fields because they know something was there and they don't know from where came the field.

Well, they'll disappear if you do that.

And you're stuck with a physical scientist trying to find out, „What are all these random particles running around here, because they don't have any source. They must be covering something up.“ And some religionist invents a god. And he says, „A god is inside all of these random particles.“ Well, the god would be the ghost of the original perfect form, that's all the god he usually mocks up is.

Female voice: Yeah, I know. But what will they disappear into? I mean...

And you'll notice that primitive religions, way back when, when the people were not too worried about this, they are perfectly content to have an idol sitting up in a temple. But after a while when they go completely to pieces, then they say, „The idol is everywhere.“ And they're just merely dramatizing the earliest thing on the track.

Hm?

Freud was right when he said the primitive peoples of the world had something to teach us. And that is all they have to teach us: that monodeism and everywhereness and the chaos of particles is always the second condition of a religion. The primary condition of a religion is mass. People aren't worried about a spirit. Most religions are the worship of matter.

Female voice: What will they disappear into, I mean, you know, lose the game?

Many savage tribes, including the English - the English are wonderful, you know that? They really are a wonderful people because they can laugh at their own origin. They can laugh at their own origins. They talk quite freely and humorously about running around the woods of Britain in blue paint and worshiping trees and rocks, and they think this is funny. They are not at all concerned about it.

Oh, they'll disappear into the clerk and the shoe clerk, and the guy that serves you your chow in the restaurant and just become somebody else and...

Americans are proud. They say, „My ancestors, wherever they came from when they landed on these shores, were totally sold on chaos.“ And they said, „God was everywhere and sin was everything.“ And they're still proud of it.

Female voice: ... you can confront, isn't that right?

The worship of rocks is senior to the worship of chaotic nothing. Science today is dramatizing this cycle of religion. It has ceased to worship matter and has begun to worship the everywhereness of chaos. They're worshiping the chipped-off particle.

Huh?

They have great religious rituals going in practically every university in the country that could lay their hands on some government dough. Universities no longer depend, you know, upon enrollment to get themselves any cash. There was a cycle in this, you know, they used to depend on enrollment and then depended on the football team to get the enrollment. Now they've abandoned all that because they learned during World War II and the GI Bill of Rights that all they had to do was to get a big enough contract with the government to train some veterans and they could jam every classroom so full that nobody would ever have a chance to learn anything. Wasn't that a wonderful discovery? And it's persisted forward until now.

Female voice: Eventually they'll all become something you can confront, instead of having to destroy.

Now however, they depend to a large degree upon the government contract given to the physics department or the psychology department to do as close to nothing as you can do.

That is so correct; that's right. I expect that we are looking at this moment - if you speak of this particular thing - I think we're looking at the end of nationalism. I think nationalism is the next thing on schedule to disintegrate. And I don't want to see it disintegrate, see? I don't want to see those people who believe in nationalism and believe that they themselves are national policy, and so forth - I don't want to see these people disintegrate and spatter again.

And they have these worship items, these altars called cyclotrons, and they have some sort of a mumbling ritual and a Latin chant or something that's put down in symbols and they pour perfectly good energy in one end and get perfectly useless particles out of the other end.

Female voice: Well, but that would be like saying you didn't want to see your preclear get Clear. I mean, after all, you're looking at the beingness...

It's interesting. A boy here - a chap here who really knows his business in science told me the other day - that was a fascinating thing - but whenever they chew up some of these particles, that is, whenever they process these particles, they always get smaller particles.

No, I said I don't want to see these people disintegrate.

From larger masses you get smaller masses and from smaller masses you get smaller masses. And from smaller masses you get smaller masses. And each one of these stages you, a Scientologist, can substitute first postulate, second postulate.

Female voice: No, but you don't want your preclear to disintegrate in the chair either when you're clearing people. To see him as he is rather than this Rock and stuff that he's presenting to you...

When you say mass, you get the odd number of particle, you see, the odd number: one, three, five, seven, down to eighty-eight billion nine thousand and one, see? You see, that's mass; there's still somethingness. And then you get, as the second postulate, the chaos and dislocation of that somethingness which they call a nothingness of some kind or another. Do you understand this? If you don't grab this, why process the Rock? It's just that. Why process it? Because you'll sit down and look at some preclear and you'll say, „Well, I don't know. I'd have to find some mythical object which doesn't exist. And we've got to clean up his field so that he could look through the field and see the Rock.“ Hey, that field he's got is the Rock in a second postulate state.

You know you and I are talking about the same thing?

Everybody's trying to find the Rock and they're just looking at the chaos and the debris of the Rock! And what you've got to find is its primary form. And the moment you found its primary form completely, wham! no Rock. That's all there is to a Rock.

Female voice: I know we are.

Every Rock is obscured by the particles and chaos into which it has disintegrated. Now, this constitutes a major discovery, not in the field of Scientology but in the physical sciences as well. So grip it good and look at it good, because when you can't clear somebody it's because you don't understand what you're trying to look for.

One minute here. There are some people here that have been too quiet.

You're saying, „I'm trying to get out and rid of this field and these energy manifestations and these pressures that are around the preclear,“ if he has them. Or „I'm trying to get rid of this apathetic feeling like he can't go anyplace or ever do anything. And somehow or other I got to get him up to looking at his pictures.“ Now, get that as an error. Get that as a major error of communication and concept.

Female voice: The question is: will the pc be aware of the field resolving when you hit the lock, or does the field resolve only when you hit the Rock? Will he be aware of the field resolving...

The picture isn't there in its perfect form. The pc is sitting right square in the second postulate, which owes its persistence - remember it's the chaos postulate and it owes its persistence to the fact that it was preceded by a forceful, powerful perfect form, which had aesthetics; it had everything else in it.

Female voice: Yeah, if you hit a lock...

And now all of that has rubbed itself to pieces and gone into a disintegration. But the particles themselves contain all the emotional impacts - emotion is an energy flow too, you know - and it contains all the emotional disintegration. It contains each and every part of the original. But all of these things are now in a super-mixture like a chemical melting pot that takes all of the elements that the old Russian finally dug up and put on a chart. And the pc looks at all this and he says, „If I could just look through this stuff. And if I could just get this stuff out of the way, then I could see what I am mocking up which must be out there someplace.“ What a fantastic misconception.

If you hit a lock...

He's in the Rock in any instant. And the emotions he gets and the forces he feels and the things that are modifying his present form are each and every one of them the Rock - all of these things. But they're in a chaotic state, and he being an orderly creature cannot conceive of that much chaos because that chaos is persisting. It doesn't matter if the field is totally blank.

Female voice: ... on the case, rather than the Rock.

The „detached case“ mentioned at the end of the 28th lecture of Sigmund Freud, about which he said, „These we cannot help,“ has got the track way over there someplace. And they are back so far sideways even from the chaos, that they're saying, „Boy! Thetan help me if I ever get back into that again! I don't want to go near that stuff! Please don't say anything that reminds me of it because I might move over toward it again. And I have all that chaos so beautifully parked up with all this chaos here.“ He's tried to move out of the chaos because he couldn't do anything about it. The chaos would not as-is. It won't as-is because it is an alter-ised form - see your Axioms - and when you alter the form of the Rock into particles, flows and chaos, the Rock itself is no longer there except as a disintegrated confusion which can influence the living daylights out of the preclear and which he fights every instant of his life.

Oh, if you hit a lock rather than the Rock, does he become aware of the field dissolving? On a very high tone arm case, he does not. He merely knows that he feels a little better and a little easier as you're going in „What has he had to be responsible for?“ And it takes him some little time to find out something is happening. What he will believe, when you've hit the first long series of locks on the Rock, is that a mass is accumulating in his vicinity he doesn't particularly want. In other words, the first integration of the Rock is a new chaos that he wasn't aware of. And he thinks he's making a chaos, which he isn't; he's just looking at the old chaos which has become his eventual apathy and „it's all over and there's no reason to do anything about it and let's burn incense and hope for the worst.“ You see?

Now, you're studying - not changing somebody's thought; you are studying bluntly the resolution of the isness of matter, energy, space and time. And you're studying it and you're doing it directly. So don't underestimate what you're doing. And don't think it's too complicated for you to attempt or tackle because it's so idiotically simple that any professor would miss it.

Female voice: Thank you.

Let's take an apple - this is a bad example because an apple is now made up of cells, see - but let's conceive of an apple that isn't made up of cells, that is simply an apple, see? It's a real basic apple. And to get any particles off of it you'd have to chip them off.

And, what you say there is very pertinent and is a valuable datum that your pc will undoubtedly have a mass move in on him - you bust a few Rocks and he'll have some kind of a mass move in on him. He's liable to become worried; he's liable to feel his field is becoming much more pronounced. He never had a field before. He just never looked at anything. Now, all of a sudden, he's got a field.

That a mass is „chippable off“ is evidently a very early consideration of a thetan. But, more importantly, the consideration is evidently indigenous because he is always insisting that „the mass shall not be chippable off of.“ His masses are not disintegrative and they always become disintegrative - probably because he says „they won't“ or something of the sort.

Very often, a wide-open case will pass through a field before it gets to a mock-up they themselves are making - he himself is making, you see? That's an interesting phenomenon to observe. The guy, in some cases, undoubtedly would believe he was getting worse, I suppose, but I've never had them believe they were getting worse. I've just had them believe that they were getting more in trouble.

But he has consented to disintegration of mass when he consented to change of space of mass. Because the moment he considers a mass altering itself in space or changing itself in space, he has consented to and made the postulate of alter-isness. And from there on there's no stopping, because you'll get disintegration as the final result. The end product of changing something in space is of course part and parcel to running into something else.

I can always make one of these masses reintegrate and move in on a pc, and I've already told you how to make one move out again. Find out what part of that he can be responsible for. Let me give you that more solidly: „What part of that could you be responsible for?“ Not, „What part of that mass,“ or „What part of that field,“ - no noun. The reason why is, is because he doesn't know what it is and you have assigned a value to it saying „mass“ and therefore you are evaluating for the preclear.

So „chip-offingness“ is inevitable unless all things are totally durable or all things are so soft and nonexistent that - one of his arguments against this later on down the track is if he makes everything soft enough, thin enough and unchippable-off enough, that it will be unchippable-off enough, and he makes mock-ups that feel like mattresses, see? And they hit other things and he hopes these won't start disintegrating.

He says, „You know, there's a great big cloud forming out in front of my face.“ And you're going to end session or something like that. Understand you don't have to make it move out. You couldn't care less as an auditor. It won't do any harm at all if it stays right there. He's better off than he was, even if he hurts. You understand this? And you don't have to do a single thing about it.

He has a war going against disintegration. But the moment he's consented to time, he's consented to disintegration, he has consented to second postulate condition of chaos. It's a gradient scale and he will arrive there every time that he consents to something moving.

But if in the interest of impressing the preclear, or keeping a session going, or you're not going to audit him for two or three weeks again, or something of this sort, to make it move out and to make him move out of it or to make it re-disintegrate or something of the sort, you just have him look at that and find what part of it he could be responsible for and he'll tell you a lot of thoughts he could be responsible for; he'll never tell you any part of the mass itself. Therefore, you mustn't say, „What part of that mass could you be responsible for?“ because his responses are all going to be in terms of thought, and your auditing command would be incorrect.

Now, people know this so well that the worse off they get and the better they are trying to fix themselves up, the more fixed they think they should become. And they'll get more fixed in space and more fixed and more fixed and more fixed and they are just insisting, insisting, insisting that nothing shall move, so therefore, no more - no more disintegration shall occur. You see how they get into such a state of mind? All right, now let's look at this Rock in viewpoint of this theory that I have given you and we will see a demonstrable fact as we begin to process the preclear. Even though he is not in the middle of a (quote) „field,“ when he begins to approach the Rock he will be. Rather inevitably, even if the field is invisible, he'll get an idea of little chunks and bits, chaotic, his not-knowingness on the whole thing of course is not-recognizingness - how can you recognize something that's all come to pieces when you depended on it to tell you what it was in the first place? And you start moving him in toward it and he'll begin to feel flows. That's why you're processing flows with Help, because, believe me, if it's not flowing at first, by the time you get in toward the Rock it'll start flowing. Assistance and survival are hand in glove, and you run Help you run survival any day of the week, which means you'll run time. And help is probably the best ARC approach to time there is - probably - it is. Let me be that adventurous on the thing.

Now, I've got some more names here. Let's see, Oswald.

A thetan conceives survival and ARC at the same time and between those two you get something that adds up to help. The co-relationship of people, particles and masses and so forth adds up to assistance. Of course he had to assist the Rock to get it to survive. Just when he conceived its isness, he assisted a Rock, if you want to phrase it that crudely.

Male voice: Yes. I have a question on Connectedness.

So you start running Help and you'll start sliding in toward a what? A field. Now, what is this field? Nineteenth ACC we didn't know yet and therefore we only cleared 50 percent of the class. But that was pretty damn good, if I do say it myself. The Instructors did a fantastically wonderful job. There's no reason we really can't clear 100 percent of this one, because we got our paws on the datum and the Rock. We know what we're trying to clear off the case. We're, in essence, trying to clear „mental matter.“ But „mental matter“ is no different than material energy matter, except your mental matter fortunately is of a little lighter texture.

Mm-hm?

We have a world and a present time which is persisting and continuing on simply because it is made out of chaotic particles none of which can be relocated easily in the time and place of the original perfect form. All religions conceive everything to come out of chaos. We have to conceive that everything was not, and then was a perfect form, and then altered in place giving us time, which then brought aback and brought about disintegration of the masses which then recombined into a new form (postulate three), but this new form is now composited out of old perfect masses. Uh-huh.

Male voice: As I understand it, the process is run, „You get the idea of making that connect with you.“ Well, each time that I've done this process, I find that - I seem to come to the consideration that I benefit more if I actually do it. And I found in preclears that I previously had, that they perk up very quickly when they actually do it and make it connect. There seems to be either some irregularity or it's a special case or something of that sort, or that I'm in conflict with the full understanding of how that should be run.

Now, what - you haven't got a prayer of disintegrating a third postulate. You'd have to trace back and do a perfect duplication of each one of its dislocated bits. And boy, when you count the number of bits in that wall over there, you will see why the MEST universe is still here.

You are so right. You are absolutely right. However, let me say first and foremost that - can I take up clearing a command?

But if all you did - any one of you-was conceive the original perfect form which through all of its vagaries wound up as that particle in the wall, there'd be a hole in that wall. But if you could do this, you would have the power of then putting a patch in that hole which would be perfect mass and telling it to continue. And then you could go on for a long time letting it disintegrate. Be ages before that perfect mass that you put in there which had no parts, itself became compartmented. And if you were so stupid as to forget again that „things begin with perfect form“ you'd be lost.

Male voice: Yes.

But if you didn't forget that again, when the chaos got too much and too chaotic and too stupid, all you had to do was conceive the perfect form which was the patch in the hole in the wall and all of those particles wherever they were would go - thttt! Gone.

Yeah, that seems to be a little astray here, but it isn't at all. Practically every single one of you is improperly clearing the auditing command with the preclear. You are throwing in new phrases and new statements which depart from the original, way-back-when questions and purpose of clearing a command.

Therefore the Rock disintegrates in this order of procedure. Usually there's no sensibility of it at all. The person is totally undisturbed about the whole thing.

You clear the command to make sure that your words convey the idea you want conveyed. That was the original purpose of it, so that you aren't talking uphill. Now, in view of the fact that many of your commands now are apparently quite abstract, you are up against the fact of saddling the pc with things that have nothing to do with clearing the command. And I have found this as a walk-about complication that is going on further and further and if left unremarked, will eventually wind up in a no-Clear.

If you were to run Creativeness you would beef this Rock up. See, if you were to increase his power to create without increasing his power to as-is things, he might get in a box. He might get awfully uncomfortable. Lord knows he gets uncomfortable enough as it is in running this. Got this? It won't kill him. But you try to clear a case with Step 6 only and you practically knock him into flinders.

Just because clearing a command is not a process - there is a process similar to it and the basic process of that is „How does it seem to you now?“ You could say, „Now what is a problem to you? Now what is a problem to you? Thank you. Now what is a problem to you? Thank you. Now what is...“ It's not a good process, but clearing a command, which contains this phraseology, is totally incorrect. I don't care even if it occurred in a lecture; totally incorrect, because I've just done a re-inspection of this thing. Looked at it very closely, wondering why people would make it more complicated. There must be something wrong with the basic command to make it go wrong. Must be something wrong with it to make it go wrong. And I have found it's true; there is something wrong with it.

So, what do you do? First, there's apparently nothing there. As you run Help on it for a little while, you get more and more cognizance on the part of the preclear of the fact there're some particles or flows or masses around here someplace. And the next thing you get is, what do you know, these things begin to take form. You're running him backwards in time by running Help. You are getting those basic „survive“ ideas.

Now, you are hitting, when you speak of Connectedness - there's something basically wrong with the process and the command. And that's because it apparently invites doingness. I said just a moment ago that anything which just said, „Compose something. Compose something. Compose something. Compose something. Compose something,“ on an outflow basis as a doingness, gets an immediate collapse. You run into too doggone many ridges. You see? Now, you ask a preclear to merely get the idea of making it connect with him, you're trying, really, not to add to his mass, but to as-is ideas of making things connect with him which he later no longer wanted. And you're really trying to do an as-is process here, but the same time you're trying to remedy his havingness. And I will startle you now by saying I know of no perfect command which accomplishes everything you want accomplished with Connectedness.

The mass was one thing. To continue it was another thing and that was a thought. The mass was „is“ but continuing the mass is a thought, and you get that out with Help, which is assist. And the longer you run it, the more it integrates, the more solid it is, the more definite and positive this mock-up is and it runs right on back to its inception, at which time it goes pffft.

Now, we're running into the frailty of language; the frailty of communication. And we are being diffident about it simply because we don't particularly care to become involved with all of the factors, or even knowing all of the factors, that could occur as a result of remedying havingness. If I said all of these factors were known at this time - I would be telling you an untruth. I have - still continue to find therapeutic factors in the process 8-C which I didn't know existed six months ago. And every six months I can review 8-C and find a bunch of new factors that are therapeutic.

But it goes early and late sometimes and will get a little more disintegrated and then it will get more positive. But as you run Help, just as you're told to run Help in your ACC Procedure, you will get an integration of these random particles and fields which results in the mass which disintegrated to form the field.

Now the original version of Connectedness was awfully simple: it said, „You make that wall connect with you.“ That was the research version. „You make that wall connect with you. You make that ceiling connect with you. You make that floor connect with you. And you make it connect with you.“ And that was its first earliest version.

And the second you've got that mass in its totality which was mocked up, again with the idea that „it must survive forever“ or „something around there must go on forever,“ you see, you'll find right in that - just exactly what I'm telling you here - you'll find these postulates mixed right up in this Rock. That the guy said „Wow! I've got to survive!“ and he made all the mass around him survive at the same time, and the second it started to survive, then it eventually started to disintegrate, and he eventually had a field and he couldn't remember what it was, because he couldn't see it anymore.

Then, because people had trouble with it, we varied it, but there was something wrong with the process in the first place because that was a doingness and it wouldn't run unlimitedly. So, to patch up the process and make it more workable, this new auditing command was evolved. „You get the idea of making that connect with you.“ Now, whether or not that does all that should be done by the process, as intended or all you intend to have happen to the preclear, could, by imperfection of command, make it almost a matter of chance.

But when you run him back down this line, you go from nothingness, to field, to form. And when you hit form and its inception you get - pfft - nothing. And when you get that nothing, then there's no further potential of disintegrating back into a field, because there's nothing there to disintegrate! And that is what clearing is in its final analysis. And it is so simple that it'd have to happen to you and you'd have to watch these steps to grip all of it because you'd be sure that there is something else that I haven't told you.

Now, to nail this thing down with a thud and put spikes all around it - to get a therapeutic process, you'd better run Trio. You know how many versions there are of the Connectedness Process? They just go on and on and on and on and on. „Mock up something and push it into that body,“ you know? That's one of them. „Look around the room and find something that has an effect on something else.“ That's a terrifically valuable process, by the way, it turns on prediction, ability to predict.

But I have told you all.

Been awfully forgotten about; we haven't even mentioned it, I think, since about the 8th ACC, but it's one of those lost in the limbo. But that's a Connectedness Process, obviously, but it's a connectedness on another person versus another person side of the bracket. You see? Now, one of these days, we'll come up with a better, more inclusive Connectedness command. But we're actually trying to avoid getting involved with havingness, as such. We're actually trying to avoid getting involved with doingness, as such. And it sort of works out that when the command itself clears itself by reason of the process, you've got an improvement in the preclear. So it's almost there's no sense in trying to alter it in the first place, because it's going to alter.

Thank you.

Do you know that the commands of Trio are incorrect? They are dependent totally upon the aberration of the preclear. This is what he thinks he means by havingness when you first start auditing him. It's the most fabulous thing you ever inspected. „Look around here and find something you could have.“ There is the exact wording of the first leg of Trio. „Look around here and find something you could have.“ And do you know after a while it becomes unrunnable? I was having it run on me one day. I got a big subjective reality on this. I was sitting in the auditing chair nice as you please; everything was going along beautifully. And the auditor was saying - I don't know, I was tired or something, and the auditor decided to give me just a little run of Havingness. It was all going along fine - some little time ago. And the auditor was saying, „Look around here and find something you could have. Fine. Look around here and find something you could have.“ And I was going along just as happy as a clam. And all of a sudden says, „I can't do it.“ And the auditor says, „Huh? You mean you can't have anything?“ „No, that isn't what I said at all. I said I cannot do that auditing command. We've got to clear the command again because I cannot execute it.“ And the pc said, „Well, are you willing to execute it?“ And I said, „Yes.“ Pc thought he was up against an ARC break or something, see. And I said, „Yes, I'm willing to execute it.“ And he says, „Well, do something about it.“ And I said, „I can't. I cannot answer the auditing command.“ And that was the living truth of the matter. I had everything in the environment. What do you mean, „I could have?“ If she had begun to say, „Look around here and find something you have,“ I could run it like a startled gazelle. I had everything everyplace by that time.

My havingness was totally restored; the individuation factors had all dropped out. And looking at the wall, well, I had the wall; „could have“ the wall was a conditional which didn't exist. „Look at some future date when you will be able to have the wall,“ the command was saying to me. It was an invalidative process and it couldn't be answered for the excellent reason that I had to work at the future now, and I'd found that the last few commands I'd been busily chipping away at the future, trying to spot some time in the future when I would be able to possess the wall. And it suddenly dawned on me that what the hell was I doing this for in the first place because I had the wall now and would have the wall in the future. See? And „could have it“ would never exist. Because I'd have to look across a span when I didn't have it in order to acquire it. But you can't acquire something you've got. This isn't just Korzybski general semantics coming off, you see. It's just - just - it is. You know? You have a wall. „Look around here and find something you have.“ Well, I could go on spotting things like that and would have been very happy to.

Similarly, Connectedness as it runs, works out into some kind of a deal like this too. But how you'd say it in the first place to make the preclear do anything about it in the first place, that has not been totally developed. But that it will change, and that it is necessary to re-clear the command at some time in the future is definitely established.

Now, you've got to make up your mind what you want him to be doing, but he's the one who will normally tell you.

Now, I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like much of an answer, but it is saying, „You get the idea of making that wall connect with you,“ leads into clearing up his obsessive connectedness with the wall and when that connects up, he has to newly get the idea and he's starting not to as-is connectednesses, but he's starting to add new ones. In other words, this process crosses into an area where we don't want it. See?

Male voice: Yes.

How are you going to modify it? Well, I'd say old Trio was a better process, but then you get stuck with running the guy on Havingness and you may be seventy-five hours on it before it's flat. It's a patch-up, that's what it is, just like every mind we've got is.

Male voice: Thanks very much.

You bet.

I've got to say some more about clearing an auditing command. I see I've left you in a hump that way. Is there another question before I do? Yes?

Male voice: Well, this I think, ties in, Ron. You get the idea it ties in with what you've been talking about in the lectures this week of an idea - two kinds of idea. The idea of a thought before an object and a whoomp! idea.

That's right.

Male voice: So, this preclear, as you run Connectedness, is going to flip back and forth across this line alternately.

Yeah.

Male voice: And I found it both subjectively and objectively.

Sure. So how do you make a perfect command that embraces the both?

Male voice: Just keep clearing the command.

Yeah, that's what you have to do. What you have to do.

Let me say something about clearing a command, because I left you hung in the air and told you you were all doing it all wrong. Right?

Female voice: Yes.

Male voice: Yeah.

This is incorrect; absolutely, flagrantly incorrect. It violates every principle of semantics and everything else: „What do you understand by the word 'help'? Do you understand the word 'help'? What does 'help' mean to you?“ Those are all incorrect; they're nuts, because they're a process. They're not clearing a command at all; they're a process. And they're charging the preclear with a fantastic responsibility he has no business bearing. You say, „What does it mean to you?“ to the preclear, you are asking the preclear to answer this question, „Give meaning to the word 'help.'” And you are running putting him at cause over language. Well, that's a process, and it's going to stir up the whole bank.

Now, „Do you understand what 'help' means? Do you know what the exact answer to that is, the absolutely correct answer to that question is? Do you understand what 'help' means?“

Male voice: Yes or no?

The answer is no! And I never will, I never have, and you have announced a total impossibility, because I cannot tell you what „help“ means to every individual on earth. And that's what you've just asked me to do. You've asked me to totally undercut all aberrated and sane conceptions, all uses of it, and so forth. Boy, that's pretty wild! That's the way it comes home to the preclear.

Do you know that nobody has ever before asked him to understand a word? And it'd be perfectly in order for him to say, „I can give you - I can give you what is understood by it in the dictionary. But even that is not an understanding of the word. The understanding of that word is that it is a communication particle contained in a sound syllable, which relays from a mind to a voice box to my ears to me. And it's a communication particle which has a dictionary significance in the English language. And that is 'help.'” And that's all it is. It isn't anything else.

Now, we get into another thing entirely when we run this as a command and the command is supposed to be doing what the clearing of the command tried to do. Now, the dictionary definition is all you want when you are clearing a command. That's all you want. It isn't what he understands by it, what it means to him - nothing. „Can you give me the English dictionary definition of the word 'help,' or some vague approximation thereof?“ Preclear says, „Yeah, it means succor, assistance.“ You say, „Fine. Thank you.“ You've cleared it.

Now, get this as a fundamental difference: in the process he is weighing the acceptance or the rejectance of the action of assistance as it is contained reactively in various individuals and minds with whom he has been in communication. But you are understanding a doingness and a reaction to an action. And all the word is, is a description of this in the language. But how people react to, not the word, but the action of help is what you are running when you run the process. You are not at any moment rewriting the English language. And if you think you are, read Science and Sanity.

Now the point - I'm not making a semantic point here, it's a preclear point. And when people go wrong on clearing the command and try to make more and more out of clearing the command because it wasn't right in the first place - and so I'm going to make it right, right now.

And the right command is somewhere in this vicinity - and this exact wording is something that you could not go very wrong in using: „What is the generally understood English significance of the word - significance or meaning - of the word (blank)?“ „What is the generally understood ______” or „What is some approximation of the dictionary definition of the English word ______?“ Not „What do I mean by it?“ That gets into a process. Not „What do you mean by it?“ Not „What do I understand by it?“ or „What do you understand by it?“ or „... anybody else understands by it?“ Just „Did you ever learn to speak English?“ The fellow says, „Yep.“ And you say, „All right, when somebody says 'help,' why, how does that compare to the dictionary?“ „Well,“ he says, „that would be assistance or succor or something of that sort.“ Now if you said, „What do you understand by it?“ you have asked him to give you the answer to the auditing command, „How could you help Joe?“ And you've already given your first command in clearing the command, and so the invitation is wide-open to make a process to it. But it's not a process; it is simply, do we understand the English or the Chinese or the Japanese that we are processing in? Now, I'll give you an example of this: A pc was so confused for twelve consecutive hours of processing which involved six separate sessions with, „What is your understanding of the word 'how'?“ That was the auditing question, „What is your understanding of the word 'how'?“ „What does that mean to you?“ See, that was the question, and it was usually put that way. And the pc would say, „Well, it's 'hello' in Indian.“ That was his reactive answer. He apparently thought, that was his 'hello' in Indian. And a couple of more times he said, „Well, that's in another language, 'how'; another language“ and he gave the definition in another language.

He was giving the definitions quite honestly of the syllable „how,“ but he had been left totally adrift because he hadn't been asked an exact question.

And at the sixth session, he blew up. And he says, „What language do you want it in?“ And the auditor said, „Well, we're talking and processing in English.“ And the pc, who was a fairly good Scientologist, said, „Oh. I'm supposed to take responsibility for the moments past in this session, and the future moments of this session, and this session is then subject to a bunch of unspoken considerations of which I am totally unaware, and I cannot answer you bluntly and directly to the best of my possible ability; I have to modify my answer and be responsible much more widely in this session and spread my answer across hours and hours of auditing and years and years of life. What are you trying to do, group me on the track?“ Because as a Scientologist and as a being, he knew perfectly well that if anybody was taking responsibility for the session, and he was supposed to be answering to the best of his knowledge and belief, he was answering in a single unit of time, and that unit of time was just as long as it took the preclear to answer the spoken command of the auditor. And it started this way, „Now, we're going to clear the command.“ Now from that moment of time, until the first command and acknowledgment, was the zone of responsibility for which the preclear was responsible. And there was no further zone of responsibility at all. There couldn't be and still be communication compartmented into units of time. Otherwise it was all going to be a total blur. You see what I'm talking about? And when the auditor's - when he was responsible for this „how“ - „What do you understand by the word 'how'? What do you mean by the word 'how'?“ the auditor would say „What do I mean by the word 'how'?“ We just dislocated him in time; what did he mean by the word „how.“ We're asking him to give meaning to this word „how.“ And the next thing you know he's starting to run locks off of language. And, my god, this syllable „how,“ if you will pardon my French, goes clear back to the beginning of time as one of the easiest syllables you can mouth. „What do I mean by 'how,' let's see. If I meant something by 'how'...“ This pc finally said, „I did not invent the English language. I had some responsibility of course in its formation, I'm sure. But I am not sole proprietor in the English language. If I am, then you don't know what I'm talking about. And unless we share this thing called 'English,' and unless the dictionary is also a part of this session, we have circumscribed the zone of the session and have left out some parts of the real world, including all of the English-speaking peoples there are.“ This was a real blowup and the auditor was left rocked totally on his heels, because there was no valid answer to it. The auditor was wrong because the command was wrong.

And finally, it got down to this; it finally got down to this: The command could be cleared only if you asked what's its meaning in English, as a simple communication particle, not as an action, or a counter-consideration, you see? So you simply ask - you could ask simply, „What is generally meant by the word 'how' in English?“ Please, „in English.“ Otherwise, you've saddled him for a tremendous amount of automatic associations, and he'll start to run a process at once, and then the next thing you know, the auditor conceiving the preclear is running a process and conceiving instinctively that it is a process, will begin to fancy up clearing a command. The next thing you know you got a whole process known as „Clearing a Command,“ and you never get anybody Clear because all you've ever cleared is the command. And we're trying to clear the pc. Get the idea? Well, now, if you get this idea very firmly, clearing a command will never get in your road or the pc's road at all. This is a very worthwhile blowup, the one that I'm talking about that took place. The person that blew up was not a general semanticist.

The auditor, on the other hand, kind of was. And he was really flabbergasted, and after a while he said to the pc, „Did you ever read Korzybski?“ And the pc said, „No, I know something about it but I - certainly has nothing to do with Korzybski; has to do with this auditing session. And I've been sitting here for twelve hours and I'm getting awful tired of being saddled with the total sole proprietor responsibility of the entire flam-damn English language. I don't understand anything on the word 'help.' But maybe after you've run it, I can weigh the various considerations that everything and everybody has on it, and I can come up with some generalized understanding of the word which will then permit me to assist or not to assist as I care to do so!“ You got it?

Audience: Yes.

So. When you see yourself being very prone to shift and alter, take a look first to find out whether or not you're adding anything into it that makes it unworkable, and so on.

By the way, I run into this once in a while, as a pc, because I have a golden rule, which isn't a persistent rule; it happens to be the thing a thetan runs on best, which is: you do what you're supposed to do when you are supposed to do it. And when I do that, why, sessions run beautifully.

But every time I start to get in there and make a session and alter the auditing command in my meaning in some way, or alter the auditor's meaning in some way so as to answer something that'll make it all workable, then the whole session goes to pieces because the pc is not in-session. You get the idea? I may be in some other kind of a state but I am certainly not sitting there comfortably and relaxed simply answering the auditor's questions, which is the behavior of a good pc.

So a complicated or miscomprehending command which I then can't answer tends to immediately throw me out of session. Now, I realize I'm out of session and I tell the auditor about it. I tell him about it very directly, too. Because I'm not being arbitrary, I'm simply trying to be in-session; I'm trying to be a good pc and everything is going along swimmingly, and the auditor says, „Can you get the idea of the ceiling being twice as big or twice as heavy or more solid or something like that?“ And I say, „Yes.“ And the auditor says, „Well, can you get the idea of the floor being more solid?“ And I'll say, „Yes.“ „Can you get the idea of getting the door being more empty?“ And I say, „Yes.“ „Can you get the idea of outdoors being happier?“ And I say, „Yes.“ And so on.

The auditor says finally - being an old ACC auditor or something of the sort, they would eventually find out what the pc was doing; you always find out what the pc is doing somewhere along the line. The auditor asked me - the auditor asked me, „Now, how are you doing that?“ „Doing what?“ „Well, how are you making things more solid?“ „I'm not.“ „Well, you're supposed to be.“ „Oh, I am? I am? Where did this come in?“ And I'm actually not being smart; I'm merely being factual. And I'm actually a little bit non compos mentis, you know, at the moment and I say, „What-what-what's going wrong here? What-what-where'd this come in? You simply asked me if I could get the idea and I can. I've always been able to and I hope I always will be. But I'm not doing anything. Nobody said a thing about doing anything.“ Now, I remember way, way back when, when I was young and foolish on the subject of being a pc, I would try to make a session out of it occasionally in exasperation. And then I'd find myself going off on a circuit and doing nothing but self-auditing. You see? I'd be sitting there in session self-auditing, and then I'd finally call this to the auditor's attention, something of the sort, and he'd try to get it back on the road and we'd eventually square it around.

But I noticed that pcs then, that I was auditing, would tend to go out of the session to the degree that they were trying to do something else than the auditing command. You get the first requisite of an auditing command, it was: specify a finite action in a finite period of time, which doesn't include all other time periods. Naturally, there is always some understanding on the subject of what the English is, and we understand that the session is being conducted in English, of course. But hell, I can audit in two or three languages. Why the devil should we limit it to English? The next command might as well be in Spanish. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit except I'd think it was an awfully fast bridge for the auditor. You get the idea? Now, the auditor who insists on the pc answering the first auditing command given in the session, and then this is a sort of a blurred continuance for the remainder of the hours of auditing, is in trouble - and I do mean in trouble - because he himself has never understood acknowledgment - never understood that TR that has to do with acknowledgment.

Acknowledgment ends a period of time. If you don't get time periods ending, you never get any cycle of action into auditing and so you must always ask an auditing question which can be answered. And if the pc tells you he can't answer it, don't always think he's simply being unwilling and a boob and no good and so forth. Inspect it. Is it answerable? And it will sometimes occur that the phrases that you are using appear funny even to you because they are not answerable.

You've been saying, „You get the idea of doing flip-flops on the front lawn,“ when you meant him to be mocking up a body flip-flopping on the front lawn. „Can you get the idea of your father doing flip-flopping on the front lawn?“ certainly is answered with either „Yes“ or „No.“ It's not answered by making papa flip-flop on the front lawn, you get the idea? And if you're clearing a command, you're not running a command. You want to know what is generally meant by the English word „help,“ or „how,“ or „could,“ at least in his county or city if it gets that modified. But be perfectly willing to narrow it down, because he'll always try to give you at first his reactive definitions - you don't want them; you want him to stabilize from the actual definition of the word „intellectual“ - and a word is simply a word, please, it isn't the action or the thing; it's a substitute. And if he doesn't understand the substitute, for the action, as a dictionary thing, then we'd have to assume he can't speak English and we have no business auditing him in English. Audit him in the other language - if you have to learn Chinese, learn Chinese and audit him.

But you could even move - and I have already moved, a person's language I didn't speak into an understanding by showing him the action of it until he finally got the word. And then we wrote down the sequence of syllables which represented that auditing command, and then I uttered that sequence of syllables and he executed the auditing command. I didn't even have to learn Chinese. You see that? But you are letting the preclear examine the actions and reactions, the acceptance and rejectance, reactive or otherwise, in the minds and conduct of people all the way around the bracket.

And there is one other thing I want to mention here before we close this down - there are not going to be any more questions because we're running right straight out of time - there's one more thing I want to mention, is, you understand that a bracket can be of many shapes and sizes. There can be many, many, many, many legs to a bracket. Now, when you're running an object and you want to keep the preclear more accurately in-session, you had better pay attention to the mechanics of a bracket. Those which get too free and are nonsignificant, you might as well drop. That's the general rule. But if you're missing one, it'll stiffen up and eventually stick.

Now, when you mishandle a bracket, the part of it you're mishandling is either inconsequential; becomes totally inconsequential - you're just wasting auditing time by asking it - it's always free, I mean, it's a cleared point on the bracket, you know? But sooner or later, somewhere down along the line, you'd better reintroduce it just to make sure that it's still free and not stuck if you're going to admit it, you know? „How could another person help another person?“ You know? And eventually, this is just free as a bird; it's just flop, flop, you know. You can drop it out of the bracket without - just informing the preclear you're going to - you can drop it out of the bracket just as nice as you please. But let's introduce it in some future session if we mean to use it. „How could another person help another person?“ And, if it's still free, just drop it right back out again.

But how about omitting one while running an object? Let's say, „How could I help this cup?“ the auditor says, „How could you help this cup? How could this cup help itself? How could you help yourself?“ Get it? „How could another person help this cup? How could this cup help another person?“ Now, there's a fairly short bracket.

You're liable to run that just so long and find all of a sudden, „How could I help you?“ and „How could you help me?“ has stuck. Jammed tight. See, you've been talking about this cup, talking about this cup, talking about this cup. Everything's been going along swimmingly, and you've been talking about the cup.

But you start to sense there's something wrong around here; well, you better go out on a little scout, see? You better find out if there's anything wrong with the auditing command, that's the first thing. You'd better find out if there's a bracket missing, is the other thing, and I've never mentioned to you before, a missing bracket. You could include all the brackets you want to and all you're going to do is waste time. That's the total cataclysm; you just waste a little time by a bracket that isn't operative and wasn't aberrated and seems to be all right. If you check a bracket out, though, check it in again some time in the future and then throw it away once more if you find it's still clear. See? You just make sure.

But you can run an object, like a body part, and you're running Rocks, so therefore you're running lots of objects, and I want you to be aware of this auditing rule - you've never been told this rule before, so you're taken totally by surprise now, that I haven't talked about brackets, for God's sakes, for five or six years, see. Way back there; they're old.

First one was at Ross Lamoreaux's place down there. Gave a little series of lectures to his students when I first went down to Phoenix, Lord knows how long ago. I think that was the only lecture there was on brackets right up until these lectures I'm giving you right now. I think they've been mentioned, but they've never been described in any way.

You will find that a significant bracket, like, „How is the auditor helping the preclear?“ and „How is the preclear helping the auditor?“ can actually throw the session appetite over tin cup; could be neglected for a long time, maybe. But that pair - you see, you don't have a list of commands for an object, you have a list of commands for persons. See? Well, a list of commands for objects would contain at least a five-way bracket on objects plus „How could I help you?“ and „How could you help me?“ You see? Got the idea? Now, in doubt, add commands because the most you'll ever do is lose time. See that? Add commands. It's always safer than dropping them out. So when you run „How could you help a head?“ „How could I help a head?“ „How could a head help itself?“ „How could another person help a head?“ „How could a head help another person?“ You get the idea? „How could you help yourself?“ You've got that that far and you're liable to start just repeating the same bracket I've just said, see? Around and around and around. And then don't be surprised if it stops running somewhere along the line because you're omitting the auditing session, and the auditing session perforce includes „How could I help you?“ „How could you help me?“ „How could you help yourself?“ and „How could I help myself?“

[Please note: this tape ends abruptly as did the original master recording.]

[End of tape.]