This is the second half of the evening lecture December the 4th and we’re going to cover now something which some of you have seen before but which becomes far far more valuable than anything it uh… ever had as an evaluation before. Much more valuable now, and that is the logics six and seven as they were written.

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

Logic six says absolutes are unobtainable. That is just a forthright uh… effort in this universe to try to step on and stop somewhere along its track the terrific idea of absolutes.

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

Absolute good, absolute evil, absolute right and absolute wrong, why are they absolute? Because they’re by arbitrary definition only. A girl is good who pays her dues to the church or whatever they pay to churches. A fellow is evil if he does not properly work at his job and so on. There’s this whole series of control definition… agreements have… have really nothing to do with any high level of… of operational information.

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

Now let’s take a look at this universe and find out how this applies. I think it’s uh… what is absolute zero, minus 173, or 273, what is that? 273?

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

„273.“

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

273, minus 273 centigrade, isn’t it? And uh… uh… nobody’s ever gotten down there. They… they get down down down down, to Kelvin zero, that’s right and they get down there and uh… they claim theoretically that all motion stops there. Well, of course, they’re trying to stop motion to get down there. That’s very interesting because you could mock up a minus 273 degrees below zero with great ease.

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

All you do is go out here about three, four thousand miles out and where you don’t get any… any radio RF or anything like that… no RF or anything like that and… and just mock up some space and say if there’s no heat or cold in it. And there’s nothing in it. And if you mock up some space and say there’s nothing in it, then you have no motion in it. And if minus 273 degrees below zero is defined as no motion… Now when we say absolutes are unobtainable we find out theta-wise they’re obtainable by postulate. But that is by the introduction of an arbitrary, isn’t it?

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

Postulate – you just simply say bow bow, and that’s that. But as a practical matter in this universe when you take MEST and start to reduce it down, and reduce its heat down and reduce its mass down and reduce it down and reduce it down you get to, I don’t know how low they’ve gotten, maybe 270, I mean I don’t think they’ve gotten that low.

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

Oh, they haven’t. They’ve now got within a tenth of a degree; they’ll never get there. Same way, we go up the other way and we talk about a pure metal. Talk about a pure metal, and it’s always… it’s always at least uh… 2,000ths of a percent or something like that impure.

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

They don’t even obtain a pure metal; it’s always 99.99 or something like that. pure. Uh… that’s… that’s… it’d be an absolute so as soon as we start in on this we… we just don’t get an absolute for this universe. This universe could be destroyed the moment it ran into an absolute wrong, or it could run, into an absolute right; the universe would be destroyed.

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

I’ll tell you why that is. That’s… again, it’s a theoretical statement but it works out, works out very nicely. And mostly it works out in processing. You never get an absolute anything in processing. You don’t get absolute reductions, complete states, and so on. Why? This universe and most universes favor a gradient scale and it’s a gradient scale of data or space or action or objects. It’s always a gradient scale.

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

That’s logic seven: gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data. It’s worse than that. It’s… it’s even worse than that. The universe is conducted on a gradient scale and the reason the gradient scale is so very very interesting here and why it works so very well in creative processing, is because it was a gradient scale of agreement that brought the person here. And it was a gradient scale that made the universe. A gradient scale of agreement – if you agree to a little bit you can agree to a lot. If you don’t agree to a tiny little bit you can’t agree to anything. That tells you something in argumentation.

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

When you are arguing with somebody and they’re yak yaking around, get something; a lot of people do this, you’ll hear this being done all the time but it’s not done adroitly. You want to be very smooth and completely deadly in an argument, get them to agree so lightly that they agree without friction and then hold that tone level as the agreements progress. That’s deadly. Because the guy will follow more or less right straight through and arrive at your tone band.

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

He’ll arrive at your tone band level with an agreement on which there’s no stress and no strain. You’re not fighting then to get an agreement. That is the wrong way to get an agreement. The agreement just sort of slides in gradually and if any agreement slides in gradually it can wind up with something as, evidently, as big and as solid and as real as the MEST universe.

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

Agreement itself… when we knew more about agreements, I said in 1950, we’ll be able to crack cases faster and do more in processing than we’ve… ever before been done. Yes, and that’s so true because reality was apparently an agreement. It was so obviously an agreement that we couldn’t call anything real unless we’d agreed to it. And again, there was not an absolute agreement. But it wasn’t required as an absolute agreement.

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

The fellow walks in the room, he sees… he sees a… a… a big tiger. The tiger’s standing over there on the top rim of the venetian blind. The tiger’s twelve feet long and the venetian blind is only about three feet, uh… three… two uh… and he walks in and says, „There’s a twelve-foot tiger standing on top of the venetian blind and I wonder that you people aren’t frightened to death.“

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

And this tiger’s completely real to him and he is so rough that uh… rough in the wits, that he doesn’t know how to put this tiger over on you. He merely says it’s there, and that’s all there is to that. And you will all say, „Well, there is no tiger there.“

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

Now if he did this he might get away with that here. He… he’d get a laugh and a nice mock-up but uh… if we went down to the Kiwanis Club… if he went down to the Kiwanis Club and he walked in and he said, „You should be afraid of that tiger that’s up there on that venetian blind, because he’s liable to jump on you.“ And they’d say, „Well that’s all right, now take it quiet, oh yeah, that’s good and that’s good. Have a drink of coffee, sit down for a moment. Let’s talk it over.“ Talk it over? Get the cops!

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

And naturally select out of that environment a fellow who insisted on seeing tigers on the top of venetian blinds. The sole test of sanity administered by a psychiatrist, and wouldn’t you know it, the sole test is „Is he in agreement with the MEST universe? Well, if he’s in agreement with the MEST universe, why, it’s all right.“

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

Might be in apathy; we can put him there if he isn’t, but uh… is he in thorough agreement? All right, he is. Then he is sane. The guy’s strictly a fruitcake. All right, where do we get this… this thing about agreement?

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

It’s a gradient scale of agreement. You might start it out this way. You’d say at the beginning of the track, there you were. And maybe you decided that you’d like a universe. Well, now something had to happen – you had to agree to something before you could have a universe or you and a couple of guys or something of the sort… And you’ve decided to fix this stuff up and so on. A… and something had to happen before you did that.

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

You had to have something occur, either initiate natively or have it initiated upon you, that it was desirable to obtain something called a universe. And have some action and so forth and uh… so on. And uh… uh… you should notice I have never defined the word „universe.“ Because if I defined the word universe as such you would say, „Uh-huh, that means parallels to the MEST universe,“ and universes are very much not necessarily parallels to the MEST universe at all. Some of them don’t even have action in them. Uh… they have something else. It’s very interesting.

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

Now, when these fellows set this up, whatever they set up, they had to agree that – amongst themselves at least – that it was desirable to have this thing. And then they got to agreeing about a bunch of other things so that they could get some sort of a uh… group effort on the thing or even to agree on something.

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

One side would say this is desirable and the other side say this is undesirable, and they’d have a game. You see, it took this sort of thing.

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

You have to agree, by the way, to disagree. That sounds like uh… one of those circular statements but uh… unless you and your arguing opponent are thoroughly agreed upon something, you can never fight.

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

And one of the best ways to pull the bottom out of an argument in which you find yourself engaged is suddenly find that you are sweepingly in agreement. Only make him discover that he is sweepingly in agreement with you. Now, when these… these fellows, this universe… now a lot of things could have happened. The MEST universe simply could have overlapped, bing. The universe built in this direction and then the one day, it had a lot of agreements native to it which were native to the MEST universe.

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

Or the MEST universe says somebody who has… came in there and here was a bridge sort of built over of agreement. And the next thing you know, the fellow’d agreed that something was terribly desirable or in some cases there was just a sudden big boom.

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

And their universe caved in, which is a very startling thing to have happen. Somebody could pick up its wave length, its chain of agreements, find out what its laws were and blow it up. There’s nothing to that.

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

Now that was normal and usual. Practically everyone here can get a lot of nice big bops on an E-Meter. And it’s a peculiar kind of bops. Somebody was just mentioning it to me. Uh… it’s… it’s a big theta bop; little theta bops about so little wobble uh… back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, but a theta bop which insists on running ten or twenty points on the scale wide, it just jumps way back about maybe a third of the dial back and forth or half of the dial back and forth, something like that, that’s a bop on the loss of and still trying to hold on to the home universe.

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

See all that kind of a bop is trying to hold on to? Still trying to hold on to that. And you’ll run this as an explosion sometime or sometimes you’ll run it as a persuasion, but always you will run it as something that shouldn’t have happened.

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

That’s regretted and the poor fellow’s still staying with it. All right, that bridge, then, led over into the MEST universe and the fellow suddenly found himself agreeing that this was a flock of space which had its origin at point unknown and he is part of that organization now, and he has volunteered. And the next thing you know, you’ll find out he has agreed. How is all this done? It’s done by hypnosis; it’s done in various other ways.

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

Hypnosis is just a sudden agreement. And uh… it’s done in various ways and then he comes down this whole long scale of agreement and things get more and more in agreement and they are probably more and more actually to his personal discredit and uh… antipathetic to his best beingness, habit he’s still going down the line, and goes down the line further, and further, end further, and further.

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

He’s gotten into the game called the MEST universe which is set up to need a lot of recruits. And he gets all these recruits. Now the essence of untangling the MEST universe was nothing very special, except this: it was the… it was the uh… difficulties of discovering what had been agreed to from a point in the universe where that agreement was a reality and where the rules had been hidden.

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

There’s no anatomy of this agreement really, was there, at all? See, now you had to look around and find out everything had been agreed to in the universe and then you could trace back and then you could actually pull somebody out of the universe. That’s about all you could do about it or you could turn around and… and set it up so somebody else who wanted it could actually turn around and master the universe.

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

In order to do anything about this, you had to know what this anatomy was. Well, it’s the anatomy of agreement and that anatomy of agreement is always a gradient scale.

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

You can test this agreement with a hypnotized subject very easily. Now the reason why it’s… it’s a… it’s an interesting thing for you to study in Scientology is this: you’ve got uh… you… you’re on a level of agreement on a certain series of data but what is the data? The data is on a level of agreement of how we disagree with the MEST universe. How can you turn it backwards?

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

We’re in agreement on an anatomy of agreement so that the anatomy of agreement can be reversed or handled in any other fashion. Or even by the way that you can continue on and de pen the agreement in same quarters. I can show you ways and means of getting somebody to agree even much better with that MEST universe.

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

I haven’t left the data out because I haven’t talked to any psychiatrist for a long time. But uh… the data is… is… is quite… quite ordinary, uh… hypnotists, uh… you get uh… you go around and prove the reality to them. You… you coax them into facing reality, uh… narcosynthesis, electric shock, all of these things are methods of getting somebody to agree with the MEST universe.

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

And uh… I’ve been meaning to tell psychiatry about this because I’m sure they haven’t thought of using any of these things, but these are practically the only methods of really reducing somebody by getting him to agree. And the hypnosis, narcosynthesis, I want you to take a list of this hypnosis, electric shock, uh… dope, uh… the uh… phenobarbital, uh… there are other methods: telling a person how tired they are and they have to have a rest, uh… uh… telling people that they’d better… better look to their souls and so forth, these are all methods – these are all methods which psychiatry ought to have because I know they’d be completely original to psychiatry.

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

They deepen one’s agreement with the MEST universe. You just tell these people to face reality now. Now I’ll tell you what’s wrong with you, you just have not faced reality. Now you must face the reality of your problem.

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

The day you face the reality of this problem you will then be able – then you will be able at last to be better off. And this fellow goes into apathy and he goes further and further and further. And of course, he goes more and more under control and I am sure that the fee has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

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

You can get a much better fee – I tell you as auditors quite frankly – it… it’s much easier to get a great deal of money out of somebody who’s on a down spiral into becoming MEST that it is to get money out of somebody who is going on an up spiral toward becoming theta.

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

Just give you that word of warning. They… they’ve been working themselves out… they’ve been working themselves out of… of uh… preclears uh… in various parts of the world uh… too rapidly. They… they clean up a practice. Fellow takes a couple of weeks and all of a sudden he looks around and he doesn’t have any patients any more and of course the truth of the matter is, he… he then starts getting a flood of patients sooner or later.

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

But he’s cleaning up the rate of one normal psychoanalytic practice every fortnight, and… and this is a rate of speed which has exceeded, of course, exceeded the desirable feed-in of cannon fodder. So go very cautious about this, I mean, slow down, hold motion, and you will be able to get a lot of MEST.

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

Now, now the gradient scale of agreement is mirrored, OF COURSE, in the gradient scales which you find in existence all through matter. Just look at matter. Look at liquids, solids, gases and right there uh… you have gases, liquids, solids. It’s a gradient scale. That’s interesting, isn’t it?

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

You have flows first of one kind or another. And then there’s a little bridge in there; you’ve got a ridge sort of a situation, a couple of other things and… it’s very interesting, that formative state. Uh… examine that and you’ll find out that they go into gases and then ‘the gases go on a gradient scale and they’re heavier and heavier gases. And then all of a sudden you’ve got liquids. And uh… that goes into a gradient scale of liquids and they’re soupier and soupier liquids, and then you’ve got solids. And you go on down the line of solids and then you get to a solid that’s what? You get the whole tone scale repeated again between – uh… you get a tone scale repeat, by the way, from uh… enthusiasm, which is a gas. This is of a much… much lower harmonic than… than 4.0, but you get enthusiasm as a gas down to a conservative gas, sort of inert and so on. And uh… it’s conservative, then a real inert gas would be just bored. And you go down below that and you start to get into the antagonistic gases and then you get into those that are… that are good and angry and you’re right into between 2.0 and 1.5, you’re in a liquid band really. Now you go on down from there, you’re in solids, and you go on down the band of solids little by little by little and you would get down to what? One point zero; one point zero is a dispersal.

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

Now we go from 1.0 on south from that. A dispersal, plutonium. Plutonium is so solid and it is so determined to be scarce – at that level you see, MEST has got to be scarce. You’ll find the haves. There’s a harmonic scale of have on the metals, on the elements. It’s ever so often you’ll find the elements as they Go down, very-even numbered, I mean as they go down, they’re very nice and regular, not even-numbered, very nice and regular.

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

They go right on down, have me, have me, have me. See the metals go uh… liquids and so on, they say have not and then have me and then don’t have me and have me and don’t have me and have me. It… it’s sort of divided up into that idiotic scale. You can take the periodic chart and look it up and add that up – a little mental exercise for you. Uh… anyway – not even vaguely important at this time – it might help the field of metallurgy but that’s… to the dickens with that.

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

Uh… gold for instance is a have me. And uh… plutonium is so scarce at such a terrific don’t – it’s a… all mixed up. It’s a don’t have me and a have me. And it’s a wonderful maybe and it gets right down there and it’s so scarce and it’s so determined but it doesn’t know what it’s doing, that it is a dispersal, and you start putting any plutonium together and it goes Kapoom! – won’t hold together – and that’s the way a preclear is.

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

You put him together at a certain level and boy does he disperse like mad. So you see there’s an echo in the material universe itself. And in each one of these substances there’s no such thing as an absolute purity or an absolute state of it. Or anything else absolute – I mean, that’s just typical of this universe that it follows down.

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

Now let’s look at the chart of the gradient scale of survive and don’t survive and let’s take a look first at uh… the corollary: any datum has only relative truth and corollary: truth is relative to environments, experience, and truth. And we look at that. Let’s go down from there and say: in logic eight, a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude. And a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated, oh, it’s quite important. Because the form, the network, with which you are operating in creative processing and which is your main high road to a good thorough theta clear…

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

A cleared theta clear, this is the high road to it. It’s a gradient scale and it would run datum of comparable magnitude. Everything is… is… is to be compared in this universe by a datum of comparable magnitude.

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

All right. Uh… let’s take the first datum of comparable magnitude which was attained in this. And let’s take uh… survival and uh… succumb. Two data of comparable magnitude. Now there… there we have a dichotomy which is right up there. One can be evaluated to some slight degree by the other and you can extrapolate from these experience. And you can take a terrific amount of experience out of these data.

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

Well now, is survive an absolute scale? No, it sure isn’t and in the first book we have a graph here, it looks something like this. We had a track of this, a track this way and so on. And this was plotted against time, plotted against objects, and this was plotted against uh… immortality and there was a dynamic survive here and that showed that… that arrow over there, survive, showed the potential of survival.

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

How long would this individual survive and so we… we have that there as a… an extremely valuable breakdown as far as our thinking and processing was concerned; now you could break that one down, you could break that thing down into eight dynamics. That was how many things were surviving when any individual was surviving in this universe.

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

You had him paying attention to all eight dynamics. Now, you have this plotted against time and we got our tone scale and you’ll find the first tone scale in the first book. It just isn’t numbered. It even tells you it’s got a gradient scale, it’s got geometric progression, all sorts of things.

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

But anyhow, then let’s look this over. Down here at the bottom here was succumb. And this thing was all plotted out against time and it showed that the impulse of the organism, the life organism in particular, was an effort to persist as long as possible in a living state.

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

In as good a state as possible and as long as possible for all eight dynamics and that was survival. We had the opposite to it was the impulse to succumb. Well, now what was right and what was wrong? A little bit later got to figuring out right and wrong, and I got this: That… that which led to the maximal survival for the maximal number of dynamics could be considered to be right. And that which was minimal survival for the minimal number for the maximal number of dynamics, whichever way you want to look at it, uh… was wrong.

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

And you could adjudicate then right and wrong. You could actually sit down and figure out and get a good working frame of reference then as to what was right and wrong and how did it compare?

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

Well, it compared well enough so that a bar association of one state in this union reconvened their rules of evidence… committee on the rules of evidence, and started to work. The reports are not in on that yet, but they are working over the rules of evidence because they’ve obviously got to be changed.

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

We had a working… working material on right and wrong. Well, what’s right and wrong? Right and wrong would be yes and no. Now, some of your engineers will tell you that they’re working on three-valued logic. They aren’t but Boolean algebra depends on yes greater than no and no greater than yes. It’s just a two-value that way; in other words, it’s plotting yes, no and maybe. And uh… uh… one of your big switchboards, whenever you pick up a phone down here, is running a switchboard which operates on Boolean algebra.

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

Last time I looked they were… yes, greater than no, no greater than yes, hunt hunt hunt hunt hunt, well, the yes on this is greater than no, plug. Hunt hunt hunt hunt hunt, well, the no is greater than yes, plug. Hunt hunt hunt hunt hunt, no greater than yes, plug. And uh… some engineers that work on that, by the way, practically work it in their sleep after a while.

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

Boolean algebra, it works things out yes greater than no, no greater than yes. Well, they’re… they’re not really working on two or even three-valued logic, although many of them will tell you, „I’m working on three-valued logic.“ Yes, maybe and no. They’re not.

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

I had a very interesting argument with one of the chaps who builds some of the more interesting electronic brains, a friend of mine. One… one afternoon we had a good time. We went down, and I finally managed to drive home and pound down this datum that there was actually not three-valued logic which he claimed he was using, but there was actually twelve-valued logic.

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

And twelve-valued logic consisted of the yes greater than no is greater than yeses and so on and the modifications thereof. There was maybe and there was more yes than no maybes, and rare no than yes maybes and those… there was nothing was less maybe and more maybe. And we had a good argument about it and he finally bought this and so forth and then I of course did the horrible thing of demonstrating to him that it was an infinity-valued logic and he’d bought a pig in a poke.

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

We’ll call this an infinity of lines here. And we’ll call this thing here in the middle maybe. Now all that means is neither no nor yes. So that’s the definition of maybe… neither no nor yes. And the only time a problem is in abeyance is when you can’t get a greater factor on weight on the yes or the no.

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

I should have done it, I shouldn’t have done it. What do you find in a fellow who’s worried about it? Worried means he is unable to unbalance the balance between yes and no which puts him on a maybe. The anatomy of maybes as you heard in technique 88 was never more valid than it is right now. The anatomy of the maybe – how do you resolve indecisions.

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

What is an indecision? How do engrams come into suspension. MEST itself is a flock of indecision. It’s a big chaotic confusion and you have to pour some positive and negative MEST together to get a stable MEST. You have to get it stable – if you want it stable you’ve actually got to hang it in the maybe, otherwise it will flow off and go in some other direction.

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

On a ship for instance they have a terrible time with this. There… there’s so many, so many elements that say more yes than no and so many elements that say more no than yes that the whole bottom of the boiler or the boiler tubes or the propellers or even the steel itself in the hulls is liable to flow right away into the water. And you call this electrolysis.

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

The potentials are slightly different in the MEST they’re using and they can’t get a decent balance on it and they have an awful time with it.

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

I saw a ship one time that had just eaten up her third set of boiler tubes in a month. They couldn’t get the… they couldn’t get the positive – negative terminals. This is one of the big problems of marine engineering, by the way.

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

If you were able to go in and solve this just bop, you would be worth your weight in, I don’t know, you couldn’t be worth your weight in theta, you already got that. Well, it would be a valuable contribution.

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

All right, now again here, survive then would be yes. Toward good for the dynamics. Survive and that would be good. And that would go out here toward infinity. A theoretical infinity of good.

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

Maximum number of dynamics – now you could draw one of these darn things for every single dynamic, you could draw one for the first dynamic, and the second dynamic, for the third dynamic, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth dynamic. You could draw one for each one or you can draw this as just a composite of this arrow which was in the first book – the impulses toward survival.

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

And it would be: value of assistance toward survival, would walk over here toward good. And we will call that, just for the heck of it, yes.

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

All right, it’d walk over here toward good and an infinity of good would be the theoretical goal, but absolutes are unobtainable, so there couldn’t be an infinity of good. Something would happen if you had an infinity of good, probably the whole universe’d – it wouldn’t necessarily blow up but it would probably be just… just stopped.

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

Because there’d be no differences of potentials anywhere along the line. Now let’s look over to the other side, here, and say this is no. And we get here, succumb. And we get with it uh… evil. So we’ve got that, good and evil, just arbitrary values. We have another word that goes over here, right. Another word that goes over here, wrong.

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

An infinity of evil would cause a complete succumbing of the entire universe, theoretically. Because you have only one… one terminal. Now maybe you’d call this plus, call that minus. You’ve got the same thing, you’ve got… you’ve got orders of experience here. The plus, the minus, yes, no, survive, succumb, good, evil, infinity here, and infinity there, and right and wrong. So plus, yes, survive, good, infinity, and right are datums which interrelate and which evaluate each other. And there’s a gradient scale of each and anytime you find the point for one of those on that gradient scale – you’ll find the rest of them at the same more or less point on that gradient scale.

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

How right is something, how much is it going to assist the survival of something? How wrong is something? How much is it going to make something succumb? How evil is something? Well, it’s as evil as it is wrong and wrong is succumb. And how much of it’s evil? It causes succumb, therefore is uh… uh… complete sexual freedom evil? Now, instead of just going in and reading Plato and other Christian uh… authorities on the thing, let’s look this thing over and uh… we’ll find that uh… that we have an actual way to evaluate this. We have a way to evaluate it here and then we’ve got a way to evaluate that column against this column. Why, what do you know? We’re working out here a system of ethics.

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

System of ethics, that system of ethics will hold for a lot of universes. But more importantly, for this universe particularly, it holds for logic and that probably holds for most universes too, just the way it is there. Something which is right or it’s wrong, that’s no action, no action at all.

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

You don’t take any action either. You’ve got to throw something onto this. Now you could actually throw onto a preclear enough new data in order to unbalance his bullpen of maybes. You could theoretically just give him enough data and he would go from that data into a state of decision just by learning more about a situation. But that isn’t too much so.

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

Now how much of a gradient scale is this gradient scale? Well, that’s quite a gradient scale. There’s an infinity of lines from here to here and another infinity of lines from there to there. And right in here there’s an infinity of lines, and right there there’s an infinity of lines.

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

That’s a wonderful number, infinity. Somebody thought it up and it simply means the mostest. It means a never-ending mostestness. And so let’s look this thing over and of course ‘we can say it’s an… I can say very soberly: Now I wanted you to note in particular that there is one half an infinity between here and here.

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

Now absolutes are unobtainable, now you could theoretically… you have an infinity of evil. You don’t have an infinity of evil. Uh… let’s have… let’s put something in here which is uh… a little more interesting, and let’s have a zero, huh? Well, it’s not a zero, couldn’t be, couldn’t he – and let’s draw a curve from here across to here, like that. Just for the… the heck of it and then let’s put the number 40.0 here, just for the heck of it. And uh… by the way, this number 40.0 had better be just about over here or somebody will get that into a… a spin or something of the sort. And uh… let’s put as an unbalanced uh… maybe of some sort, here uh… but let’s put around here someplace, 20.0, and over here we’ve got a 0.0. Now those are just tone scale arbitraries.

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

They’re just tone scale arbitraries. Why I thought we didn’t have any action here on… on maybes. No action at all unless you take a… unless you take a no responsibility. A no responsibility for it – we’ve already investigated and 20.0 should be right about there. And that’s about… a lot of action involved in that.

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

Or, let’s see, let’s work this out a little bit better. Let’s put 20.0 there. You got a conservatism there, maximum action. All right, now all I’ve done here is make an approximation of the cycle of action. And the cycle of action runs on this line, to some degree. It can be plotted on this gradient scale to some degree, but it is not, again, an absolute plot. So you have this thing which is running here, not as part of the graph, but it’s standing out three-dimensionally from the graph as a cycle of action.

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

This cycle of action here is a cycle of logic. That’s what we’re plotting. See that? And down here we’ve got something that we call approximate cycle of action. Now why should we put anything like that? Our tone scale actually doesn’t work like that. Or does it?

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

Your tone scale theoretically would work with bars up to here, something like that. No, we turn this tone scale on edge and we’ve taken a viewpoint. We’ve taken a viewpoint of what is good and what is right and what is survival for us. And we’ve plotted it over against logic and so actually that cycle of action isn’t really logic, but that cycle of action put on there is how we apply the gradient scale called logic to our problem in our cycle of action. So I put a problem on this to see how the problem works out by gradient scales. Now you just set this problem 20.0, 40.0, 0.0 over here. Now how does it work out?

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

You find that – by golly we sure are right before we make any postulates. A lot of people won’t act for fear they’ll be wrong. That’s a low level action. Now you find out that there’s a sort of an increase down as we go along here; there’s an increase from this uh… forty point zero right through to a conservation.

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

When you get down here to a maybe we want to conserve things and then we get a stop down here. So we have up here start at right; at maybe we have change – it would be in this area here someplace. But actually, there is an inner cycle here before you get to the maybe from 40.0 down the scale, there would be change and then you would get the conservatism of no-change and then you would get the change again. First you would get the change as you came over here from forty. You would get the change which you would call uh… uh… you would call this change before it got in there: increase or growth, increase or growth, and it got over here into the center. Growth has stopped and decrease has not yet begun. So we have conservatism there, maybe.

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

We… we’d better not go any further there, you see. I mean uh… we better not make too many changes, we’re here at an optimum state. This is a guy maybe in middle life. All right, now decay sets in and we get another change.

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

It’s the change of decay and it goes over here to wrong and that would be death. Survive, succumb. This could be creation, growth, conservation, doing things in life and so forth, then decay and death on that cycle of action.

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

Or this could be considered over here at 40.0. We’ll cover all this material very much more thoroughly later. But at 40.0 we could have… up above 40.0 we start something at somewhere before we reach 20… before we reach that maybe we have 20.0 and that’s where we get optimum action about the thing. A heavy action, actually, a maybe is plus and minus opposed in some fashion or another so that you… you’ve got those things. You’re trying to maintain a balance and believe me you get plenty of action when you’re trying to maintain a balance on anything.

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

And so you get over here and then you would get uh… your stop when we got down here. All right, now those two things compare. Now, if we’re going… if we’re going to work this problem out, we’re going to find we work it out by gradient scales.

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

Well, gradient scales, the best way I know and the best way I know to apply this in processing – your preclear is obviously wrong. He is obviously wrong. How wrong can you get? Human. You go into ARC with homo sapiens, practically 90% of the things you have to do to stay in ARC with homo sapiens are wrong. It’s just automatically.

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

Look at the code of honor processing and try to make it stick. That’s a good survival code, but boy, homo sapiens kind of objects when you run it in there.

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

That’s a good survival code, if a lot of people were using it it’d be all right. So, you’ve got to back him up from way down here before just wrong. You’ve got to back him clear on up to the top.

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

Well, how do you… how do you do it? You have to pick him up someplace on a gradient scale toward that wrongness and back him up the scale and get him up tone scale to a place where he can better act and where he can get more right than he is wrong.

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

You’re not ever trying to get to a point where he’ll be absolutely right. Theoretically, that’s unobtainable. All right, that’s an application of a gradient scale. But there’s the basic gradient scale then. And a problem on it.

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

Now, let’s look at gradient scales just a little bit more here. Let’s look at a gradient scale which simply comes like this. Let’s look at the gradient scale of any part of a gradient scale; now this is a gradient scale of destruction.

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

This gradient scale of destruction would start in. Here, here is your… your destruction. We’ll draw as down and here’s your gradients of destruction and here is uh… a gradient scale of volume. And this is small, large, small, large, volume of destruction.

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

Now we just walk the preclear into this. We’ve found a lot of things on the E-Meter. Now we found he couldn’t destroy a lot of things. So we take the smallest part of them – small volume of them. At a small volume destruction of a small number of what he can’t destroy and we get a mock-up.

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

And we get a slightly larger volume of what he can’t destroy and we get a mock-up of that. Get him to execute that. If we can’t get him to execute that, get a smaller margin that he can execute and go up in the leaps and bounds that he can do it.

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

So he does that successfully, that means he can do this successfully. Now he can do that successfully, he can do this successfully. That successfully, he can do this successfully and finally he can do a large volume of destruction on it and he can get very close to an ultimate destruction in his mock-ups. And when he can do that on that subject, that means he’s rid of an awful lot of aberration.

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

He can mock up then in excess of any facsimile he has on the subject. It just puts the MEST universe to shame. The MEST universe quits. It just quits right there. Is… its hold is so slight on an individual. You think it’s heavy.

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

But it’s actually just very airy, when you go at it like this; you have to be careful because you’re liable to find your preclear sort of nnneeeaa. Don’t work too fast with this – be careful of it.

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

All right, now, small to large, now that’s what we mean by a gradient scale of mock-up. Now you could actually have a gradient scale that would take in first… the first dynamic, then it would take in the first and second dynamic. Then it would – see your volume of magnitude, first, second and third dynamic would be the next mock-up, a next series.

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

Next series of mock-ups would be the first, second, third and fourth dynamics. Next series of mock-ups would be the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth dynamics. All right, now listen, mock up the scenery. All right, now let’s put some animals into it and now let’s blow that up. Or make it decay, or make it get old – do something with it.

„No change.“

Now, put the MEST universe in there and away we go. Now, anybody is trying to infer in any way that I am just trying to blow up the MEST universe, I… I wish he’d… he’d stop on that because, uh… truth of the matter is, I am. Anyway…

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

We’ve got here then a gradient scale which would go like this. Let’s take a gradient scale of color. And this gradient scale would go something like this. And it would merely mean brightness of color. And it would run from none to brilliant. No color. All right.

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

Now let’s work it on a no-color basis. The fellow has possibly black and white or possibly grey and not-so-grey, something on that order. All you would do would get him to contrast one and then contrast the other one. Anything that you could run.

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

Get a little bit of each and so on…’ small spots, and then move in time, space and location and handle him yesterday, handle him tomorrow. Now, let’s get a little bit bigger bit of color, and it doesn’t mean, uh… that means color. Uh… well get something a little, a little brighter grey this time.

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

And mock that up here, there, everywhere – on top of the roof, under the house, in the basement, uh… below your feet, above your head, behind your back – all right.

„Oh, we did.“

Now put it in yesterday, put it in tomorrow, now put it in next week, okay, now let’s get… let’s get something that’s s… quite a lot brighter than that. Let’s see if you can get any white. Well, very possibly he can get some white, but maybe it’s still grey, or maybe this time he can get some good dark black.

Huh? There it is.

So you get this good dark black and you put it here and you put it there and you put it back and forth and you put it in front of the guy and you put it under his head, put it under his arm, put in tomorrow, and put it in next week, and put it in the year 1202, and – all right.

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

Now what we’re heading for is to turn on his color, so let’s ask him what his favorite color is and then let’s go on the theory that he couldn’t possibly get anything that was pleasing to him. Ask him what his favorite color is. Now, if he couldn’t get anything pleasing, if he could only get that much color, he couldn’t get anything pleasing to him, so let’s get something that’s rather displeasing to him.

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

And you say, „Well, all right, what’s your favorite color“, and he says, „Oh, green I think. Green is my favorite color.“ You say, „Get some very bilious green.“ Well, he’s perfectly willing to get that much bilious green because he wouldn’t be able to please himself to the degree of getting any nice bright good-looking green. So he’ll try to get some bilious green and he’ll say, „Well, it’s still kind of grey.“ And you say, „That’s all right, now let’s get it grey. Now let’s get it green again, bilious green, sickly green, got that? All right, get it grey, and so on.“

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

And you just go on that way, back and forth, back and forth, and you put it in front of him, put it behind him, put it up to the right, and to the left, and under your head and in the next room. And over in the next lot and on a ship at sea and uh… then in tomorrow and then in the year 2897 and then in the year 610 B.C. and uh… all right. Next, you see.

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

And in such fashion we would come right on down the line and if we just kept that up and kept that up as drill drill drill drill, something would happen along the line that would make his colors brighter, and brighter, and brighter, and something would suddenly trigger. Something would trigger and he would suddenly say, „Well, the devil with it. I can get colors of anything I want to. Of course that’s nonsense, I’ve been getting them here for minutes. I mean everything is all right.“ Okay.

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

The uh… great oddity this… this thing on a gradient scale. You wouldn’t believe it when you first start in on a preclear. This… this preclear’s saying neeoooww and ooohhh and all last night and then so on and he… the… and „it’s bad thetan and… the… and they can’t and… and every time I… holy God! I never want to have another night like that.“

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

What do you do? You say, „Well, all right, now let’s see, what do you say that was happening to you?“ And he tells you, he says, „Well, it was so and so and so and so and so and so and so and so.“ And you say, „Well, all right now, where… where did it happen?“ „At home.“

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

Well, you know you’re not going to get him into a nightmare that fast and you say, „By the way, uh… take the house across the street.“ „Yeah, yeah, yeah, what’s that got to do with it?“ „Well, take the house across the street and turn it Around on its foundations. Get a mock-up, turn it around on its foundations. All right. Now turn it back again. Now turn it a little pink.“

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

„Now turn it blue, now put it about ten feet up in the air, and make it turn around again. Now make it come down on the foundation, now send it up into the air, now turn it around and bring it down to the foundation. Now put it behind your back. Okay, now let’s put it back on the foundations again. Now, let’s put it over in the next state and uh… let’s put it in last week.“

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

„Okay, now let’s reach into the house just next to it and pick up a bedroom.“

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

„Ohhoo oroor.“

Let’s get a bite of supper.

„Now just a minute, pick up the living room.“

„Okay, I got the living room.“

„Now rearrange all the furniture in it, now shake it up like a dice box, now put it behind your head. Now put it under your feet. Now put it up on the roof. Now put it down in the firehouse. Now put it over on the Eiffel Tower. Okay, now put it on Mars, now put it on Venus, now throw it into the sun so it will burn up. Okay, you got that? Now burn the sun up. Okay, you got that? All right. Now, let’s take a bedroom.“ „Da da da da da.“ „Now let’s… I said, let’s take a kitchen.“

And after you’ve handled all that sort of thing, get a lawn chair out in the yard and handle that and tear it up and put dogs on it, and behind the back and over the head and under and locate it in space, and put it in last year, and… and put his grandmother on it and then bury it in the old churchyard. And do all sorts of things with this thing and then say, „All right, now take a bed.“

„Well, mmmm, all right.“

„Okay, now put it behind your head, above your head, over your head, around your head, around… top of the railroad, top of the firehouse, now put your Uncle George in it. Now invent an uncle to put in it. Okay, now put a blonde in it, now put a brunette in it. Yeah, what did you say? No, that’s all right, I said put a blonde in it. That’s good. I said put two of them in. Okay, now put them down… down in the city hall.“

„Now put them out in the middle of Grand Central Station. Now take Grand Central Station and turn it around. Now put your body in that bed in Grand Central Station. Now have eighty snakes jump on it.“

Well he says, „To hell with it – sure.“ you say, „All right, get the snakes. Well, get them eating the body up. „Well, you don’t know quite when you’ve passed over anything resembling snakes because his nightmare was all about snakes. This… it was something quite mysterious to you. Of course, you’ve got him in the middle of Grand Central Station, he knows that couldn’t happen in Grand Central Station. That’s a complete disagreement with reality and he thinks he can do it because it’s because he knows it couldn’t happen in Grand Central Station. As a matter of fact, you’ve got him back toward his own universe. You’re restoring power into the thing. But if he said yow-yow-yow-yaw-yaw, you said, „Well I just said have this long tall snaky-looking porter come up and tuck your body in better. Okay now have him shuffle off and have him hiss at somebody.“

„Yeah, all right.“ You just work it up that way. Finally you’ve got him in home in his bed at home and you’ve got the whole last 24 hours – you take the whole last 24 hours and you turn it right side up and you turn it left side down, and he says, „What are you doing?“ And you say, „Well, just take this space which contained the last twenty-four hours and turn it right side up and upside down“ and he of course does that, and so forth.

And he says, „What are you doing this for?“ And you say, „How about that nightmare you had last night?“ „What nightmare? Oh, the nightmare! Yeah, yeah, that nightmare, well, let’s get down to some processing, something important.“

Funny part of it is, the darn things stay keyed out. It… it’s just like a bunch of liars out in the old West, the MEST universe is lying like mad to this preclear and he’s lying to himself about perceiving it anyhow and what’s happening in it and what he’s scared about, and everything else. And you just keep talking it.

And by golly, after a while, his concentration on these points of agreement in the MEST universe will shift. This is really a problem in the centering of attention, the fixing and unfixing of attention units… is really this is a problem in to some slight degree. That’s uh… not wholly true but to some slight degree it’s fixed and unfixed. So you get that as a gradient scale.

Now your gradient scale could be these wide beams, one, two, three, four, five, that could be those wide beams or we could have a gradient scale that would go like this and there’d be one, two, three, four, five.

Get the idea? There could be a gradient scale within the gradient scale within the gradient scale. You can have the tiniest graduations imaginable. You’re having trouble with this fellow, you… you… you’re already starting in too heavy if you have any objections. You shouldn’t hang him up on… on when he… watch him when he’s processing and when he says, „Well, I… yeah, yeah, I can do that.“

Watch him, he’s holding his breath a little bit. „Yeah, yeah, I… I… I… I… I, yeah, I did that.“ Watch that; you’re feeding it too heavy. Just look at your preclear – it’s like reading a meter. If he says, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, you’re feeding it too… too slow. Get it somewhere in there where he’s saying, „Yes, yes, yes, uh-huh, yes, umm yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, what are we doing this for?“

That’s the way it operates with regard to him. So it’s up to you to monitor the gradient scale according to how fast your preclear’s taking it. And don’t ever let any preclear kid you into this, that there is any aberration or an upset that is so powerful that he couldn’t possibly mock up anything about it. NEVER let yourself be kidded that such a thing exists because it evidently doesn’t exist.

There is always a gradient scale that he can attempt. There’s always one. There’s always a level where he can strike in with a mock-up and win. Never otherwise. It appears to you perhaps at this stage of training that a mock-up is really a very light and filmy thing to be working with. Do you know how powerful and deadly facsimiles can be and how preclears can agonize and how long it should take? And you wonder what happens to these facsimiles; you just walk off and leave these facsimiles, just play around with mock-ups all the time. And you say, „Well, we do that all the time“, and so on. Well, we ought to do something too about the facsimiles.

You’re doing something about the facsimiles when you do the mock-ups. The mock-ups kick those facsimiles out, they unload them. You’re not converting energy, really, when you’re doing mock-ups. You’re not converting energy. You’re putting new energy into a new field, handling it in a new way, and the facsimiles actually come loose, detach, and blow, and that is that.

And you won’t have any trouble with any of that. That’s something for you to… to look at as you work with this. You are working the most direct process to an amputectomy of a facsimilectomy… That’s the most direct course through to that.

Now you see what this is all about. Gradient scales and how it formed out of the logics. It’s actually a very interesting application of a piece of knowledge which has been with us for a long time.

Okay, let’s call it an evening. Thank you.