This morning we are going to continue, as we will all this week, on subjective processes. I am doing it - this to you with malice aforethought. We have some lovely cases here. There's no reason to chew into these cases and bust them all up, you know. It would just ruin everything because what we want here is to give you a good reality on subjective processes - "processes" for Great Britain if these tapes are ever played there. [pronounced in the British manner the second time. - Ed.]

This is October the 14th and the morning lecture.

Now, you see what we're doing here? We're doing a very - really a very careful approach. We are walking forward through all of this in an effort to give you a reality on both subjective and objective techniques. Next week you're not going to get a chance to run a subjective technique, so let's get some reality on it this week. Next week we're going to run objective techniques - very, very few and very, very little subjective techniques.

[Clearsound version splices in the "This is" in the above sentence.]

So we've got now, just today, tomorrow, Saturday to finish off subjective techniques. Now, when you realize that subjective techniques cover everything that has to do with a person's own thinkingness, you realize that we're finishing off quite a piece of stuff here.

This morning I want to go into something very interesting, which - I hope you will find it's very interesting and - has to do with the lag of the MEST universe - the lag index.

Right here let's get a good solid definition on what is a subjective technique. It's pertinent.

Now, when we speak of communications in Scientology we are speaking of the transfer of a particle or a motion from one part of a space to another part of a space or from one space to another space. That's all we mean by communication. That's the reductio ad absurdum definition of communication.

What is a subjective technique? It is a technique where its highest reality will be a subjective reality. It will be the reality for the person himself and for no other. And if we call it subjective technique, then, we realize what reality we are trying to achieve. The reality we're trying to achieve here is a very simple one and it's simply this reality: Can we do something subjectively to an individual to bring about a change in his thinkingness? And do we find this a relatively long and arduous process or are some of these techniques easy, simple and quick?

We have a pencil at one corner of the desk and we move the pencil to the other corner of the desk - that's communication. Because why? Because one corner of the desk has now communicated with the other corner of the desk. That's the reductio ad absurdum of communication, definition.

The only thing wrong with the mind would be in the mind itself Isn't that true? The only thing wrong with thinking would be thinking. Is that so? Q and A. All right.

If you understand how absurdly simple this definition is, you'll understand all about communications. Communication doesn't have anything to do with one corner of the desk demonstrating the volition which moves the pencil to the other corner of the desk. Do you understand? You're not interested, then, in the volition if we're interested in communication.

When we talk about thinking we are talking, then, in a subjective technique, on the lowest level of line collapse. It's thinking and then there's effort and then there's emotion, which is feeling, and we go out beyond that and we get looking.

If there's going to be any motion at some time or another, somebody at least set up some form of automaticity which resulted in an arrangement whereby you got a communication point from one point to another point.

Well now, a subjective technique, again, by definition as we're using it here, is one which deals with the most close-in part of it and which causes thinking. Now, we're covering the subject of thinking. Now, do you see that there is a difference here? That there's a very marked difference?

An anchor point which, severely defined, is not in motion - that's theoretical, but theoretically and for our purposes so far as practical considerations are concerned, the corner of this room up here is not in motion. You see, that's a practical consideration. But your glance between one corner of this room and over to the other corner of this room is your communication with two corners of the room or the communication of one corner of the room with the other corner of the room. Follow this?

Subjective technique would be that technique which went up to and did not exceed the boundary of; certainly, feeling about it. It would be thinking about it. There's subjectiveness.

One corner of the room is the source and the other corner of the room is the receipt-point of a what? Of an attention. So there's been communications between the two corners of the room. It didn't require any volition on the part of either corner of the room. But there is always volition involved wherever you look in this universe.

Now, we're already - we're exceeding that boundary slightly. And the reason we're examining this field - it's the closest one in to the individual and it's the easiest one at which we can look, right at the present moment; we're looking at thinking. I mean, you better find out what you can about thinkingness and get some sort of a subjective reality on this, then, because we're dealing with the activity of the person within his body - again, a subjective technique.

Whether the volition was a long time ago or right now or whether or not it runs on an automaticity or not - this is beside the point. Any automaticity has a causation of one sort or another. And the causation is no different than thee. And it's not just even the same order of beingness - it's thee. And your level of communication, then, between these two corners of the room does have a double.

Furthermore, the results of subjective techniques are most markedly boundaried by this: The person knows he is better but nobody else does. All right, that's a remarkable and miserable thing, if you come to think about it.

If you said "There is a communication between one corner of the room and the other corner of the room," and you have not made a communication or dispatched a particle or given an intent between these two corners of the room, you'll still have the "prime mover unmoved" causation even though it is now running on an automaticity. You get the idea? Any interchange, then, is a communication.

In this country, this country here - I think this is the United States this morning - the fact of personal relationships is probably poorer than any other part of the globe. The United States today is much more able with MEST - much more able with MEST - than other nations. It's just at a wonderful inverted 6; real good at inverted 6. This country sneers at other nations for not being so inverted at 6.

But we don't have to have the second corner of the room replying to the first corner of the room to complete a communication. We don't have to have any meaning or reason in the communication.

America today believes it has reached its highest level of aesthetic with metal. Is this anything peculiar to this society? I just happened to remember that it hasn't changed since 1621. An artist was permitted to work with wrought iron in the seventeenth century, but if he worked with anything else they burned him or something, excommunicated him, shot him. Because it was wicked and vicious and vile to fiddle around with paint and other folderol.

So, let's just sort out this whole thing of communication because it's obvious that the wordiest and most wonderful letter which you ever received in your life just had reasons all through it, actually had no reason at all in it.

We find Paul Revere, a remarkable artist, working in copper and silver. And we find other people in the American scene working with metal. America can make metal very beautiful. It's always, then, in its culture itself; had a stick at an inverted 6.

The circuit case asks you consistently and continually, "Why did God make this universe? What was the cause of this universe? Why was it made?"

When we got the Hessians - when they disbanded those Hessian regiments after they were captured at Saratoga and were put in barracks in Boston, it was much easier just to forget about them than to pay the king for them that lent them to the British. These men were wheelwrights, blacksmiths; they were tradesmen. Remarkable country over there that had sold its artisans and tradesmen into the military.

Well, we're coming close enough to it when we say cause and effect and attention.

Almost as remarkable as modern day whereby we sell all the youth and brains of the country into the army. "Yuh-huh! Well, huh-huh, we got a president, for a -he was a general and it's all very sensible. The thing to do to get everybody up high-toned, you know, so we'll have a good civilization is take everybody when he's eighteen years of age, you know, and put him in the army so he gets well drilled."

Why? Because these things are observable, terrifically observable. Does there have to be a reason for attention? No, there doesn't have to be any reason of any kind at all for attention of any kind.

If the country doesn't fall on its face because of this idiocy, it won't be Truman's and Eisenhower's fault, believe me.

Now, if you don't think this is true, did you ever hear of a false arrest? Of course, the reason in there for the arrest is the fact that somebody has made a mistake. But actually, when we talk about an arrest, what is the reason behind an arrest? It is the impulse of life to duplicate and copy and it is the police impulse - reductio ad absurdum - of life imitating the MEST universe "having to stop something." That's all. There's reason behind it - yes, stop. So, we're very up close to the surface on reasons when we go into things like start, stop and change. And when we say, "What is the purpose behind all this?" well, you just can say "communication" and you're all set.

I tell you frankly, speaking strictly as a scientist, which I can speak as, and as a pretty good sailor - I can speak that way, too - I can tell you, confidently, that modern methods of warfare don't happen to require manpower. You don't want anything to do with manpower; they get in your road. You don't want the enemy to mobilize either because that makes some of his populace safe; it puts them in front-line trenches. If you were today to hire five thousand scientists and about five thousand hot rod kids for applicators, you could practically wipe out life on Earth, which I think is the end goal of war. You could. You just give them their head and say, "Well, let's go boys; let's figure it out," and away you'd go. The problem is not a problem of manpower.

And this might sound very wise and a circuit case can go off and figure-figure-figure and he'll come up with the right answer which is the fact that it's communication, even within his definition.

Yet, America today is striving madly with its educational programs, with every other government program, to depress the thought level to thought only. Well, let's just kind of make everybody into an automaton who thinks.

A religionist can come in on this and he can say suddenly, "Why, yes! Well, how wise! How wise! That's true. Because you see - you see, it was set up so that God could communicate with each and every one of us. Isn't that wonderful?" And he can play beautiful sadness and sweetness and light on this and he's quite happy with it. The truth of the matter is, there's not this much reason in it.

One of our great universities - they made them take the red lights off the girls' dormitory recently; and the faculty finally got rid of seven or eight of the communist professors they had there and they - they've got it pretty well straightened out - they've cut down the number of class in class there from 400 to 398; real progress - the University of California. This great educational institution has signs - down in the Los Angeles branch of it - has signs all over the place: "You're here to learn how to think."

I don't think God wants to communicate with anybody myself I'm - some people I know, and so forth - I know some of the things I have to say - I don't think he would want to communicate with me. I know an awful lot of people that, boy, he'd run if he thought he had to communicate with them.

I can show them how to fix up kids so they think. I can show them real easy how to fix up kids so they think. Just give them a lot of psychiatric electric shocks. They'll think; they won't be able to do anything but look [think] when they do that to them. Or just simply take brickbats and start hitting them. And if you hit them enough and shot at them enough and gave them enough shocks, they'd really think. It's the slow method to educate them into it. Unfortunately, I've had to do with some of the graduates of this great institution during this late slight riffle in international affairs. I found each one of them was very capable of thinking but he sure couldn't act! He couldn't even vaguely act. He couldn't get into motion; he couldn't complete a cycle of action. You'd say, "Go down and get a can of paint," and he would come back three hours later by saying he had signed in the wrong line of the requisition place or something and he was very confused and he didn't have...

So, you see, it's in essence simply an interchange. And it's quite a trick to have any space at all. And it works out very nicely for anyone if you simply explain it to them on terms of communication.

[Please note: At this point in the lecture a gap exists in the original recording. We now rejoin the class where the lecture resumes.]

But remember what communication is - communication, reductio ad absurdum.

Continuing this morning lecture.

There is some attention in any piece of MEST. It might have been - the MEST might be representing an automaticity. You see, it might have been attention set up to run it.

The toleration of motion of a nation is very poor indeed where thinkingness is its largest goal. Everybody is supposed to be thoughtful in this country and believe me, they really get thoughtful.

By the way, a wonderful button is setting up something to keep on going without attention. You double-terminal that damn thing and you'll find yourself being cursed more often and so forth. The fellow who set up this universe to run this way actually wasn't a fellow. He wanted the universe to run this way more or less because it's a good test of randomity. It makes lots of randomity.

A test of this: You will find that if you put in charge of an organization as its hiring and firing agent a person who is afraid to hurt other people, he will wind up by murdering not only them but the organization itself. In other words, this is intensely impractical as a solution - but intensely impractical!

Man versus the universe - that's a good fight. A beautiful button in this universe is "I have to have enemies. I must have enemies."

In the first place, conclusions are not reached by thinking as it is fondly believed to be thought by the public at large. People do not reach conclusions by sitting down and saying, "Now I am going to think." If they do they're going to be wrong.

You see a lot of these people running around - hate, hate hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. They're just saying, "I must have enemies." They've got to have them. They'll make them any way, shape or form.

We even have a national penchant here not to think - not to act, rather, impulsively - to think first and act later. I know of a large secret organization in this country which has as one of its mottoes: "Think twice before acting once." Well, that's a way to slow everybody down, isn't it?

Well now, that, very high on the scale, is simply, "I must have randomity. I have to have something to interchange against what I am putting out to interchange with."

Well, what are we going to do one of these days for executives? What are we going to do one of these days for somebody to build a bridge? Everybody's in the little red schoolhouse now. What the hell is going to happen with this metal down here when we no longer have somebody sufficiently - sufficiently screwball to push around one of those big trucks, like the one that just walked away out there - ten tons worth of truck!

See, so you have this problem if you get no motion without randomity. Simply moving a particle from one corner of a space to the other corner of a space is not in itself randomity. It just is moving from one corner to the other corner and it'd be very happy if all we did was move a little particle from one corner to the other corner and then move it back again and move it around into another space and then move it back again and move it around and move it back and shove it around here and there.

We have a need in this country for people of action. Every success you ever ran into anyplace was good at action and very, very poor at sitting still.

Sometime, if you want to have a good time and understand what I'm talking about, find a pool table or just take your desk and take a match. And as you sit there over the pool table or over your desk with a match, just move the match from one corner of the desk to the other corner of the desk. And then move it to another corner and then move it to the center and just go on with that for a while.

Now, it is true that education can be effective when you are dealing with essentials as how to become active though educated. As long as you are dealing with that, you're all right. As long as you're on that line, nothing bad with it.

I'm serious. You really ought to make the test so that you get the emotion. There is actually a reaction to doing that. It's always best not to predict a result but I say you ought to satisfy yourself about this.

But to sit down and become cultured by memorizing the names of 875 paintings, 662 symphonies, and to know whether to say "Oh!" or "Aw!" when looking at a famous painting... Well, you see, that method of becoming cultured will wind up in no art.

But you think you know what boredom is, well, do this for two hours. Just force yourself to do it two hours. Of course, it's not quite fair because you have a reason for doing it.

This country right now has a chance of pulling upstairs but it's doing everything it can to go downstairs. It has a wonderful opportunity because of its food supply, not because of its culture, to start pushing out across the world - a wonderful opportunity. But is it? All right.

But let me assure you that if you had two matches or two pool balls which is much better - why I introduced the pool table in the first place - you can actually spend a lot of time with two pool balls making one go around and hit the edges of the thing and bank and hit the other pool ball and billiard on it and so forth.

Subjective reality is the last one you want because it's the computation, the "only one."

You put three pool balls in or three billiard balls and you've got the fascinating game of billiards. And even if you just use your hand and you just kick the ball around and it hit the other two balls and so forth, there is a nice satisfying click-click and they roll in various directions and when you hit one, it rolls off at an angle. It never goes away exactly straight. Hm! You've got your first definition of randomity.

In America people can live in apartment houses for years and never know who lives next door. That is a result of pulled-in anchor points. Be pretty hard to figure out how anybody could manage this but they sure do.

People have trouble understanding randomity and this is the series of experiments which you make to demonstrate randomity.

People drive down highways here at a mad rate of speed. Somebody gets a flat tire, "Hell with him; he's in the road." That's not high-toned; that's real low-toned.

Your first randomity is with two particles. Now, you can take one pool ball and throw it around the banks but then immediately, every time it touches one of the banks, you have to realize that at that point it was touching another particle. To get any other action isn't an automatic characteristic of space. You wouldn't just throw a pool ball around inside a space. It would just fly out of the space which you had demarked if you weren't - because it would just go on making more space because the second it, as a particle, moved outside the plane of any of the four particles of the side, you would have a fifth particle and you'd have more space. It would become an anchor point for that space. And it would just make more space.

So, what do we find here as a change? We find a change in the people themselves. Not too long ago, it was actually possible for the people of this country to get a flat tire and be assisted bounteously. That's only about thirty years ago. Gee, you passed a car someplace, something like that, and you were just as like as not to stop, and say, "Hello. How are you? What are you going? What are you driving?" Never been introduced to this fellow.

This, by the way, is a basic game - making more space with one particle. You can make various shapes of space and so on. It becomes very interesting.

Move into a new neighborhood; people came over and asked how you were getting along. They didn't look through drawn blinds to see what furniture was being unloaded from the van. Now they don't even do that; they don't even try to find out what your furniture is like before it's moved in. This is just simply the "only one" computation keying in, keying in, keying in further and further and further and further and further.

[Note that in the following, the clearsound version has phrases carefully chopped out from the middle of some sentences where Ron is stumbling around a little bit.]

Thinkingness - resist with your anchor points; fight the MEST universe. Well, all that winds up with is thinking. And by golly, when you complement that with education and when you complement it with psychotherapy and when you get the entire goal of psychology concentrated on nothing but thinking, you've got trouble. You've got trouble in science; you've got trouble in thinking in general throughout the country. The most astonishing things occur.

All right. Basic space, by the way, I call to your attention, is

Some fellow comes across with some kind of a something or other; boy, everybody is told what to think about it. You have a fellow by the name of Gabriel Hotrod who tells everybody what to think about it, and so everybody thinks that. You go down on the corner and after a program like that, you want to know about this situation, why, you can find out about it; you'll find the same opinion you've heard over the air fifteen minutes before. This is real good. This is exterior determination but thorough.

& three particles, not eight. I beg your pardon,

Is this thinking a method of reaching a usable conclusion? No! Because what they're calling "thinking" is circuitry, and it is not a good method of reaching a usable conclusion.

- four particles, not eight. I'm giving you three sides -

I put a car once - there had been a terrific storm and a tree blew down across the road and there was electric-light lines lying all through the wet foliage of this tree and several thousand volts crackling through there. And I was going along at a fairly low speed, although the wind was still high and the street was still wet. And there was a little knoll just on the other side, a little roll in the road, a little crest there just on the other side of this big tree and a truck came booming up over that rise. I was going pretty slow, about twenty-five miles an hour. Well, there was a spot underneath this tree which was free of all the light wires, which was just the height of the car hood and so I simply inserted the car's hood underneath the tree. Didn't scratch anything. It stopped the car very thoroughly and got it out of the road of the truck.

& what I was trying to say was that space is three sided, whereas three triangled

And that was the first time I ever found out that you didn't think about anything. It suddenly occurred to me later - I went over the thing very carefully, thinking it over - and I said that's very remarkable. There wasn't a single thought that crossed my mind the whole operation. Golly, that's a relief; I said to myself. Not a single thought.

- one, two, three, four triangles is the basic space, rather than four squares.

You'll find in any spontaneous action where you've done exactly the right thing, you didn't sit around and think about it, you just acted.

& I'm having a rough time here. I was trying to go back over dimentian geometry instead of just figuring it out, and then just giving it to you by looking at it, and I finally looked at it. It would be six. That's interesting as a trick. All right.

Well, what's this? It means that when you get time into thought you have injected MEST into thought and all that MEST is going to do for you is just lie down and be apathetic. When you put time into thought you inject MEST into thought.

You just take these - this match and you move it from one corner to the other to the desk, and you'll eventually get bored. Why do you get bored? Because you can predict exactly where it's going!

Now, there's no sense in trying to take MEST out of thought when we're dealing with circuitry because that's the trouble with it; there isn't any MEST in it to a sufficient quantity. It had MEST in it and now it hasn't got the MEST in it anymore, so it's on an inverted 6. It had MEST in it and now it hasn't got any MEST in it and after that it goes onto thinking.

Now, you take two matches and by moving one against the other, you don't have enough to make much of a pattern. You can make a T or an L. But you don't have much to make a pattern with and they're not mobile. But with two pool balls you've gotten your first step of unpredictability - no predict. In other words, to have interest you must have a condition whereby there is a no-(hyphen)prediction condition.

Now, someday when you're flying around the universe amusing yourself; you'll probably want to amuse yourself with a thinking machine. I'll tell you how to make one.

Instead of getting mad at this universe, let's look at that: No-(hyphen) prediction is a very definite necessity in the field of interest.

You take a little piece of space with nothing in it and then start building around it shells of energy; you build actual shells of energy around this little space. And now get on the outside of about fifteen or twenty shells, which are concentric (all of them concentric in spheres, you see, around this little, tiny space), and shove like hell from all sides simultaneously, at a tremendous crush - pam. And because you put the energy there and because there is an aliveness to it every time it's addressed - I mean, because there is an aliveness potential to it, every time it's addressed by a piece of live energy, the live energy will behave in a certain fashion. It will behave to give back a computation. This is a thinking machine. That's all there is to it - crush! That's it.

Now, putting it this way, we've got it in terms of motion rather than in terms of thought - putting it this way, in terms of motion rather than in terms of thought.

Now after that anytime energy tries to get in through those crushed spots, it'll find itself running through hollow spots and vacuums which are distorted. And this distortion will make the energy behave so that you can feed any kind of a thought in there and it'll come out the other side with some other kind of a thought; and that's thinking.

And if you just think about this, this is obvious and you can philosophize on this, which is to say just think about it and so forth. But if you set these things up in terms of motion they become immediately visible.

Thinking is the conversion of a postulate into a reason. And this is simply done by distorting it. And when you get a distortion pattern parallel to another distortion pattern you get an agreement in thinkingness. And if everybody accepts this as reasonable, why, then you've really got it; you've really got everything you went for - the worst parts. Okay?

Now, why did two pool balls form a no-predict? That's because when you slam one pool ball against the other pool ball, it'll carom off slightly. But you can get pretty bored just throwing one pool ball against another pool ball. What you need is two pool balls. Three - two pool balls, to throw one pool ball against. And these three pool balls, then, will get into a situation where the new pool ball will itself interact all by itself against the second pool ball when either or the other is hit with the first pool ball. There's a possibility of an interaction. And that's your first automaticity.

Subjective reality is the reality one gets on a change occurring in such a compression sphere. If he can change the center of the compression sphere, he now has a subjective reality on thinkingness - a change in thinkingness. And that's what you do when you run a button; you distort or change the center of compressed space in a thinking machine.

Your first automaticity takes place, then, on a higher no-predict. In order to have interest we must have a no-predict.

It's kind of a game. If you had this desk up here covered with little ENIACs and UNIVACs and the game you'd be playing is "Let's see if we can put a powerful enough thought and hold it long enough in each one of these UNIVACs or ENIACs to cause the thought to alter." Now, we put enough pressure on these machines and enough voltage in them so we will actually get an alteration of the thinkingness - you've got subjective processing.

& I'm talking against this traffic noise, a different position of the room.

And the end goal of subjective processing is the reduction, removal and discarding of these UNIVACs and ENIACs. That's what you're trying to do, see? You want to change those to a higher level, so you want to change each one. Well, the reductio ad absurdum is you put enough juice through them so that they distort more and more and then distort less and less. And you will get your UNIVACs and ENIACs and so forth eventually melting and running away. And then you have, not only a cleared desk, but you have cleared up thinkingness.

All right. What, then, are the conditions of interest? The conditions of interest are no-predict and enough particles communicating one with the other (which is to say, hitting and clipping and going the other way) to form an automaticity. This is - I'm sorry but these two things which we condemn so hard are the first and second levels of interest. You see how that would be? You've got no-predict and then you've got automaticity.

When a person is running postulates on himself; on somebody else, he can achieve an effect anytime he wants, so long as he isn't running one of these compression balls of energy. If he's running one of these things, he's trying to change the characteristic of distortion. And his end goal and the finish of the cycle on changing it, is simply its disappearance. You see that?

You wonder why your preclear is bored sometimes, why he doesn't want any processing up above a certain point. He gets scared. He's afraid you're going to take away from him his no-predict and you're going to take away from him his conditions of automaticity.

So taking apart a thinking machine merely depends upon just taking it apart. That's all. That's all you do; you just take it apart. But the more shocks you put into it, the harder it's compressed, the more it thinks. So electric shock is not the answer in how to remove a thinking machine.

The only thing wrong with him is that he himself has become a particle and he has no volition. He doesn't have hold of one of those pool balls. He isn't objecting to the numerous other pool balls on the table. All he's objecting to is the fact that he doesn't have a chance to bat one of the pool balls.

Can a person think with a thinking machine? Well, no. You see, actually what they do is they say, "I have a thinking machine out here in front of me and what I'm going to do is run a thought in one end and get an answer out the other end. Now, let's see; if I put the answer out this end I'll be sure and get a right answer. Now I'll forget I did that. And now I'll run the thought through," and the thought comes out to the other end and you get an answer. A thinking machine - MEST thinking.

When he doesn't have a chance to bat one of the pool balls, then he is the effect of all of the no-predict and all the automaticity with which he's surrounded.

Do you know... You ever see one of these fellows who could look at this tremendous column of figures everybody has written down and then write down the answer? There is some - used to have Japanese in vaudeville, and so on, that did this. They'd write upside up and upside down with their left hand and right hand simultaneously, and then they'd do mathematical problems. They'd have six columns of figures and they would have fifty of them in the same column and the second that was presented to them, they would write down the answer. Well, you can do that. There isn't any sense in adding them up because - mostly because there's no sense in arithmetic.

And when he is the effect of the no-predict and the automaticity around, he becomes very, very unhappy. He could tell you various reasons why he's unhappy. But I am telling you the highest echelon that you'll get. It's just there's - it's utterly impossible for him to predict anything. And all the automaticity can use him for an effect.

Arithmetic is just a method of slowing down thinking process. And if you want to slow down your thinking a trifle you can get any arithmetical answer, but if you think you have to speed up and work with and inject time into your arithmetic, you're in a hell of a spot.

Well, if this is the case, then he is in a perilous situation, he considers. But the main peril is, is that he's not interested. And that's really the only peril.

Okay. Let's envision the picture of this machine. It's got a hollow spot in the center. It's got a lot of shells around it composed of old facsimiles and impacts and so forth. They'll distort, see. They'll distort a channel. And sphere after sphere after sphere, more or less, is on the outside of it. And then it's been pushed like hell and you've got a thinking machine. And let's - let's really take a look at what we're running because that's what it looks like when you get outside and take a look at it.

So, there is a, what we might call, a critical point on a case or any case. And this critical point is that point at which the preclear considers - you've got level of tolerance of randomity, it's in the Axioms, look it up in the Axioms there. Everybody has got a level of tolerance of randomity.

Now, you feed it - a little current into it, a little life energy, a little life current here into one side of it with a little postulate and it'll go around and around - zoom! zung! zung! zum! And some of these are real tricky.

Randomity is the introduction of no-predict and automaticity into the motions of particles in a space or in many spaces. See? It's a simplicity itself.

The slowest one I ever saw was nine years! The answer turned up nine years after the question. But your Q and A on such a thing ought to be instantaneous and every time you introduce MEST into it, it gets less instantaneous. This is just a problem in Q and A; a thinking machine is something that keeps the answer from being the thing. See? We take a coin and we face the coin up one side as the question. The answer to it, of course, is that it's a coin; there isn't any further answer to it.

Now, his tolerance is merely his consideration.

But now we address a thinking machine to this problem, and it says, "Let's see now, a coin? A coin is a unit of exchange. And it goes all through the society and it does this and it does that. It's made by the US Government. The government is empowered to issue money, and so on and so on”. Well, about - oh, God. If you wanted to read something about - just get the word coin down at the local library and you'll see there's a lot of books on the subject. Those are just thinkingnesses.

Now, you'll find men are postulating the weirdest kind of an impossible situation with regard to randomity and no-predict. They say, "I want to get some farm with some orange groves and sit down and just let the oranges grow and that will be all I have to do."

Well, that's all very fascinating. But the point is, is it's an activity on the part of some other group than yourself or part of your own group to get you to use mutual anchor points; that's all a coin is. You just use these mutual anchor points. And if you're using mutual anchor points, of course, you consider that you're equal; and democracy has succeeded.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. Uh-uh. Nunca, nunca! Those oranges are being put out automatically by the trees. And there's probably not going to be enough wind around to even bother them. His goal is to do that. But he would be very, very upset indeed if there weren't a few worms; if there wasn't a little wind; if there wasn't a drought and a fight with the irrigation company. You see? These things have to be. If they aren't, he'll go.

There have been very few military aristocracies which have ever used coins - very few. Military aristocracy is different than a military dictatorship - military aristocracy.

But if he gets to a point where the irrigation company is always right and the worms are always victorious, he is immediately in a situation where we have him the effect of the no-predict and the automaticity. Now, you see that?

Some of the old castles on the knolls in France tell you this story very well. The minute the guy would sit down - good old forte main, you know - and he'd say, "Well, we're protecting all the peasants around here and that's why you are bringing up all your produce to us." The peasants wouldn't and they'd get a little revolt or something of the sort, so he'd just put on a few more recalcitrants as men-at-arms and the provisions would roll up to the top of the hill, and the wine would roll up to the top of the hill. And it was defying gravity but certainly the military aristocracy was seldom defied, except by another military aristocracy. Here was the use of force in the extraction of gain. They didn't have coins.

So, what's the - what's the criteria here?

Somebody invented coins about the time of the Crusades and said you had to have gold to take a passage across the Mediterranean; you had to have gold to pay ransoms. It ruined all the military aristocracies of Europe. They found out that it didn't matter how many moneylenders you shot, hacked, burned, killed, hung, people still went on with this stuff; because the peasants fell for it. They had - all had mutual anchor points already - all kinds of mutual anchor points. Communal state: everybody owned the pig - a mutual anchor point - so it was very easy to say to them, "Well now, you see that little, little, tiny piece of copper; well, that's a pig. Huh." Interesting, but it's also a bushel of wheat. Well, that's very interesting but it is also a new suit. Peasants were confused. They'd fall for this. Obviously, to them everything was A A A A anyhow so a coin could buy anything, see? You'd say a new - a new suit made out of silk is two of these things. Well, they could make a mistake between quantity and quality, and so on.

He doesn't want too much self-determinism, which is to say, self-determinism is the right to push one of the balls that will interact amongst the other billiard balls - that's all. That's self-determinism. That's the right to throw this billiard ball into the midst of other billiard balls or at least, when a billiard ball is rolling along, to alter its direction slightly; but to predict you are going to alter its direction and which way.

You look at this stuff - there is nothing but a bundle of errors. If you start - because all the reason under God's green earth has been applied to this. If you want to know about reason, look at money.

Now, if you depend exclusively upon the MEST universe to gain that effect for you, you have again entered an automaticity which is too great.

You go down here to the local library and you'll find Alexander Hamilton on the subject of banking. This is the most idiotic thing you ever heard of. The United States Government in its Constitution was very well authorized and extremely well authorized and very pleasantly authorized to issue its own currency. And this joker by the name of Hamilton, up to the day of his "regretted" demise, kept explaining to the government how the government couldn't have any credit unless it was in debt and why all his buddies up around New York ought to be the fellows that held the debt. And that this was much better and so they defied the Constitution and continue to do so until today by the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States which has no connection with the government; it is a private bank. Everybody thinks it's a government bank; it's not. Your money has got Federal Reserve Bank all over it. That's not money; that's a private issue. But there are silver certificates and stamps, so on; these are money as far as the government issuing and obeying the law which everybody agreed on.

You say that a rifle bullet coming in through the window and hitting a cotton bale, here, will stop. And it will stop exactly so many umph-umphs deep into the cotton bale. And it will stop at a certain heat. And you know all this. And already there's the cotton bale sitting there. And you don't pull the trigger on the rifle bullet. And just - you know any rifle bullet that comes in through that window is going to hit. You've entered an automaticity in, real heavy There's nothing ever going to go wrong with that cotton bale. It's just sitting there. See?

The rest of this stuff is spewed out of the printing presses and sent up to New York to the Federal Reserve Bank with their name on it, and so forth, and it becomes legal currency. How they managed that in the first place is nothing but the most marvelous piece of insanity you ever heard of.

And you, by the way, I'm sure would not sit there for many hours, many days, many years, looking at that cotton bale. It won't hold your interest because the MEST universe itself by a basic law inherent in the universe is doing your stopping for you. And it's always going to stop the bullets and it's always going to stop in exactly that fashion and you know this will keep on happening forever. And this is real dull, isn't it? Real dull. It's not interesting.

All right, up there at the Federal Reserve Bank, how do they get the government to issue money? Well, it runs something like this: They have a big ledger, see, and they write down one billion dollars in the ledger and then they write down to the government, "We've just written one billion dollars down in our ledger," so the government sends them up a billion dollars' worth of bonds. Then they buy these bonds off the government and then the Federal Reserve Bank, having gotten these bonds off the government, you see, can then issue a billion dollars' worth of currency. So they issue the billion dollars' worth of currency and there it goes and it's all printed by the government and the government sends it a small printing bill.

You're up against again a no-difficulty in predicting. You're up against the other thing: a complete predict.

I think the only interchange in it is the five or six hundred dollars it takes to print a billion dollars' worth of currency. I don't know who puts that up but it's probably put up by putting it down in the ledger too. You look in vain to find this money represent anything but a figure in a ledger put down by some clerk.

So a complete predict and a complete automaticity or a no-automaticity and a no-predict are amongst them, all undesirable.

But here we're getting - people are getting shot for this stuff! People will sweat their guts out building this and that and something else just to get ahold of this stuff! A woman will sell her virtue for this stuff! Wonderful! Just wonderful stuff and yet we can't find it coming from anyplace except somebody writing down a figure in a ledger and saying to the government, "Well, you've now got to issue us bonds."

So, let's get these things arranged better. No-predict goes with automaticity, which is working against one, and complete predict working with no automaticity make setups. And you work these things around and you push these factors around into various shapes and you can get a tremendous number of answers. In fact, you can get all the answers there are.

Well, how this outfit could write it down in the ledger and tell the government to issue it bonds, I don't know, because this outfit doesn't have any hoods, or any gunmen or any soldiers. So, it must be that the government must be running by a bunch of people who have an agreement with these people up there which is kind of behind the scenes. "Look, every time you write that billion bucks down, why, slide a few dollars sideways this direction and we'll be all set. Ah-ha!"

You must have the right to put out and stop the particle or change its course, change the course of particles. You must have the right to do that. And you must also have the right not to have it do that all the time.

We've disenfranchised the American people from the right of making money. So, this puts the control of the country someplace where it's not supposed to be but this is very valuable stuff. But when - you get how all this reason - it's not reasonable. If you really look at the backbone of money, you won't find anything reasonable about it.

And when the MEST universe really gets pinned down and one of these super-machine-age societies is really rolling, boy! It has taken away from you your inheritance from God himself. You're surrounded by full automaticity. You know, after you get a house fully automatic-oh, but fully automatic-it's automatic at every hand. It does all the heating and it does the water softening and it does the air conditioning and it does the cooking and the washing of the dishes. And it does all of these things automatically. It draws your bath and pulls down the sheets. It doesn't even pull down the sheets - it just turns on the thermostat exactly right in the blankets. Oh, boy! You got this house all set and then you put somebody to live in there, see?

The only thing about deflation and inflation, they discovered during the war, is when a country has too many goods and too little money it has deflation. When a country has too few goods and too much money you have inflation.

Will you please ask me why? Why don't you just make a doll, then, that is automatically running continually and forever and just have the doll in the house? And then go off someplace with the satisfaction that you've put together a fully automatic arrangement which fully automatically takes care of a fully automatic being. And you've done it. And you are no longer interested in it.

Sounds awful simple to me. A country which has inflated currency just better make some more goods or it better take some money out of circulation. That's easy to do. If it was created by writing a figure in a ledger sheet, it is sure easy to take it out of circulation; you just erase it.

I think God left sometime back. He just shoved off. He couldn't take it. This universe is really in a beautifully automatic condition.

And as far as deflation is concerned, all the government has to do with deflation throughout the whole thing, all the government has to do with a deflate is simply print some more money. Of course, if then - if somebody had to put it down in the ledger in the first place before they could print it that would leave the government deeply in d..

So, when you get too much automaticity and too much prediction, your interest alike fails.

I see I'm looking at a fellow here by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt; he was a great man. By the way, I'll have to tell you about cripples someday. Anyway.

When you get a complete no-predict and no-automaticity, you fail. See? See what aberration is? Aberration would be a complete no-predict on some subject in some place of the case - a complete no-predict and a no-automaticity. See why that would be?

When they really got going, they got the economics so fouled up that nobody can untangle them. Why can't anybody untangle them? Well, that's because they've all gone through a process of reason or evolution. Well, nobody can untangle all of this, because it's all in the past.

There'd be two things wrong with a case then: Either the case had everything all nailed down so beautifully, so gorgeously, that there was nothing else to be done for it or about it, or, on the other side, had everything agin him. Because if nothing is automatic for him, he has no opponent or he has to do it all himself which is the same thing. And if it's a complete no-predict - if he can never tell which way anything is going or even begins to approach the theoretical absolute of never tell which way something is going - oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, this is a real, real dumb deal.

Let me ask you something: Did it ever exist? Did it ever exist? No, not actually. Masses of energy filtering through various reasons and giving parts and changes of form. Well, it's all right. You can do that to a certain degree and you'll get a certain amount of randomity. But when you push it too hard, its falsity shows up and you start getting minus randomity, immediately.

So, what's our problem, Mr. Anthony? Our problem is a very simple one. Any case that is in trouble is somewhere out of the area of what he considers optimum randomity for him. You can't tell exactly what optimum randomity is for a case because it will vary from case to case. That fortunately is a variable. It's really the one variable in the problem. I mean, this is real grim to have just this.

You start depending on this thing called reason and it just doesn't give you randomity. Up to a certain point, introducing reasons into something is simply injecting arbitrary stops in games. That's all. That's what reason is. It's just a method of limiting play so that there can be two or more sides to a play; and that's what the first entrance into reason is.

So, what - what would you do? What would be your basic theoretical therapy? Basic theoretical therapy is just merely to change the level of randomity of a case. Give him more or less automaticity, more or less prediction than he now has.

Now, the next entrance into reason is forgetting some of the rules that have been injected in the game. Now, if you can substitute for this with superstition, you can take the phases of the moon and say whether or not they're going to do the future for you or something; but it gets kind of unreasonable from there on down.

I think probably the sickest person you would ever meet is one who had a total prediction. That would be the sickest person you'd ever run into. And yet you don't think of that ordinarily. As we process here, you don't think of that as being an undesirable state, because we're all below the level. We're too close to no-predict. We're closer to no-predict than we are to complete predict.

It's marvelous that anybody can proceed at all using what is called logic or reasons; it's just marvelous that anybody can proceed doing that. It certainly does speak well for a man's ability to postulate and unpostulate that he can make thinking machines work. He's got to keep putting that answer on one side of the machine and feeding the question to the other side of the machine, and so on. And why he wants that arbitrary machine sitting there, we're not quite sure because he doesn't use it, except to play with.

Male voice: It would have to be a level of total predict with the additional postulate: There's only one universe to predict in.

The scientist looking at this stuff and taking it apart and putting it back together again is just playing a game. Everybody teaches this game as something very serious and threatens you with mayhem, and so forth, if you flunk some science course.

That's right, of course. But what you've got to do in any case is take a look at it - if you're looking for basic aberration - just take a look at it and size it up to this degree.

The truth of the matter is, I had to unlearn everything I ever knew about science in order to get going on the subject of science - to find out something about it. Because science is a search for data.

For God's sakes that is why people in Dianetics and Scientology are actually lousy preclears. You should understand that instantly. They're just terrible preclears. For all the damning and howling which I do occasionally about auditors and auditing and so forth, we're not up against a tough problem here. That damning and howling is just adding some randomity into the picture.

Data is the substance of a thinking machine. Data has no existence except a flock of postulates. Now, you get this data all massed up in one lump and shoved together and crushed down - now, somebody starts to do some research with his mind and oh, boy!

It becomes very obvious why, then, a case which is deeply interested in the problems of epistemology - one person in Dianetics and Scientology will be tremendously interested in epistemology. He's just thinking too hard about knowledge and so forth. But actually, boy, he really gets revved up just on the subject of thinking. It in itself is a randomity. See? He's thinking about it without looking at it and all he would have to do is look at it and, gee-whiz, if he just looked at it, why, it would blow up on him as a - as an epistemological problem! He has to kind of keep from looking at it.

There's a central postulate sitting in there. One of the rules of the game is you mustn't fool around with the rules of the game or the thinking machine. You mustn't fool around with this because just like if you yanked the curtains back on any altar, you'd find there was nothing on its platform. Really, there's nothing on its platform; there's a piece of MEST but it doesn't have any life.

He's using his preclears and himself for basic randomity. There's absolutely no reason why he shouldn't. See? He should, but he makes a lousy preclear because he immediately starts playing a game with his auditor. He knows the answers and so he's - although he's below optimum randomity - you can't be in Dianetics and Scientology very long or even get audited very long in a coffee shop. Coffee shop auditors, even those today, can do such things as take away these cruel and punishing chronic somatics. They can. They blow up. So nobody who is really working with the field is in any real trouble - not today. That was true two or three years ago but not now. They're not in any real trouble.

The mystery: The most mysterious thing about any mystery is that there's no mystery. The secret - the secret of the MEST universe is that there is no secret. The secret of the preclear is that he has no secret.

Their real trouble is the fact that they have fixed upon and made a postulate about their future randomity. Their future randomity has to do with their own case and the cases of those around them. They don't want these things solved. If you solve these things you'd get a predict.

You start to run this concept and he gets this awful foolish feeling of very - poof! - very intense!

You'll find every once in a while an auditor getting quite frightened at the idea of solving a case. He knows that he can get a complete predict. He could get a complete predict with a case. He wouldn't even consider it desirable or super-desirable. Therefore, he has a tendency to go toward the cases that are in the most trouble. These, for him, furnish the most randomity.

"Now, let's run the fact that you have no secrets. Now that you have secrets; that you have no secrets." And boy he can really thrash up some there for a little while and all of a sudden the machine he has been fooling himself with starts to fold up on him. And the second this machine starts to fold up, he gets in very bad order. And he starts to feel embarrassed and he'll start to squirm. He didn't have any sex guilt peccadilloes when he was a small boy at all.

Now, fortunately we have a great big universe here which in itself was set up to provide an enormous amount of randomity. And fortunately you get somebody up into motion - the tolerance motion of this universe - and he can actually find it; high level of randomity. So, let's realize that this condition of mind, that attacking the problem of attacking the case as a randomity in the field of Scientology is intensely spurious. That's very bad. That's quite, quite bad simply because there is so doggone much randomity available which is not yet perceived.

Now, psychotherapy in the past has followed this through slavishly. And you, whether you like it or not, have inherited from the field of psychotherapy, whether you ever studied psychotherapy formally or not, you inherit this from the society and the stories. During the last twenty, twenty-five years, writing has more or less gone down into apathy and Freudian psychoanalysis is the keynote used by authors for characterization of characters; the libido theory is carrying through. Well, it makes good plotting because people are interested in it - sensation.

Did you ever really get excited about organizing a party? Did you ever get real excited about, oh, I don't know, really, really violently excited about some terrific project or other in its original and new stages? Did you ever get that feeling you can recall of "Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!" See? Zing, zing, zing, zing!

But as far as psychotherapy is concerned, in the past it dealt with subjective material. Once in a while somebody dashed up and got something like psychodrama going. That's all right; it's all right; it was at least an effort. But then, by God, he had to work out the reason why with psychodrama. See, psychodrama would've worked if they'd just omitted the reason why.

Well, optimum randomity for this universe is well above that point. Man is running way, way, way, way below the normal. Man is running so close to a no-predict complete automaticity again him that he's having a hell of a time for himself.

People don't talk now, very well, in this society really because they're afraid their words will betray them; they have been taught by their literature, by movies, by examples on every hand, that their words may betray them.

And every time these condemned societies build a little more automatic car, they seek to add to the happiness of all of us, you see. And gee, it just bogs somebody down a little further. He's got to have this car and it's got to do all these things. It's very nice to free up all these hours for him, but as the Chinese said, "He saved two minutes on the trip, but what did he do with them?" The only thing he can do with these two minutes is simply get two minutes more of some other kind of randomity.

Psychology and Freud's associative word plays have reduced this - general semantics: done the same thing - that if you utter a word it means that you're masking another word. You know? If you use a certain concatenation of words, you will find out that this concatenation of words may betray the fact that when you were a little boy or a little girl - well, really.

When you've wiped the whole society out and you've got safety campaigns on every hand and side; when you have cops on every street corner; when you can't bump anybody off - actually you don't even dare hit anybody in this society - boy, they're - just got it reduced down and I guess they are trying to make a lot of new particles, is about as near as you can figure. They just must be trying to make a lot of new particles which themselves could be pushed around. And that becomes very grim.

Well, we ran this on John yesterday; I was just saying, "A word will betray you." And he just suddenly decided, "Well, no. It won't betray me." Of course, that's the easiest thing in the world to decide because it's the blunt truth.

It, by the way, is no-it's no accident that there are less people in Scientology than there were in Dianetics. The less isn't very much, but it's there. It's because we're really pulling away from the level of motion of the rest of the society. We're pulling away from their level of tolerance.

But the society at large gets people worried about this. The first thing wrong with your preclear: He's afraid his words, appearance and action will betray him; he's afraid of this.

They've got an educated tolerance level. They know that cars should be driven, really, at 35 miles an hour. They feel comfortable at 35 miles an hour. They do not feel comfortable at 180. They're not at all comfortable. And yet randomity for an automobile would be about 110. That's good randomity. You're liable to hit anything. And you wouldn't quite predict which side of the road you would be on because of the structure of the automobiles to hand. And you wouldn't be able to predict a lot of things about it. So you've entered a bunch of no-predict.

Fear of fear is your primary setup. A man is afraid of being afraid. He is not afraid. Get the difference. A man is never afraid. Nobody is ever afraid from one corner of the universe to the other. A man is afraid of being afraid.

When you've got a car going down the road at 35 miles an hour, complete, new, good tires, excellent condition-nothing wrong with it, I'm afraid that you get into this strata of boredom. In fact, drivers have been known to go to sleep at a wheel in such cars.

The only thing wrong with thinking is that it is about thinking.

What's it got to do with communication? You want to change the communication level of your preclear is what you are trying to do. Communication level is simply his ability to move particles or move as a particle from one part of space to another part of space. So it's basically motion, isn't it? You're trying to increase his motion.

You actually, back on the track, have, with malice aforethought, designed thinking machines. And your preclears have actually built thinking machines to which they are now the effect. They've created the thinking machine and they are now the effect of the thing they created. And that is the second law of magic: Don't get hoist by your own petard; do not become the effect of your own cause.

Well, if you can just move him from one part of space to the other part of space and demonstrate that he can do this and demonstrate it often and conclusively and convincingly to him, believe me, his level of motion and his level of communication are going to come up!

Now, as a result, your preclear, subjectively, is floundering around in the midst of a thinking machine.

The reason he doesn't move out of his head is because he's got too much no-predict and too much automaticity. It's all being done for him. He has terrific dependencies on all sorts of things. He's got dependency on the body. He's got dependency on the MEST universe to hold out anchor points. He's got dependency on all kinds of things. Basically, he's got dependency on the MEST universe to hold out his anchor points for him; he doesn't have to hold out any anchor points.

How do you build a thinking machine? You take a little space and you take some shells of energy, and you go crush! And when you get it real compact, you've got a thinking machine. And when you put a little energy in one side of it, it'll wander through and it'll hit this and it'll hit that and it'll come out. Now, these are very complex. The whole universe will do this.

Fellows by the way-cases will crack just on this: "Do you know that you don't have to hold out all the anchor points there are around you?"

When you take a picture of the universe around you and get a facsimile, you are actually complementing part of this thinking process because all the objects you see are designed from some effort to distort truth so as to get a form.

And the fellow says, "What are you talking about?"

There is such a thing as beauty; there is. But where facsimiles are taken of the environment so as to prevent something in the future, you get each facsimile based upon a falsity of reason. And the answer to the facsimile is the facsimile; it's not the words in the facsimile. It's not the perceptions or the colors; it's just the facsimile, that's all.

You say, "Well, compare one arm of the chair with the other arm of the chair." You watch him, he'll be like a bird dog, like a pointer. He'll look at that chair comparing one arm with the other arm. And you move over to a bookcase and you say, "Compare one corner of the bookcase with the other corner of the bookcase." He'll look at that and he'll compare those two things. "Now, get the slight differences between them," you say. And he'll take his attention off of that carefully And they look over to the window and you compare one corner of the window to the other. He'll take his attention off of that a little less carefully. And he'll look back at these things every once in a while.

You take a picture of an aberrated environment, you've got a picture that is an aberrated picture - naturally - you couldn't do otherwise. So when you take a bunch of these aberrated pictures and start piling them up on top of the thinking machine, why, for heaven's sakes, everything starts going yap-yap and yow-yow and you get people's - people's heads full of talking voices and you get - oh, you get the most marvelous - well I think that a thetan standing outside of one of these things early on the track must have been utterly fascinated!

Well, you'll get cases at this level and you want to know what you are looking at. That guy thinks that he is holding apart these two corners himself He doesn't realize that it will be done for him. He's got his own universe and the MEST universe completely, completely coincided, you see, too much so that he still thinks he is in his own universe or has to be and he hasn't differentiated between his own universe and the MEST universe.

Well, how do you get this differentiation across? Very indirectly. He finds out all of a sudden, usually, and then the process, by the way, becomes useless when he is completely convinced of this: That that corner of that desk and that corner of that desk-table are going to remain apart whether he puts his attention on them or not. Those two particles are going to stay in position.

The factor of surprise - a fellow is always trying to surprise himself with what he'll find out. But one of the best ways to do this... You know, you don't have any future unless it surprises you. If you can predict your future, you're on what I was talking about yesterday; you're on a total predict and that's no fun at all.

In other-in other words, he-you are showing him that the MEST universe is nailed down and that space is made that way and that the space will stay space.

It's when the fellow falls off of this level of total predict and goes down toward a no-predict that he starts getting into trouble. He goes too far toward no-predict, now he's into plus randomity.

He isn't sure that the MEST universe won't collapse. He has gotten to that point.

Okay.

Now, let's look at communication lag and let's look at this very carefully. Your case which is in a level of "be a body" has bought large quantities of automaticity. Everything is being done for him through the body. Emotion is being made for him. And everything is being done for the body by automatic gimmicks out through the society. See, we've got this automaticity set up.

What are you trying to take apart with subjective stuff? I've been talking a lot here about that. Remember, we've been talking about subjective processing; you're processing a thinking machine.

But we have factors around him whereby he is educated to believe everything should be ethical and good and sweet and noble. The school does a good job on this. I mean, the . . . And the fiction of the country-a writer can't sell reality. He can't sell this universe. He's got to sell a terrifically fictionized version.

Now, if you could just envision it as a box which has been pushed together so as to make it very compressed, so it won't have very much space, so there will be strange pressure areas and so on, and so it itself; when restimulated with a little energy, will then distort the energy; you realize that that is a thinking machine. And if you want to test out whether or not that's a thinking machine, you'll find out that you will understand about everything there is to know about subjective processing.

The stories in Collier's magazine compare with when knighthood was in flower-real sweet. It's all real sweet. Heroes are heroes and they're honest and they are noble. And the women are usually-they have become less so in fiction lately-but they're usually virgins, and so on. I mean, it's got no bearing on reality at all.

What the hell is the idea of standing in the middle of the machine thinking? All right, what's the idea of going on running a machine? The only trouble with a preclear is he has run these machines until he's slavishly dependent upon the machine and he thinks he's in the center of the machine.

And we take this kid who is supereducated by the movies, by fiction and particularly by his school which taught him he must be honest, he must be kind, he must be merciful, he must be all these things, he must be, you see, terrific restrictions, and not to be strong and not to use force. That's what everybody's got everything convinced with.

He isn't in the center of the machine. Everybody told him to be thoughtful, that he must think, he must think twice before speaking once. He's been told that he must figure everything out; he has no choice but to figure everything out and so he remains in the center of the machine.

You can't have any randomity before you use-unless you're willing to use a little force. What's force? Force is just a change of a particle from one corner of the room to the other corner of the room or one corner of the universe to another corner of the universe. And that's what force is.

And with that, this morning, I am going to give you the most vicious process I know on subjective processing. I want you to run it on cases, particularly the cases that have more occlusion than brightness.

And you say to somebody, "You mustn't use any force," and by this you may mean one thing but he interprets it to the fact that he mustn't use strength.

I hope, by the way, that some of you made the test of the emanation of the rays and stopping them. Did you make that test yesterday?

Just try and build a bridge sometime without using any force. Hah! It would be an interesting thing. A fellow would walk a tightrope of thought from one corner of the chasm to the other corner of the chasm. Well, the last time I saw anybody try to do this he fell in.

Male voice: Yes.

So, the main difficulty we have then with your preclear is the fact he's got a no-predict on this level: He can't tell what people are going to say to him or otherwise because he's been sold, first, on certain conditions in the society which aren't true and then having come out of that educational period, is abruptly confronted with the fact that the universe runs some other way. And he's been taught in this fashion. And then he experiences in another fashion. And his education being intensely artificial does not then permit him to predict his fate.

Did you find it amusing?

Therefore, you find fellows who leave school in the third grade and can't read, very often being fabulously successful in the society and very happy and extremely sane. It isn't how much they've studied. It isn't how much time they've sat in a chair or in a schoolroom. It's just the fact that what they've been taught is false! This is another method of entering a no-predict.

Male voice: Yeah. Amusing.

You tell the fellow, "Well, the best way to be admired is to crawl around the floor and say, ‘Gah-gah, goo-goo-goo' and be naked and don't control toilet activities." This is the way to be admired. Obviously.

You didn't like it?

And then, then you teach him that this is all frowned on. Well, that's what happens to every kid. He goes through these stages. All of a sudden they start toilet training him and he finds out that's not good, that's not good at all. That's not admired.

Male voice: I ran it on somebody else.

Education could be said to be a superevaluation of what will be admired. In other words, what will vanquish force. Well, how do you get the force that's opposing you vanquished? See, it gets very simple if you look at it.

Yeah. And did they find it amusing?

Education enters a no-predict by teaching a fellow one method of prediction and then letting him experience in quite another series of randomities.

Male voice: Yeah.

Now, here is a better example of that. You take your billiard ball and you teach a fellow very carefully that all these billiard balls are resilient. They bounce, you know? And he throws his billiard ball down the billiard table and it hits the other billiard ball and it bounces and they go crack. And they spring apart beautifully and ably and they bank against good beautiful rubber cushions, you see. And they come back together again-crack-crack-and there's lots of motion. It's all so smooth, so-so nice.

You just want to get some guy aware of the fact that that's what he's doing. He's sending out mock-ups all the time, he thinks, because the MEST universe makes up mock-ups all the time by reflecting, that's all.

And then you say, "Now that we've trained you to do this, now you know all there is to know about that. Now, there's your billiard table over there."

All right, let's take this subjective process. It's called Perimeter Processing and its keynote is: You can't take a machine apart by sitting in the middle of it.

And he goes over to this billiard table and of course he finds one billiard ball is made out of cast lead and the other two are made out of putty. And one bank of the table - one bank is made out of steel and the other bank is made out of cotton. And the first time he throws that ball down there something goes squash! He didn't learn that. And he sinks into an apathy. You see how you'd do this?

Do you notice that a man trapped in a cave has to be rescued by picks and shovels from the outside? I give you that as the very, very observable: Fellow trapped in a cave has to be dug out. And this process digs the preclear out.

Now, the funny part of it is (and this is quite heartening to realize) if you had given him his own pool table in the first place and said, "All right. This is your pool table. You're going to form randomity with this thing," why, he would have made these basic errors and he, right away, without any experience, he would've said, "That's the way a pool table acts. Putty and steel and you have to kind of watch out for it." And even if you fixed it up so that every other game or every few games, why, you switched the character of the banks and gave him two lead balls to hit and a putty ball to throw with - if you did this to him a few times, he would merely form the opinion that he was up against a situation which was altering and that there was a certain amount of no-predict in it.

Let's say the preclear is in a cave, or in a cage, which is the center of the thinking machine. Now, the thinking machine is a sort of a mountain and this shows the preclear how he can take down the mountain and walk out of the machine. He really isn't in the machine but he's so convinced!

But if you've taught him that there is a complete predict, and then you lowered the level of predict on him, even slightly, he has a tendency to drop down Tone Scale.

All right. Yesterday, we talked about the inverted dynamics. Let's look at these inverted dynamics and see them for what they are: It's the extension in terms of distance into the environment. That is the dynamics; the dynamics are extension in terms of distance into the environment.

Actually, you could train somebody so that the pool balls would shift without warning in character so that you could never tell which pool ball was going to be made out of putty, which one out of lead and which bank was going to be steel and which one was going to be cotton, and what do you know? He'd say, "Well, this is the way pool tables are!" and he would establish it at his own level as the randomity which he would have to embrace. And he would go ahead and embrace the randomity because he hasn't been convinced!

Eight is furthest away. Now, let's take a series of concentric shells. And these concentric shells go from the outside shell to the inside shell and you can consider that there are eight shells. And the biggest shell outside (this is just for description only) would be called the eighth dynamic. And the next shell inside that would be the seventh dynamic. And the next shell inside that would be the sixth, fifth, fourth, third, two, one. We'll just consider that.

What he's convinced of now is, "My God! Is there an awful lot of randomity here! There's no automaticity. I have to do practically everything there is done on this table! After I've hit the putty ball, I have to reach down and put it back in shape again," and so forth. He has to do everything on the table. There isn't an automatic resilience which brings it out into a sphere as the case with another ball.

A person goes as far into the environment as he is well-off on the dynamics. It is a problem of distance; it is not a problem of subjective reason. A fellow doesn't inhabit the rest of the universe because he's worried about God. He can't inhabit parts of the universe because God occupies all space.

You see how simple it gets when you take a good solid look at what randomity is, what prediction is and what education is.

Now, we get down to seven: Spirits occupy some space.

Now, you take a fictionized society and we know in this that "all communists are bad." We know they are all bad. And then we send this guy to Russia. And we get a book of dull, surprised amazement, such as that written by the late Wendell Willkie called One World.

Now, we get down to six: Well, there's anchor points out there that don't belong to us. See, they're somebody else's anchor points that's put up in some fashion that's very strange and peculiar.

It startled him to find there was a similarity between Russians and Americans. And he completely missed all the finer points, merely because he'd been supereducated into the idea that Russians were beasts. You see? And Russians aren't quite beasts. So he just omits the "aren't quite" in their own civilization and he goes all out on the other side of the fence and they're saints. And so, you - well, practically - "They were just American businessmen handling their economics in some other fashion," if I remember it correctly. A commissar was just like anybody else that you find in a factory management position. There was - of course, he was under a little more pressure: If he didn't make the town run - if I remember the quote from many years ago - if he didn't make this town run well, turn in his quota, he'd be liquidated. Which meant according to Willkie, well, he'd be fired or maybe even shot as an extremity. But he knew this was what would happen to him and it was all routine and just like in Keokuk, Iowa!

And then you get down to the fifth dynamic and you've got the computation, "Well, actually all these bodies all over the universe are just animals," and so on and they're something else, something else.

You see, he was trying to do a predict on the Russian scene against his other level but he had been told that you couldn't predict this and he'd found out a level of comparison where he could and so he was real proud and so that made the Russians good. Perfectly good line of logic, you see, except it doesn't happen to form a prediction level for anybody else.

Now, let's get down to the fourth and you say, "Well, man is a certain kind of an animal on this planet, and so on, and he's sort of spiritual and he's this way and he's that..." Lots of reason in it.

All right. What's this - what's this lead to then? It leads to the fact that unless you've torn up some of the convictions of your pc with regard to his ability to move and make move - you know this "live and let live"? To hell with that; that's apathy. What we want is move and make move!

Now we get down to the third: "I belong to a group who is part of man, but I can't take part in the activities of man; I can only take part in the activities of the group."

"Stop and make stop" is the game the cops play. But it becomes a very dull game when nobody's moving. You know, playing cop is a - playing cops and robbers is a very interesting game. Little kids play this game. But playing cop depends upon there being criminals. And if the cops get too thorough on the thing it all becomes automatic. The fingerprints find the man, the - everything else. And the educational system prevents him from stepping out of line and so forth.

Second dynamic: "I have to go into the future. I can't stay here in the present."

And I'll bet you - you know, when I say, "I'll bet you," I know cops quite well. I've sat around with cops and actually detected these long, drawn-out sighs on the subject of "There ain't no crime - no crime." I've seen cops training, training, training to fight criminals, you see, and there's no criminals. This is a hell of a note.

And the first dynamic - we're talking about inversions, you see - it's -he's all the way in.

It's like telling this guy that, boy, this is, you've been trained, you know, and by fiction, they believe that there's nothing in that pool table, you see there. They've got a pool ball which is intensely subjectable to pain. And they're going to throw this ball around against balls that are made out of prickly pear spines and this is the life they're taught. And then they get to the pool table, see, and all they can find to hit is just empty space. And people have got them fighting nothing. There is no randomity there. Cops go kind of psycho because their efficiency has reduced their own level of randomity. They are still playing the game hard. That's what happens in any game. Somebody starts playing the game real hard to win! I don't care what you define win as. Win is just hitting a couple of the balls, see. And predicting them sometimes a little bit. And that's winning.

Now, that was going down the cone from the top. See? "God occupies an awful lot of the universe, so I can't occupy it." He loses his eighth, then he loses his seventh, then he loses his sixth, fifth, fourth, three, two, one. Now we start the opposite direction.

And so, pang, down goes the cop against the table of crime and he simply swamps up all the other balls and there's no balls on the table which leaves him nothing to fight - he wins. He predicts them so well that he vanquishes them and he gets better and better on his prediction.

"Well, I have to go up into the future with sex. I'm being forced to, but inhibited from, going into this sensation called sex and I really can't have it."

I think people who play expert pool must be terribly bored with the game. Willie Hoppe, when he shot that cue ball down into the - in pool - and shot it down into the triangle of balls and pocketed this one and that one and the other one and the other one and always pocketed them and so forth - well, he would get some admiration for this, but if he were - that's introducing another - another factor for his interest.

And then we drop into the third dynamic.

But as far as they were to go, if you were to put him all by himself in a house someplace with a pool table and he had nothing to do but that - uh-uh. His randomity comes about with showing somebody else how to do it and then their tremendous amazement and his interest that they can't. That's his randomity; it's exterior to the game.

And what are we getting here? We're getting the fellow being forced to be bigger than he is. Now he has a form and this form is now being blown up and expanded like somebody shoved an air hose down his throat. And now he's finally forced - he's forced to be number one, then he's inhibited from being number one, now he's forced - as we go down the inverted cones - forced to be two. He has just got to have sex, see, rrrh-rrrh!

So, what are we trying to do with a preclear? Well, look at the shape he's in. He's either in too damned much randomity for him; he's fighting on too many fronts in life or he isn't fighting on enough fronts.

And then all of a sudden somebody comes along and says, "Sex is evil."

You can process a juvenile delinquent and you will know immediately that there's another kind of case. He isn't fighting on enough fronts. The guy's front or opponent saturation point has not been reached. And a person will get to a point where he will actually run around and be the opponent. He will go around - he can't get anybody to fight him, so he'll go around and fight himself He gets tremendously involved in this.

"It is?"

In arguments you will see people doing this. This is not an uncommon manifestation:

"Yes. It is so evil that you dare not engage upon it. People who engage on sex very often go to hell if not always. And in hell you burn. We've already shown you what fire is and that's really sex."

"You're a dog! You're just no good!"

It doesn't sound logical. Well, who said everything - anything was. So he's inhibited from being the second dynamic.

And the other fellow stands there and he says, monitoringly, you know, kind of quietly, he says, "Well, really, we shouldn't get - we shouldn't get upset about this, and so forth. We can talk this over quietly."

Now we've got the second dynamic and we've got the inhibition of the second dynamic. And now we've got an enforcement on the third dynamic: "Well, if I can't have sex, I'll have to live as a group. Think I'll join the Communist Party or get a job at Boeing's." Same deal.

"Oh! You say I am raising my voice, do you?"

Now he's inhibited as a group. "You can't be a part of this group because the group won't survive and you won't survive and nobody likes you in the group, and so forth."

You get the trick? He didn't get enough bang back! He didn't get enough reaction, so he's real upset.

Well, the guy says, "I'll be - I'll be part of man." And then he realizes man can't last either; wars and things like that disabuse him and inhibits him from being man.

Now, you've heard - you've heard women do this around the house. Well, their level of randomity is quite poor. They stay home and the husband goes to work, the house is kind of empty. They have to straighten up this house. It's the same house, you know. It's always been the same house for the last ten to fifteen years. The same pieces get out of line. The same meals have to be gotten. The same butcher is bought from. And they get to a point after a while where they just do this. They've got to put randomity into life. They can't stand it!

So he says, "Well, there's always animals; they're always your friend. Dogs are loyal." You'll have a lot of preclears come in and tell you very fixedly, "Well, people are no good, but dogs - dogs are loyal. Dogs - dogs know how you feel. Cats are sympathetic, too, sometimes. Except I do envy their independence. Ha-ha!" Now, we've got number - number - number five. And all of a sudden one day the dog bites him or shoots him or something and we get down to number six.

And you will actually see preclears who are just practically going through their roof! They just can't take this little level of randomity.

And the fellow says, "Well, there's always objects. Money is an object. And there's - I can have an object. I - here's this stamp. Did I ever show you my stamp collection?" he says. "Did I ever show you my coin collection?" Well, this starts to get inhibited and he starts to collect the damnedest things. He'll collect - as this thing dwindles out - he will collect the most foul and loathsome things as a tremendous idea. Well, he's collecting things; he s in objects.

Now, I've had preclears show up who wanted an engram run. Was anything wrong with them? No. They just wanted something else to fight. So, you showed them this engram and they come up with another engram. Well, the hell with this. You run that engram and they come up with another engram. Boy, this is all right! They've got randomity.

Now he goes down into seven and he has decided he has lived a life of evil and he should pay for all this because Christ's spirit is calling to him. And finally he gets inhibited from being Christ; somebody walks up to him someday and points out the fact that he hasn't healed anybody by looking at them for some time. And having pointed this out is a great shock to him and he realizes this is true and so he can't be Christ because at that level of the Tone Scale all somebody has to say is "You're not succeeding," and he doesn't. Other people's postulates are stronger than one's own postulates any day of the week.

Now, you take somebody's imagination. It's when these factors get extreme that they become very important in the society because a guy gets convinced. You take a lot of people down here in the insane asylum. They just started onto this line of insufficient randomity and then they just ran it into a hole. Now they've got - Western Union has wires plugged into their brains so as to inform the government of what they're thinking. And there are people going to shoot them through the window any minute and so on. They've just overdone the danger, you see, and they can no longer control this level.

Then he gets down into God and he's in a spinbin someplace in a sanitarium; that's that.

But what is the pitch there? The pitch is a complete mock-up, a complete mock-up, of no-predict. I would say offhand their life became enormously predictable. Their life became too predictable. All right.

They're inverted dynamics. Well, what is this? This is a problem of really having the whole condemned environment from one corner to the other and having your postulates work in it and then that inverts and goes down to nothing and then is pushed out again to where it's all uninhabitable, but you have to be there anyway.

When somebody is trained then - somebody gets trained in one direction and then life gives him another pool table.

And you'll find out that your people who are on the lower inversions have to be spread all over the place but they can't be. And they are at some dynamic or other.

You'll find if you want to uproot the past lives all the way up and down the track, you want to uproot the whole track on a preclear, you just work with this principle. And what is the principle? It's just shifting pool tables. Every time he turns around, somebody gives him a new pool table.

Perimeter Processing simply takes the outside sphere and runs four consecutive things on it by the preclear who is in the center.

And I'll tell you, that's why space opera hangs up so fabulously in this completely dull society. I'll bet you no space opera was keyed in at all here a hundred years ago. You could always go out West and get shot or shoot somebody or be run down by a bull elk or... You could always get into trouble, always. And the police, boy, were they inefficient! No telegraphs to amount to anything and they have no fingerprint files and Bertillon, I think was - about then - was just starting to struggle up with something, if not a little bit later.

Let's consider this is the preclear in the middle of the sphere and you have him run at a distance as far as he can think. This is awfully easy because he can do this.

Then you just shaved - shaved your head a little bit different and you wore a different colored tie and you go into the same police station that arrested you yesterday and say, "I want a job as a cop," and they'd hire you.

"Get as far as you can think, now, in every direction, the thought that explosions are sparking out there; now that there's nothing out there; now that there are black explosions out there; now that there's ...." You intervene nothing there - nothing out there as far as he can think in 360 degrees. And then that you have vacuums out there as far as he can think in all directions. You operate the outside of the shells from the inside. It's as far as he can think in all directions; and that's 360-degree spheres. Now, you make sure, patiently and carefully, that he covers a 360-degree sphere with each one of these.

I mean, life - life - you could change your identity. Well now, this society has got it rigged so you can't. If a guy finds a no-randomity situation in this society today, he is hung with it because he is hung with his identity.

I'll give them to you again. It's very simple, they're the most elementary things we have: (1) Explosions. Make sure that he gets a ring of explosions - just the idea that he's getting explosions - as far out as he could possibly get in 360 degrees from where he is. Preferably as many at a time as possible. You don't run this very long - thirty seconds.

You can make a preclear just happy as can be by saying, "Now, let's see, what restaurant do you go to regularly? Oh? What do your friends call you? Oh? Where - where do you live? Oh. Well, now I want you, one, to patronize an entirely different restaurant. Oh, you say one of the same kind? No, no - no. Patronize for two weeks a joint, just a joint. And make your friends call you by another name. And move."

Now you get nothing out there. Just get the idea that there's nothing out there as far as he can think. There's a spot of nothing; not that there is nothing between where he is and it, see, but he thinks that there's a spot of nothing way out there. See?

The guy says, "There's nothing wrong with the house I've got now. It's a beautiful house and I have - I have a lease on it, so..." Well you say, "Move."

Male voice: A spot in that shell?

That's what we're talking about in the first book when we said shift environment. That's the factors of shifting environment. You change his level of randomity, you see, some way or another.

Well, he's - at the outside of the rim of the furthest shell there's a spot of nothing; there's a spot there and a spot there and a spot there. Not that it's nothing all the way around - he can't embrace this. See? It's just like you've got these little, tiny explosions on the outside of the big shell; well, now you get spots of nothing all over there.

There are two things that will be happening in that environment: He'll either be hit - be hit too hard and too often or he won't be being hit enough.

Now you get black explosions all over the most exterior shell and then get nothing, same way, 360 degrees.

What's happening to your preclear? Well, you'd better adjudicate which one it is. It's an either/or. This is quite important what I am telling you. You'd better adjudicate which one it is. This guy during his life had too much. This guy during his life had too little.

And then you get nothing 360 degrees and then follow that up with vacuums. You got the idea; there are little, tiny vacuums - here-here-here-here - all the way around.

But past is not as important as present, ever. So, all the question you need ask is the pertinent ones. What are the real factors with which this person is surrounded?

And you just keep that up. Do you talk about dynamics? Do you talk about God? No, no! You don't talk about any dynamics or any God or anything else; you encompass the whole condemned works. Because you're just working with areas and distances. And if your preclear is someplace else but inside his body, he'll sure find it out.

Psychology gets hung up on changing environment and things like that merely because it doesn't resolve within itself this problem: Is it either/or? Is it plus or minus randomity? Plus randomity is simply too much.

This is not a short process; it is a brutal process. And it should be run. You can bring a person out of it rather easily but he will get somatics. You make him neglect the center of the sphere.

Don't let him run the center of the sphere; he has always been chewing on this! And it's like the miner trying to dig himself out of a cave-in: The second he pulls down a little block of stone the rest of the cave starts falling in on him. And he pulls out another little piece of sand and the rest of it falls in on him again. He can't chew himself out of the middle of it, but he can chew himself out from the outside in. And the joke is, is he's not in there, you see. So if he's not in there, it's very easy for him. And he will eventually go around and start chewing on this shell from the outside. Soon as he does that he says to hell with it.

The end product of this is simply to rid the guy of the idea that he's in the middle of a whole bunch of pressure ridges or vacuums. Get him out of the center of the thinking machine, that's all. That's all you have to do with him; just get him out of the middle of the thinking machine.

And this is called Perimeter Processing - explosions, nothing, black explosions, nothing, vacuums. And if you want to go all the way around, you'd run nothing again and explosions and nothing and black explosions and nothing and vacuums and nothing and explosions and nothing.

Now, how long do you run each one of them? Thirty seconds, fifteen seconds. Just keep him rolling till he's got that 360-degree arc. Now, you make sure that he isn't missing some arc because they'll miss in back of them. They're usually up against the thinking machine. They're this way on it; they're kind of outside of it.

And you'll notice that there's some wicked somatics turn up with this process and that this process is intensely damaging. Now, I want you to run it therefore. I want you - to show you what these subjective processes do to a pc but I also want to show you the anatomy of a thinking machine. Nobody will spin on this, but if anybody gets in trouble in this process, why - if an auditor gets in trouble on this process or something weird or strange or terrible starts to happen, just grab a couple of back corners of the room, let the guy hold on. Very satisfying sort of a thing. If he gets too wobbly then give him a little Self Analysis. If he gets too bad off get ahold of me.

Now, this is no process to run on a psycho. But that's all right. As far as we are concerned anybody in this class can run this process. As far as that's concerned, anybody who has been exteriorized can run this process. As far as that's concerned, anybody who's still pinned inside can run this process.

Male voice: Do you tell them to be on the outside at the beginning?

Oh, no. No ...

Male voice: You don't say that?

.. No, let's not get original; that might help them. You're supposed to run Perimeter Processing from the inside.

Now, as far as your boy who's exteriorized is concerned, the guy who gets out of the body easily, you run this process slightly different. You do the same process but you just get him to hell and gone away from the body while he runs it. And get him to run it on the body. We don't care where he is; get him to run it on the body, see. You got a thinking machine sitting in front of you in the body.

And then, when he's exteriorized, get him to run it around himself as a thetan. Get him to get a quick once-over to the body on this; then get him exteriorized and run it as a thetan. Okay? You run the same process. If he can be exteriorized, tell him to get out, run it around himself

Now, I didn't tell you that this is a helpful process, I merely told you that this is a painful process. Well, I told you also that it ought to be run, not just as a demonstration on you; you're going to have to run it someday, anyway. Because there are sleepers all over a case.

You get somebody and boy they're just coming up the line terrifically, and you go in and you all of a sudden take a look at this case, and you say, "What the hell is the matter with the auditor?" because, my God, this case has a glob of energy sitting about one inch from the nose. Do you have to see the glob of energy to know that it's one inch from the nose? No, you don't. Just look at the condition of the nose. And you say this case is horribly messed up with some kind of a glob of energy.

Well, if you've done the thinking machine (which should possibly be the name of it; Perimeter Processing is the best name), if you've done the thinking machine, why, you would have caught this on the way in. See?

Now, do you at any time tell him how far to put the explosion from him? Not beyond this: "Just as far away from you as you can think; think a spot as far away from you as you can think the spot."

He does this weird one: sometimes he starts thinking of these spots at some distance from him; when he finishes up with the thinking machine, he has been operating the whole time within a sphere that has no more than a cubic inch in it; and he has been going out there miles!

The zone of occlusion is what you're trying to run here, too. You can find out that a person has a zone of occlusion. He'll find it out for himself - arbitrary zone - goes out anywheres up to fifteen, twenty feet - sometimes no longer than three or four feet; sometimes no longer than a couple of inches - there's a zone of occlusion. He can always put a mock-up on the other side of a zone of occlusion and get it beautiful. This is real silly, by the way. He keeps putting them inside the zone of occlusion, though.

Thinking machines are distorting machines. The only way to get rid of them is to run the various kinds of energy performances - space performances -there are. Which is nothing, vacuums, black explosions and white explosions. So let's find out how to chew on them.

There any questions about this?

Male voice: Yeah. When you have an exterior run this around the body, what do you have him do? Have him take a look at the body and have him. put out as far as the body can think, or what?

When you have them exteriorized? Have them think around the spot where they find themselves when they're exteriorized.

Male voice: Well, you mentioned something before that about having them run it on the body

Oh. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Run the body as a sphere.

Male voice: Oh.

Just run the body as a sphere and put it all around the outside of the body and let it smooth on in toward the body, and so forth. They've got a thinking machine - if they've got any thinking machines around they're parked in the body.

Okay.