This is December the 3rd, morning lecture. This morning we're going to talk about time as a barrier.

This is December the 3rd, afternoon lecture. I want to talk a little bit more about cause and effect and time.

Must be aware of the fact that if we have the mest universe, a game which consists of a system of barriers, and games require barriers, that there must be an awful lot of fancy barriers in this universe because people have a tendency to get very inventive.

To cause an action, one is in advance of the action. Never make a mistake about this. Now, what do we mean by advance? Do we mean a direction? No, we mean a duration. A duration is different from a direction.

The mind of man is pretty stimulus-response. But all that a thetan can conceive hasn't been dreamed of yet. The thetan ability to invent, extrapolate far exceeds the mest universe. The mest universe is a pitiful attempt at getting agreement. People get pegged down to it and their originality has a tendency to suffer, because they are in agreement with about the most unoriginal sort of a thing. It's one of the easy problems. It's one of the terribly simple, prekindergarten problems that any little child can get along with — even a physicist can get along in this universe. Mainly because it consists of that: a system of barriers in order to make a game.

I'm going to ask you to look at this cigarette package here and then close your eyes.

Well, how many kinds of barriers are there? Well, this is just the same number that you're trying to solve in your preclear.

Now, open your eyes and look at it again.

We have the sixth dynamic as the single most important dynamic simply because every preclear you run across is in complete agreement on the sixth dynamic. But his agreement is bad or good on the sixth dynamic. And this, in essence, is the single greatest difference amongst cases — whether his agreement is good or his agreement is bad on the sixth dynamic. You can analyze a case on this basis: You can say this thetan is in wild protest against this universe.

Now close your eyes.

Now, religion has long used the factor of evil in order to create a situation of resistance. This system of resistance brings about, of course, an overwhelming of the protest of the individual which, in itself, reverses the vector and desire of the individual.

Now open your eyes and look at it again. Okay.

Now, we take somebody, for instance, who desires sensation. And if we make him resist sensation — let's talk now about the second dynamic in relationship to the sixth dynamic. And we find out that if he desires sensation, the sensation will be made scarce in this universe. See, what he desires will be, perforce, made scarce.

Now close your eyes while it's there.

All right, he desires sensation. Very well. The next step which he will confront will be not a desire for sensation but an abhorrence of it. How does that come about? He feels that he must first pull in sensation. This starts an inflow. A thetan is best off when he is cause. Maximal cause; minimal effect.

Now look at the spot where it was.

And if we can get him bombarded from every side, one way or the other, we can reduce him to an effect. This is the way you make a slave, is reduce somebody to an effect. All right.

Now, one confuses that motion of new positions with direction, simply because one has ceased to put into place and make disappear the thing, for each passing second.

He desires sensation. This lets him assist the mest universe in overwhelming him. You see? This lets him assist getting in all his inflow. It gets him to help himself being swamped.

So now I'm going to ask you to do this:

Well, what's the exact process by which this is done? First, he desires sensation of his own creation, and then it is taken away from him. And if the black space, which is a vacuum, does anything, it certainly takes away everything you've got. It's the most disenfranchising mechanism that was ever invented: the vacuum — minus 273 degrees centigrade. All right.

Take a look at this cigarette package.

Here we have, then, a sudden outflow of his own sensation. So he decides, "Well, look at that, there goes that sensation. Now where's my sensation?" So the next piece of sensation he runs across — having no idea that anybody else is making sensation, the next idea that he — sensation that he runs across, he says, "That's mine." So he pulls it in. But somebody else starts saying, "Where is my sensation?" So he pulls it back again. So we have an interchange, and the beginning of agreement. All right.

Now close your eyes.

The next step on this is "resist stealing somebody else's sensation," of course, because they get interlocked on this basis of pull and haul on sensation, so the evil is "stealing sensation." Well, of course, they started to steal sensation because they didn't know it wasn't theirs.

Now look at it again.

And that, by the way, is the history throughout the universe: "Didn't know it wasn't mine. And what's mine anyway?" See? That's just — this is based on the think, "If I create it, it's mine." It's not necessarily true at all.

Now close your eyes.

Take Scientology. I work out Scientology. That doesn't make it mine. If anything, it makes it yours. That is, working on a fairly high echelon, that's just the case of it. Yet you'll find people around who will suddenly grab on to Scientology and say, "This is mine," you see, "and it now must not belong to anybody else." And they'll stop its communication lines, and they will say how horrible auditors are and then they'll give big reasons why "Hubbard didn't. . ." or something. And then they get bigger reasons why — they're just starting to run the whole cycle on one little subject. But that's nothing — it's just the way this universe runs. All right.

Now look at it again.

People get the idea as an argument: "Look, if I created this, it belongs to me. You understand that." That's not true. If it were true, why, things would be in a much more horrible state than they are. It's not true, fortunately. Because you can be just as free with somebody else's anchor point, and feel just as free with somebody else's anchor points, as you can with those you created. If it were not this way, then there'd be no hope for any of you. Just no hope at all. We just might as well throw in the sponge and skip the whole thing.

Now close your eyes.

The only reason anybody gets better is because of the fact that their own anchor points can have been created by almost anybody anywhere. And they recognize this slowly and they say, "Well, this business of agreement isn't so bad. What I don't have, I can create or borrow or use or purloin. There is acquisition possible."

Now look at it again.

But now let's take this thing called sensation. Here he goes making sensation and it gets taken away from him, making sensation, it gets taken away from him, making sensation, it gets taken away from him; and he resists taking away sensation as an evil. So therefore, he starts pulling in sensation as good. Therefore, if he's being good, he's pulling in sensation. Well, this starts the inflow, and he'll get more and more inflow. In other words, pushing away sensation is evil.

Now, what is the difference between that instant — the last instant when you didn't find it there, when it was motionless and you didn't find it there, and the first instant when it was missing? That is entirely your knowingness and nothing else. There isn't anything there that will tell you the difference between, except your knowingness. Or your automatic machine that goes running like this: "Later-later-later-later-later-later-later — later than you think — later-later-later-later-later — much later than you think — later-later-later-later-later, later, later — well, later .. . Later? Later? Time? Time? What's time? Time? Time? Time to the right, time to the left, time up, time down, time backwards — Tuesday is around the corner." And that's just about what that machine does, and that's really the cycle of its life.

Well see, after he has done that for a while, he's so packed in with sensation — he's just got too much of this stuff, that's all, it's a surplus commodity. So he decides about that time, you see, that all this sensation, this isn't so good. So he tries to sell it. You know, "Let's have a — set up a shop for sensation." There is such a thing as "the world's oldest profession," you know. Somebody the other day was trying to say that — I don't know what they were listing as the world's oldest profession, but I think they were setting up medicine as the world's oldest profession. Boy, are they misinformed! But on second thought, not too misinformed.

So people who have "directional times" have departed from even questioning time. Time is direction. You see, when I ask you to open and close your eyes as

So we get this — he tries to give it away. Nobody wants it. If he wants to get rid of something, must be something wrong with it.

I move this cigarette package from your left to your right would, because of the successive pictures, connect spatial position and the instant you viewed it. Now, when that gets really set, why, one has a picnic with himself. Because spatial position has nothing to do with time.

This is sort of the mutual reaction. Because if everybody were doing this at the same time, you would have this as a suppression, eventually, of sensation. So we wouldn't have any sensation. Everybody'd be trying to give this sensation away, and then everybody'd decide it was worthless, so nobody'd bother to generate any of this stuff and it'd sort of go into a sump and we would forget about it somewhat, until all of a sudden one day it was scarce. Well, the last time we had any sensation was when we procured it from somebody else — never occurs to the fellow to create it himself. So he starts pulling in sensation again.

The pyramids, when they were one minute old are — so far as their relation­ship to the other pyramids — are in the same place as they are in now, as they are in the future. But knowingness can be added to language. So we say, "The pyramids were where they are now, and they will be there in the future."

Well, he'll pull in sensation just so long, and again, we get another: "pulling in sensation is evil." Then we get: "giving out sensation is evil." This is what's inversion. It isn't just push and take, because each time the fellow forgets a little bit more about his own creativeness of sensation. He gets badly immersed in a whole series of agreements concerning how one must acquire sensation, and he gets no agreement that he ought to create some. And people are apt to tell him, "Well, that's no good — you made it yourself."

Now, this universe loves to confuse you by changing spatial positions at the same time it changes time, but remember two different operations are occurring. Spatial position is changing and time is changing. So let's just move up one little link — just stretch your understanding above this morning's lecture on time — just one little link up, to this. You know spatial position because you know. And you know time because you know. And there isn't any reason in the sun why spatial position has anything to do with time. And when it does, the days go by so rapidly, as not to move at all.

They do that with money, if you notice. And that's one thing that's on road to — that. . . Money goes in this same line. Guys make it themselves for a while, and — that's right, you know. And nobody has any real trouble with that — everybody's making money himself. He makes his own money. There is no such thing as state money early in any civilization. And it's very unworkable because nobody quite agrees on how much money a fellow ought to make, so finally they put a restriction on how much money he can make. They do this in the way — line of wampum and credits and favors and so on. It's a whole series of promises to pay, you see.

The beginning of a life running on an automatic machine on time goes pocketa, pocketa, pocketa, pocketa. And in midlife the machine is going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. And in late life, the machine is going aarrrrhhh! No distinguishment at all.

And then they start restricting each other because there's too much of this stuff around — somebody else wants to be boss, somebody gets more powerful. And we get cities making money. And then we get, from cities making money, counties, states and then whole races have agreed that only one thing in the race can make money. This is the silliest thing in the world, you know.

Now, knowingness is totally responsible for what you observe as time passage.

I mean, you take today with photoengraving — this is no invitation to counterfeiting, but today, with photoengraving, and the great ease with which you could make paper, the United States Government is in a very, very bad spot. It's only because criminals are bad workmen — criminals uniformly can't work — and all counterfeiting is accounted to be criminal, so only criminals really counterfeit. You get how this works out, you see. And we get to a point, finally, where the only self-made money in the community is kind of bad.

Now, I want you to sit still for a moment and know that you have been sitting there, and hold your breath. And know you've been sitting there holding your breath for a year. Just know that.

But the truth of the matter is that all of the machinery necessary to make bills just exactly as good as the US government — maybe a little bit better — can be procured for a few hundred dollars without any questions being asked.

Now breathe again, and know that's the first breath you've taken in eight years.

Because it's simply photoengraving and photolithograph and plain letterpress. And it has to do with money — paper, and money paper simply has some red, white and blue threads in it. And you just take some paper pulp and mix it up and run it through a little paper mill and get the same thickness of paper on the thing and you can make this money. There's no trouble. Actually, you shouldn't have to go to all the work — all the work of earning this money. (audience laughter) But that's the thing you're supposed to do. And because you're supposed to do it, why, you're getting along all right, and you are not particularly aberrated on it — it's not too hard to do, so you go ahead and do it.

Now take another breath and let it out, and know that you've breathed all you need to breathe for the next year.

Well, let's add this up on the subject of sensation. And we get the exact parallel that we're trying to draw: The fellow desires it and then he doesn't desire it. And we find the same thing happening to money. People desire money and then they find out they can't have it, so they start to waste it. And then they can't have it at all and they decide that they will pull it in, and they become criminal about it, and oh boy! Oh boy, the inventions that can take place about this one thing — money.

Now breathe normally.

Inflow, outflow. And we get this cycle then. The DEI cycle comes out of this. We get — first it comes in — well, that's bad, see, and then it goes out, and then the fellow has got too much going out, and he hasn't got enough coming in to put it out again, and we're right into making facsimiles.

You see, breathing is an automaticity which is a pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. And it's only pocketa-pocketa-pocketa because the heart is going lup-dup, lup-dup, lup-dup, lup-dup, lup-dup. So your breathing regulates against the heart: pocketa-pocketa, lup-dup, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa — you see? One against the other da-dunt. So you know whether you're breathing fast or slow. Nobody ever knew, by comparison, whether he was breathing quickly or slowly. He knew he was breathing faster than his heart was beating, or slower than his heart was beating, or that his heart was beating faster. Or that he — one person was walking faster than another person.

See how we get into making facsimiles? Fellow stops creating. This is all on the basis of belief and agreement. It hasn't any other basis. Cause, effect, belief, agreement. These things come into creation because people know they're in existence. And then if they've agreed they're in existence, why, they're all set. System of barriers.

Now, this widespread thing called agreement lets one in for a lot of "accidentals," not just accidents. This widespread thing, it's agreement. And there we have — there we have this: this fellow says, "Mm-hm, mm-hm" and "I understand that." And then after a while he says, "Yes." And then after a while he says, "Yes, sir." And then after a while he doesn't listen, he just waits to agree. See that? He waits to agree.

Now, let's look that over again, and we find that — we'll find that a person assists the mest universe in pouring in on him by resisting what he considers evil. He can only get into agreement with that thing which he matches wavelength with. You can get into agreement only when you match wavelengths with some­thing. So we match wavelengths, and we get a situation where that wavelength can then overpower an individual. If a person never matched wavelengths with bullets, he'd never get shot. So we have this resistance to evil.

If you want to get a case entrance button on some people, you just get that one, "waiting to agree." You've known some people like this. Maybe we got a case or two present that simply wait to agree. Without record. See? No particular record of anything — they just wait to agree. Well, there — you could say the same thing of waiting to know what time it is. See, because there is this proper moment when they should agree; and that moment is on a cessation of communication. So when any communication ceases, they automatically agree.

Somebody comes around and he says, "Now listen, let me tell you some­thing that's evil: ice-cream sodas are evil." And he sells a good story on this. And he shows how ice-cream sodas take the money of little children, and the money ought to go in a collection plate. He shows how capitalism becomes fat through owning these big ice-cream plants. He demonstrates that this is hard on the worker — never explains to you that ice-cream sodas provide work and people want it — but it's hard on the worker and creates social injustices. And therefore, the whole subject of ice-cream sodas is in — detestable and intolerable, and you should fight ice-cream sodas. So he finally gets you to go around carrying this little placard that says, "Down with Ice-Cream Sodas." Gets you to go into places and smash places, you see, and — mobs of you — to prevent them from ice-cream sodas. And there will ensue, when that takes place, the biggest wave of ice-cream soda drinking you can imagine.

This is real loony-bin stuff I'm talking to you about, but it's the deterioration of the time factor, and the causation of this is setting up fast and slow time. Exteriorized, an auditor very occasionally, if not always, expects the preclear to be running on mest universe time. The preclear exteriorizes perhaps into a higher or less automaticity — either one or the other. Or into no automaticity, which makes everything sort of stop, you know, till he thinks of it running again. And many people exteriorize without perception and good certainty simply because when exteriorized, they don't have all this automaticity connected up and so they are uncertain. But they're not uncertain about being exteriorized, they're uncertain what time it is.

Why? Because everybody's matched wavelengths with ice-cream sodas, and they finally mistakenly smash one too many ice-cream soda parlors and the law gets after them and other people get after them and other people argue about it and finally the instigators of the motion are overpowered by force. And their — the society, by the way, takes peculiar delight in forcing them to have ice-cream sodas in some fashion or another, because they insist then that ice-cream sodas aren't so bad, and they want to prove it to them. All sorts of ways. The next thing you know, the resistance of the people resisting ice-cream sodas caves in, and we then have a situation whereby there's a terrible thirst for ice-cream sodas comes up.

You could see that? So that they have a hospital roof on the auditing room. They have the living room rug in their childhood home on the floor. They just grab onto and indifferently hook up to all of the automatic machinery which in the past has become superautomatic, and it's just too strong to be overcome. Now, they lay in that hospital for a long time. In other words, lots of mest time went by. They were in that childhood home for a long time, and they had to be very aware of that rug because they didn't dare do things on it when they were very small. And so, those factors which have most impressed them — you see, you've sprung them out into, usually, less time. Timing. And only those factors which are tremendously automatic are with them.

Now, there's another little step in there: by creating a scarcity of something, you've created a slight vacuum. The only thing that'll fill the vacuum of ice-cream sodas, is ice-cream sodas. That's in this universe. Very mechanical.

So you ask them to see the room, so they look around at the room which is being furnished them, because they are at that moment causative. And if they're sold on the idea that they have to be an effect, they expect everything to be manufactured for them before they perceive it. You understand this? They think everything's going to manufactured before they perceive it.

If you think I'm being too far afield, just consider the campaigns of Carry Nation and the period of drunkenness which came in coincidental with Prohibition. The United States has never known drunkenness such as that which occurred during the Prohibition era. You could prohibit almost anything and get the same result. You would get it being accepted more widely because it was prohibited. This is a method of getting randomity. But it's not a method which departs from our basic principle: outflow, inflow.

Now, really what happens is, is a person, when he exteriorizes, gets into a state where he can mark out what the particle motion is of the universe around him. He can mark this out. You see, he's in enough agreement with the universe that he can mark it out and then replot it, then all of a sudden his visio will come on terrifically. He gets this — he just gets the rate. And as soon as he gets the fact that these particles are changing, then he agrees with their particle change enough to perceive them, and so he establishes his perception balance.

Now, you could see that — you can understand that your preclear who starts to fight the mest universe is having a wonderful time for himself. In the first place, he's fighting a barrier which is there as long as he believes it's there. So if he starts fighting the barriers — boy, does he get barriers. Oh! Oh! You see, nobody would ever realize that it was a long, mile-and-a-half walk down to the store unless an auto salesman came along and explained it to them. That wouldn't seem very bad. As a matter of fact, it's kind of refreshing. You know, you get out in the morning, get a little exercise and see how the neighborhood's making out and look at the flower gardens and come back and feel good about the thing. No, he wants you to get into a small, closed, steel cubicle and imbibe carbon monoxide gas for a mile and a half. It's not quite clear why he wants you to do this, but he says it's for the sake of business and profit.

A Step V is not necessarily better timed or worse timed than a Step I. A Step I who has complete and immediate vision the second that he exteriorizes, has either done this operation very fast, or he simply exteriorized with both hands firmly grasping his time machine.

I don't know what profit is. I've long gotten over trying to examine the problem. Because what a thetan can adorn a fact with is glorious to behold, but impossible to work out. Because that's why he puts it on top of the fact: so it won't work out, you see. It has to survive and endure, and when that comes into facts, why, facts are facts; but, if you can obfuscate them enough, why, they'll endure forever.

Now, H. G. Wells has written a lot about time machines. And a lot of other people have written a lot about time machines. So they're all based on the basis that there is such a thing as a path, or a formed set of barriers, which never perish. Well, there are. There isn't a single barrier which ever existed which ever perished. And when these all jam together, one's time machine is shot too. Because a time machine in essence is doing just this: It is agreeing on the erection of a barrier and agreeing on its vanishment, and agreeing upon its erection and agreeing on its banishment. So that you have new space being continually formed, and old space being made to disappear.

Well, so we get this maximal agreement on barriers, and people get barriers, and they more and more agree with barriers.

People will get, in later life, double, triple, quadruple vision. The oculist cannot account for this and so abandons it. Some of the double vision comes about when they're looking with their mest eyes, and seeing better from outside the inside of their head, and they see two objects which are not quite in concurrence. Now, this is a much less difficult problem than it might seem on first glance. We're trying to reduce it to a simplicity which you can handle as an auditor.

Now, you'll find that they have most agreed with that barrier which is to them the most forbidding. That barrier which is most forbidding, you see, they must have most agreed on. This is — everybody's got this.

You exteriorize an individual and then immediately ask him to be an effect. The reason he exteriorized is because of his recognition of his causative nature. And yet you ask him to immediately perceive. You see? It just doesn't add up.

So we look at m-e-s-t — which we use to call the mest universe, the physical universe — and we find out it is composed of matter, energy, space and time. And we have, when we've said that, merely a system of barriers.

The first place, he is in automatic agreement on the universe around him. As long as he is in that automatic agreement, he is going to have a time for himself, because that automaticity will swamp him sooner or later. Somewhere along the track he has to take a step back and say, "Look — whoa, now. I'm cause. Let me put it up myself for a while, knock out the existing machinery, put in some new machinery, get it repaired well, and put into this machinery the fact that it'll remind me in the future sometime to make some more machinery when it gets worn out." You see that? Because there's no future, a fellow then, has to know when to know. And what's "when"? "When" is because he knows there's a when.

Now, what are these barriers? Matter, of course, is a spaceless collection of energy which stands or moves according to a set of laws upon which we have agreed. Now, that's that kind of barrier.

Now, I ran an interesting preclear a long time ago, who used to put up double terminals and made them out of lead, and when asked for some lighter material, changed them to cast iron. And then when asked what he was putting up, said he was putting up a postulate. I've always remembered this as a signal example of the value of knowingness in terms of solidity.

Now, energy is a barrier which has a little more space and a little more motion — a little higher potential of motion. And it's, again, that which has been agreed upon.

Basically, it's very much too easy for an auditor simply to go out all-out on this basis, and then dismiss all other mechanics connected with it and dismiss in particular the way to remedy it. He says, "Now, all there is knowing, is knowing. Well then, all you have to do is just say, 'All right, you preclear — know!' Oh, you don't know, huh? Well, the hell with you!" And he calls this auditing. This is the same thing as saying, "All you have to do is decide to be self-determined." It's — you'd have the same chances.

And now we go into space, and we find that space is a terrific barrier. We find space the biggest barrier of it all. If you wanted to really put a criminal in jail, you would go find . .. Go — well, take the Sahara desert, see. If you didn't want him to escape from this jail, you put the Sahara desert around him — at least. You wouldn't take his space away from him, you would just give him — see how it's another type of barrier — you would just give him complete space.

Well, all that you could say was really wrong with an individual, if anything was wrong with an individual, is he has turned his postulates into mest so thoroughly and so long and so often, that he's got all kinds of automaticity which turns his postulates into MEST. And then he's lost track of the automaticity and it goes on functioning, and he's had such a hard time — you can say this about him, in any lifetime — he's had such a hard time convincing people of things, that he would rather hit somebody over the head or run him down, than give him an argument. Because he's found arguments aren't too workable unless they're backed up with force. Or he's had practiced on him, force, in lieu of an argument, see. So the symbol has become the thing.

And he would never get anyplace, no matter how many light-years he walked in any direction.

Back of anything there is a postulate and back of a postulate, unphrased, is simply knowingness which is in itself certainty.

Now, if you consider the space between this galaxy and the first galaxy nearest to us, which I think is the galaxy in Andromeda — we see through our constellation, Andromeda — there's an awful lot of space between these two galaxies.

So, let's get a grip on this a little bit in our auditing, and see that if we want the highest definition of this universe, is that it is a game which requires barriers to be played. A game which requires barriers to be played. One needs restrictions to play this game. All right.

There's quite a bit of space between even Sirius and Earth. But when you consider that this distance between Sirius and Earth is a very slight distance in — compared to the galactic distances of this galaxy (this galaxy being rep­resented by the Milky Way and this splatter of stars which sits more or less in this place), what an enormous piece of distance there is between here, relatively speaking, and the next galaxy out. Well, that's quite a piece of distance.

Let's look, then, at a preclear and know that we are processing somebody who is above the level of the game. A man who plays baseball, who can only play baseball, isn't a very good baseball player. Any preclear who can play the game called mest universe can, very actively, play much broader games. He shouldn't, however, be playing them with you as an auditor. But he will.

Well, if you were to put a criminal down in the middle of it and told him to escape, why, he'd have a rough time of it unless he had something that could at least travel a couple of light-years, and then he'd be an old, old man by the time he got here!

Now, what your difficulty is with any preclear, is the fact that his postulates are automatically becoming objects or energies or spaces or nothingnesses. An automaticity which takes the postulate is already wiping him out somehow or another.

Well, it's all right if you don't tell him to escape. You can put him out there. You give him the idea he has to escape from it, he gets upset. Mostly because that's what he was basically trying to do so many times up and down the track — he was trying to escape.

Well now, what kind of an automaticity is reaching his ability to make postulates? An automaticity called language — symbols.

And we come up against the thetan's prime abhorrence: He is something which isn't anyplace. You see? He isn't anyplace except amongst the barriers on which he has agreed. But this is barriers on which he has agreed — this doesn't put him anyplace. And he can make things move and he can make barriers move — he himself doesn't move. Although he moves around through the barriers, apparently, he never moves around through the barriers — he moves the barriers around through where he is.

So we give him, with a symbol, a message; which he then retranslates into other symbols, above which he knows. And from that knowingness, translates the knowingness into symbols, which symbols become translated into objects or distances or nothingnesses. Well, just watch that process. You as an auditor are handling a preclear via a symbol communication line.

He takes up his various situations. He can take up any situation. And in view of this fact, he, of course, would develop as one of his prime allergies, being in one place. This is horror to him — this is stark horror. The idea of being in one place forever. In other words, just what he is, and just what he is doing is horrible. And this, of course, is his effort — his strenuous effort — to provide himself with randomity. Because if he accepted what he was — just accepted what he was, why, he would be then — what an interesting setup!

That's not very important. But it is important that your preclear, if he cannot exteriorize, if he is not causative and so forth, is translating his knowingness immediately and directly into objects, spaces and nothingnesses without any more recourse to himself. See? Do you see that? I mean he's just doing this. He says iron and he gets iron. See, he doesn't get knowingness about iron.

I mean, here he is — here he is, fixed in one place, able to observe anything but not going anyplace. But he could make barriers, and he can agree that barriers are moving and going places and distances exist and so forth. But here he is doing this, you see, and if he just made up his mind that's what he was doing, this would be quite interesting, wouldn't it, the result that you would get, because you would immediately drop out of him his randomity — total.

Now, an example of this just came up while I was walking up here. An auditor said, "You — we were having — putting up mock-ups real slow, and then deciding they were there," words to that effect. And he was talking about a little process he was doing. All right.

And the next step is, he thinks he has to work to survive. He can't do anything else but survive. So he has an abhorrence of nonsurvival. Good joke, isn't it? He can't possibly do anything but survive, so he has an abhorrence for nonsurvival. He can't move around places — there isn't anyplace to move to unless he makes one. So his chief horror is staying in one place.

This was very strange to me — it was very peculiar to me. And I looked this over real careful to find out what was so funny about this? Obviously it wasn't funny. He didn't think it was funny. Nobody he worked it on thought it was funny. Well, it looked awful funny. You're putting up the mock-up, you build it up and then it's there and then they decide it's there. And this, of course, is backwards, naturally, or something of the sort.

You get somebody to run "worry" long enough, and he will eventually find out what he's really worrying about, which is being fixed in one place. This really worries him. The idea of being fixed in one place, as of a tree, would — just supposing the fellow were a tree for the next few thousand years, just standing there with nothing more to look at than those barriers around.

Well, it hit me for the first time, forcefully, that people decided they had a mock-up there after they put the mock-up there. They obviously do. Obviously. I work a little bit different than that. I never look at the mock-up I put up unless I happen to look at it. I know it's there. If I look, it's there. It can be inspected. It can be combined, and it behaves and so forth. But this step of having to reassure oneself isn't present. I don't think it should be. But it opens up the door to a lot of understanding of what somebody's doing. He's doing something — instead of on a basis of knowing he's doing it, he does it on a basis of reassuring himself that he's doing it. Do you see that? He doesn't know he's doing it, he reassures himself that he's doing it.

Well, of course, his abhorrence is to be fixed amongst barriers. That is dull. To be fixed and be able to change and view barriers is not dull. To survive forever in a state of complete consciousness, with a great ability to create is not dull, but to survive forever with no ability to create would be too ghastly to contemplate. And so we have — the paradox actually works itself out, if we look into it a little more deeply. All right.

Like the fellow, you know, he runs a race and waits for the — a grandstand to say, "Hurrah!" No hurrahs. He says to himself, "Well, I think you ran a good race anyway."

Let's take up our problem here again of barriers, and we'll see then that a great space is a barrier. That energy — you could, by the way, pour sheets of energy and random sheets of energy across an area and actually make a barrier out of the area. Let's take any field under bombardment — you see, there isn't a wall there, there's a great deal of energy occurring in the place. And to get a guy to cross it would face him with too much randomity, right away. So that's a barrier.

This is like: "All right. Now get a mock-up of a dog."

A barrier would be that thing which causes you to lose something if you trespass it. You call this wall a barrier because you can't take your body through it — you think. (You see, that's nonsense too, but we won't go into those upper echelons.) Yeah, this is a barrier, if you can't pass your wallet through it. See, if you could pass your wallet through it, it wouldn't be a barrier — nobody'd agree on that at all.

"Yeah, I got a dog. Yeah, this is real interesting."

Well, the reason you can't pass your wallet through it is your wallet is the same order of barrier. You see, this is a barrier to your wallet. So long as you want one single tiny atom in this universe, so long as you want one tiny little cubic millimeter of space in this universe, all these things are and can continue to be barriers.

See what he's doing? You see exactly what he's doing there? He is a questioning cause arriving at a surprised effect. In other words, he's being an uncertain cause and a certain effect. Which tells you exactly where he is on this billionth-of-a-second, we're talking about, time span. That billionth-of-a-second is the difference between knowing and being reassured.

That's because this universe is built out of space which mustn't go through space. See, the two things mustn't exist in the same space. That's one of the laws of space, and that's what makes it space.

Many a preclear comes to you simply to be reassured. Actually, if you patted him on the back and said, "You're not nuts. I see a lot of people much crazier than you are," shook them by the hand, told them to stop by the desk on their way out, they'd gladly put a lot of money there. See? They're looking for reassurance.

And the other one is, is that energy barriers built out of atoms and molecules must not pass through energy barriers built out of atoms and molecules. You follow that? Unless destruction and change is scheduled to occur. I mean, you can pass a wallet through there very easily by cramming it down the muzzle of a sixteen-inch gun and pulling the lanyard. But the trouble is that you probably wouldn't have much wallet, and you certainly wouldn't have any wall. So as long as you're trying to preserve matter, particularly, you will have barriers. So these are the clues to that.

Now, as you as an auditor run a gradient scale, you gradiently build a preclear up into greater and greater assurance, and he needs less and less reassurance, until his certainty is something he does not need validated by agreement. And what are we working him out of? We're working him out of being reassured by something which agrees with him only when he agrees with it. See that? So we get somebody waiting around, waiting around, waiting around to be told they're right. They're right all the time — there's only one person that's right, that's themselves. But they have gotten on to this basis of reassurance, which means effect.

Now let's look at what takes things away from you more consistently and continually than anything else. And that's time. And time as a barrier is an interesting barrier. Where is 1770? Where is the year 82,000 A.D.? Where?

Now, what on earth would it be that caused a person to pass over from happy cause to miserable effect? Hm? What would it be?

People ask where because they think time should be someplace. Well, let's put it another way: Where's the wallet you were carrying in 1770? Now we could be very poetic and say, "It's all withered away into the dust of yesterday," and et cetera and "And it's gone where the kudu mourneth and the ivy pineth," or something. Fascinating things you can say about it, but I'm afraid they're all emotional, they have nothing to do with the wallet. Just try and spend one of those pfennigs that you — that, by the way, a small coin that today you wouldn't be able to find hardly with a microscope, would buy a pig in 1700. So your wallet wouldn't do you any good, anyhow.

Well, this morning we were examining this inverting line. Let's go over that a little more — a little more carefully.

But the point is — the point is that time is the most ethereal sort of barrier that any preclear ever tried to contemplate. And when people in the past have contemplated time, they have simply gone all to pieces. Believe me, I'm not exaggerating it. They just go to pieces — they do all sorts of things. They blow their brains out, they take up physics, they resign themselves to their fate.

Now, here we have an inverting effect on, let us say, pleasurable sensation — which begins at the top somewhere with serenity and goes on down the line through elation, and goes on down the line through sexual sensation, and goes on down the line through sadism, and sort of dwindles out the bottom.

Physics runs along on no definition for space or time. They always are defining things by themselves. They say, "Time is an interval of lapse. Space is a distance."

Well now, if a person wants to be an effect more than he wants to be a cause, you could almost be sure, in view of the fact that he is basically just a knowing unit, that he's going to know where he is — he's going to be an effect, which tells you that he's going to be a time lag. Make sense to you now? It tells you that if he — if he knows he has to be an effect. So again, we have this business of the second dynamic.

It's like picking up a textbook which says very sonorously — and will flunk you if you don't say so too — it starts out grandly and it says, "What is a dog?" No pictures, nothing, you know, there's just this word d-o-g. You don't know what this d-o-g is. And it says sonorously — with what English, with what parsing, with what commaclature — that a dog is a dog. And you look in vain through the rest of the textbook to find what a d-o-g is. Is it something you eat? Something you wear?

Now, let's look at Mr. Sigmund Freud — nobody else has, we might as well. He picked on the second dynamic. And he did the most involved job with it. He talked about prenatal experience, he talked about birth trauma, he talked about this and that, and he talked about more bric-a-brac that he evidently knew about, but had never found any phenomena about, than any man I ever perused. And sitting in the middle of all this, was this terrific sleeper called the Assumption, see? That was a booby trap. He never divided the second dynamic into its most reasonable components: sex and babies. I don't know how you can separate sex and babies. And I don't know how you can separate sex and duplication. So we get sexual sensation as the pleasurable act of duplication by a system.

And then if you go around and complain to the professor and you say, "Look, bud" — taking him on face value, not on title — "look, bud, what is this thing, this d-o-g?"

Now, it isn't that sex and duplication are so alike that makes duplication effective in turning on perceptions. This is not why it's effective in turning on perceptions. It's effective because it unmocks, by simply ignoring and taking its work away from it, the automaticity which is busy building and doing everything. You're just making the preclear do it, right there, boom — the preclear does it. And the machine falls out of use and goes to pot. All right.

"Oh, well," he said, "it's right there. Why don't you study your lesson?"

What factor, then, are we dealing with, with somebody who is way over on the effect side of the ledger? If he's over on the effect side of the ledger, he's not going to exteriorize. Because he expects to exteriorize and be hit by perception. He expects perception to present itself and demonstrate it to him that it exists. He sits there calmly and waits for everything to demonstrate that it exists. He waits to be convinced.

And you look on the third page and — where he said to look, and it said, "A d-o-g is the antithesis of a g-o-d." And you look that up in the dictionary, and you get an entirely erroneous idea and think you're studying religion. And nearly everybody — almost everyone in the field of physics has come to this belief finally. So I don't know but what they don't try to put that in there.

His most basic function is knowingness, and one doesn't know well unless one knows with conviction. And he's substituted effect for conviction. Because he thinks he has to have this from somebody else — you see, he thinks you have to have pleasurable sensation from others — why, he supposes then that he has to agree with them. Because he's on the same wavelength. See what happens? Same wavelength, therefore he agrees, therefore he gets reality, therefore he modifies all of his machinery to agree with all of their machinery.

Now, this is wonderful, and it's very, very puzzling and very paradoxical, but it doesn't get you anywhere unless it gets you somewhere by realizing that some­body hasn't said anything. Now, if you can realize that about an awful lot of things in life, you have learned your biggest lesson. Because that's the most difficult lesson there is to learn because everybody is so certain — they sound so certain.

He runs around trying to find out what other people are wearing before he puts on his coat, what other girls are feeling before he bothers to feel anything. And when you back him out of his head, he sits there and waits to be convinced. There isn't anything there going to convince him. There isn't anything around anyplace that's going to walk up to him as a thetan and shake him by a beam and say to him, "Now, there, there. Now you're really outside and that's all fine, and I'm so glad you're outside and here you are. And now here — here we're presenting you with a view of the room." There's nothing going to happen like that. He exteriorizes as certainly as he is a causative element.

You can ask your preclear, "Mock up your mother sounding certain. Your father sounding certain. And everybody sounding certain. Parents, teachers — everybody. Everybody knowing the answers. Knowing the answers. Sounding certain. Sounding certain."

Now, this is no dodge. Somebody'll come along later and listen to this tape or listen to this argument and they'll say, "Now, you see, knew he'd worm out of it somehow. People really don't exteriorize. He says the second dynamic's got something to do with it. Well, I know it hasn't because I hate sex and / can't exteriorize." See how logical all that would be? Wonderfully logical, but it doesn't work. All right.

And all of a sudden the preclear will say, "You know, I sound the same way when I'm talking, heh-heh. And I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!" You've learned your biggest lesson when you've learned that everybody is being terribly convincing. Not reasonable — they're being convincing. That's entirely different.

Let's take a look at this second dynamic. Very interesting — it combines so many things. It is a debased serenity and beingness. Very debased. But it's nowhere near as debased as eating. A being that has to eat to reassure himself that he's gotten some attention is quite a character. Boy, he doesn't know from nothing — not from August nor from the Confederate Army. And that's the GE. In order for the GE to know he's being looked at, he has to have a full belly. Now, being looked at and a full stomach are the same thing. Having eaten is having condensed attention.

And so we take down the line, as we look at time, we find the same story has been occurring: "Time is a change of energy particles in space. Space is — well, space is energy — space is a particle area, which is monitored by time. No, it's not quite that. No, we'll write, now, the Einstein formula of relativity and befuddle everybody for twenty years. And then when we can't explain it that way, we'll write another formula. And that'll explain the first formula. Only nobody knew the first formula, and the second formula won't be released for another twenty years. So we won't know. And we can conclude from all this, that boy, is that convincing!"

Now, here's this little animalcule of some sort, and it rushes around every place and gathers up some mest and generates some energy and it bats it back and forth one way or the other, and it manages to get enough attention, it thinks, and generate enough attention, this way and that, so it finally has a body. And chomp! Some other entity rushes around this way and that, and this way and that, and back and forth and around and round, and it manages to condense some attention and it has a body. Chomp! And another one — and little fish have bigger fish and so forth. And so we get attention coming all the way up the line.

Now, fact of the matter is, time is not a difficult thing to understand if you can understand that a thetan is handling barriers, and is working with automatic machinery which constructs continuous barriers. They don't have to be constructed and unconstructed really continuously, since only that action itself creates time. So it's the speed with which he sets up his machinery. But again, speed is nothing. So it's just what he knows he's doing that he doesn't know he's doing that makes time.

The lowest attention: the lichen and the moss, which in juxtaposition can get attention satisfactorily from the mest universe, are actually the bottom, not the top of the scale. They are the start of an attention evolution in the form of eating. But when a person can't eat anymore and survive, boy, does he have to have attention in other departments. So we go right on up the dynamics — two.

You see that? It's something he knows he's doing. He knows there's time because he's set up time to be time, and then forgotten that he set it up to be time, so now he knows there's time. He knows a reduced fact. It just boils down in knowingness to that. He knows a reduced fact. And when he picks up a datum, he always knows a reduced fact from his basic knowingness.

Now, it so happens that psychology did serve a useful purpose. I don't care what you people say, anything of the sort. There is one thing they did, that did serve a useful purpose: They found out that they could experiment with rats, and not have to look at the subject of psychology — a human mind.

Now, let's be a little more factual about time and a little less far out. That's really what time is. And let's take these two ashtrays here: We put them here, and now we put them here, a little closer together. Mmm! We changed two particles in space, and we observed that they changed. See that? Now, you observed they changed and I observed they changed, simultaneously, because we agree that we observe the same things. All right. Here we have — we move them again. Now you agree that you observed them. Now, we'll move them again. And you agree again, that you observed them. And we move them again.

So we go into the field of psychology and find out that somebody who didn't study any, made an experiment on rats in the field of medicine — which nobody reported in the field of psychology — that rats which are given a very poor diet, reproduce better. Terrifically! The less the food supply the greater the production of young. And so it is, in the countries of Earth — India and so forth. They at last got that. I mean, psychology called somebody's attention to this, who, in the field of biochemistry or metallurgy or something of the sort, made this other experiment. So, a psychology — has contributed.

Now we agree that they're going to do this. [sound of ashtrays moving on table] Do you agree that you observe them doing this? Well, I observe them doing this. Now let's speed this up, which is to say, let's "not know" about how fast this is going. You got that? Let's all agree we don't know how fast this is going, but that we know how fast this is going. (audience laughter)

Now, get that. Not enough attention, so we have to have attention on the second dynamic, which is to say sensation on the second dynamic. Not enough second, we've got to have it as a group, at least as a member of a group. Not enough as a group — here we go right on up, see? Till we get to six — the only place we can get it is from mest itself. Well, there are people around who can actually get satisfactory attention from mest. It satisfies them somewhat. They're in horrible condition. And we go on to seven: people who invent spirits to give them attention. And we go on to eight: people who invent some god to give them some personalized attention. And we've gone all the way on out, then.

What we're doing is making and banishing pieces of space. See, we're banishing new pieces of space all the time. We have to make a piece of space and banish a piece of space, and make a piece of space and banish a piece of space. And if we keep making and banishing pieces of space, we naturally have a sensation that something has happened. And we know something has happened because we know things happen, and we've agreed on that, so we're all set.

Now, if we take each one of those in its pure state — and not a preclear with each one of them cut away a little bit, each one of them living on one of them — we get in each bracket a psychotic. But most people, what we get is one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight — he's a little bit gone on each one, see? He just lost just a little bit of one — he can't eat too well, oysters disagree with him. See, that's one thing gone on eating. Two, he doesn't like young girls — you know, a woman has to understand him. You see? And boy babies are all right at two. Girl babies, no. Younger babies, no. See, so there's a little bit gone on that one. There's two gone. Groups of people are all right in church, see, but otherwise — nah, no groups.

Takes a long time for a fellow to work all this out and then forget about it and then play stupid about it, and it's kind of weird sitting here telling people this just as though they didn't know it. So if you feel somewhat confabulated, "confabulified" and conglomerated by all this, why, just blame it on yourself. I'm not responsible at all. Because you're the people that see cars go by — I never look at the darn things. All right.

We get this supermodification of each one of the dynamics, and we get a composite that the fellow, following — evidently having read Dickens and considering that a character is utterly dependent upon one's eccentricities (Dickensonian characterization), he thinks he has a character now and has a personality. And if you want to make somebody have a different personality, just talk him out of each one of the eight dynamics, you see — a little bit of each one. Only choose something new and radical about it, you see — don't have him like groups of firemen. See, just cut that off the third dynamic. Men are all right, but monkeys are also men. On the fifth dynamic, just cut it down so that he only likes snakes. On the sixth dynamic, why, have big spaces be antipathetic toward him, and blue mest the best, and red mest nauseating, see? On the seventh dynamic, it's all right for the church to have a spirit and talk about spirits, but spirits don't exist. I don't know how anybody ever gets over that one — that's a gorgeous one. And as far as the eighth dynamic, well, God's all right for a lot of people because he does a lot of good but personally he doesn't believe in him. You know, get that and tailor him up a new and unusual personality. You could selectively then strip out each one of these, and you'd get this set of eccentricities. All right.

So we have these particles in motion one after the other — particles in motion. Well, the only way a particle will be in motion is to make new space and say the old space doesn't exist. How do you do this? You're depending upon your ability to make things disappear. Make pieces of space disappear. This is fabulous. You're depending on your ability to make pieces of space disappear to have new things. And you can't have new things if you can't make pieces of space disappear. And the person who's having the most trouble with time and the most trouble with his case and the most trouble with exteriorization is the person who has the most trouble with making things — with things disappearing.

What about this second dynamic? Where would you start cutting into this case on that? Well, the fellow who has a tremendous thirst for attention in the form of food, of course, has got sensation the most condensed that it can get. It can't get more condensed than that. So you would mock up tastes in the walls and in mock-ups. Tastes. You'll find a lot of guys can get tastes that can't get sexual sensation or something, you see? You go from tastes to various types — lighter ones and then heavier ones and more serious ones — sexual sensation: putting that around into walls and spaces and so forth. And we go from there into the next echelon. And we put the admiration that one would get from audiences or spectacular feats or circus performers or something of the sort, we'd get that into the walls — that kind of sensation. And we would go right on out along the line until we got God and serenity.

Everything is either going all the time automatically — everything's just vanishing — or, once he gets something, he just worries himself stiff. He's afraid to get something because he knows he can't make it disappear. And he's having trouble with time. He also has trouble with reality. See? He looks at a door, and he's liable to get the image of the door alongside of the door unless he's real careful not to look at the door. And his solution to this problem is "don't look." First, "don't create," and next, "don't look." And then he can go on knowing that all this time is going on, and isn't that happy.

Now, some people get hung up on the sixth dynamic. It has its own sensations, and you might find this very peculiar, but it does. There is a type of sensation of attention from the sixth dynamic. It's known as pain.

Now, what's the first thing he did? The first thing he did was to agree that he wanted time, and then he agreed he didn't want it anymore because it was taking too much away from him — it was too big a barrier. So he tried to turn time back and recover your agreement on the fact that they existed again. But he depended upon your agreement to reassure him that they existed again, and so he knows he can't have them because you didn't agree they existed. You're all in a hectic agreement that this stuff's gone. "When it's gone, it's gone. It goes at this rate, see, fellow? I mean, it goes at this rate and it's gone, and it's really gone, you understand? And you can't have 1770 back again."

And if you don't get this whole scale handled on some preclears, they just don't exteriorize. Why? You'd say, "This is very funny that — if they can't get all this, well they're so on and so on." Well, you could answer it in lots of ways. You say, "They're so dependent upon a body that they cannot possibly envision getting along without a body."

The hell you can't. You can create 1770. When you get hot enough, you could create 1770 a lot solider than you saw it in 1770. The only trouble is, it'll be your 1770, you won't be sharing it with anybody. So you're liable to put the Revolutionary War seventy-six years earlier or something. Because what you want again is a pattern of particles. You've said these things have disappeared. And your continuous postulate is, "It's disappeared." Only the postulate is being made automatically.

There is such a preclear over in Great Britain who'd simply put the complete stopper on any further processing. Oh! Husband was a Step I. She got him stuck back in his head, but good. She went around beating her chops and raising the devil in all directions. She's quite a pretty woman. And then she did

Now, you want to know why somebody makes something disappear before he creates it — is because he's already said he didn't create it. And then he said afterwards he didn't make it disappear either. First, he didn't — stopped creating it because he could always get it; and then it was scarce and he couldn't create it then, he had to steal it (he'd forgotten he could create it); now he's forgotten he's creating; now the next point on the line is to forget it disappears.

Scientology all right as an auditor, very covertly, calling it Freudian psycho­analysis.

Now, all of this is terrific theory, isn't it? Very interesting theory, and it's something that you can bat your brains out over. The only trouble with it is it happens to work. It draws its curve right straight along with the DEI cycle, which we've long — known about for a long time. It draws a curve right along with the difficulty of case and exactly what cases are doing, when they are difficult to handle. And it also draws the same curve on what you do to make cases recover, and it presses us rather inevitably toward this theoretical conclusion.

The general characteristics and the path of ruin which follows that character is fascinating to behold. And I'm afraid it lumps under the heading of "she can't get enough sensation."

This isn't something I dreamed up in order to edify you. I'm not beyond doing that, but I will tell you very, very bluntly that if anything under the sun has been pointing in toward an inevitable point of knowingness, it is this creation, persistence, and disappear curve with relationship to cases. The answer to it is that cases are solving on this. They are solving on it.

"Grrr! Rrrr! Go ahead, uuuh!" Honest to Pete! It's just about that bad. Oh, brother! So anyway, as sad and sordid as this subject may be, it isn't that she's dependent upon the body for sensation, it's that she can't manufacture it. You see that?

Now, we'll take the "wasting the machine." What is this waste? That's the "have" and "not-have." That's possession of particles, or no-possession of particles. You're saying, when you look at mest — mest is so valuable because it's not only just a particle in itself, it's something which everybody else is convinced is a particle too. You're not just convinced, everybody's convinced. It's a particle. So, it's a particle — wonderful! We got a particle. This particle is as valuable as everybody is convinced.

So, what creativeness do we have to trigger on the preclear who's having a hard time of it? Now, very early in this Second Unit, I gave you a list of things to put in the walls. And I'll bet you on the tougher preclears, you haven't built it up very far. But let's evaluate its importance on a rough case, hm?

And things are as real to a person as he does not need agreement from others to be convinced of the existence of. That person to whom things, theo­retically, would be the most real, would be that person who neither resisted or desired or knew about or cared about any agreement as to what he had.

Now, I'll take what I was talking about this morning: cause and effect. That which a fellow desires eventually becomes inhibited. See, he wants it and then it becomes too scarce. Everybody wants it, nobody creates it, so it becomes scarce.

He says, "All right. I've got a pile of gold here. It weighs two tons, and — beautiful gold. There it is and I'm piling it up, and here it is." See? Now he can be perfectly happy with this pile of gold if he doesn't feel the need of agreeing. The second he feels the need of agreeing too desperately with others, he's going to say, "Say, Joe, do you think this is gold?" or anything.

The next step up, then, on such a thing, is he very often has to waste something. Now, it's all right for me to say, "Waste something in brackets." That's a wonderful way to code it, that's a nice way to do it, you should do it in a balanced, even form. But do you know that you can sit down and by the use of your good common sense, make a preclear waste something that he can't get — this way and that way and another way until he's wasted enough of it, so that he can have a little bit of it, and then he can have a little bit more of it and turn it on full blast.

You can trace back in your own lifetime when you have disbelieved something so that you could invite somebody else's opinion on it. When you have put aside a solution which you knew was a good solution in order to have a conference about it. It is the pleasure of mutual concourse in life that keeps taking away our reality from us.

I processed a preclear once for about twenty-five minutes who had a milk allergy; turned into a flaming rash every time she drank some milk. Processed her for twenty-five minutes worth to finally get her to get, in mock-up, a glass of milk that she could drink. Boy, we wasted milk, and we wasted it in the most peculiar and horrible fashions. Did we worry about an actual reason why? No, this reason why is the furthest we want to go away from that. No, we just had to waste milk. And it turned from people who couldn't get any milk, and the baby starving to death for lack of milk, and there's one drop of milk left in the Western Hemisphere and with what happy speed she would pour that down the sink. See, here you had a set-up situation, and gradually just getting it to unbelievable scarcities.

Now, let's not say this is an error. Let's merely conclude that the pleasure of co-operation must be very great indeed to entirely supplant single operation. But the reason for that is, is because co-operation utterly assures the fellow that he hasn't made you so he could have a chess player. It assures him completely of interest and randomity. He hasn't got the least idea, he says, what your next opinion's going to be and he's so happy about it. All right.

Now, you can process the second dynamic in that same fashion, and that's usually the tripper and the blocker on a case. The person who is real hard to exteriorize has normally — I hope I don't step on any toes — has normally passed over the barrier of being able to have it. See? And they go down from there into actual all-out aversion to it. Down to the point where they'll join societies which guarantee to cover up girls' ankles or something of the sort. See, anything there that'll just hide it so they don't dare have it and so on.

Let's look at this time as a barrier. Do you know the difference between a bad case and a good case may very well be less than a fraction of a second? Less than a second — certainly a fraction of a second. Of what? Of particle control. We might be dealing here with as little as a third of a second between a Step I and a Step V. Time is a barrier. Well, it's obvious you can't have 1700 and 2080 unless you just sit down and create them — because it's what you're doing with present time anyway.

Well, there isn't anybody doing anything to this person. It's just this cycle of — they made lots of it once, made lots of this sensation, condensed it; and then everybody was making it and so it — nobody made it because there was lots of it, you see; and then nobody made it, so they grabbed hold of what had been made and then they used that, and that of course evaporated because after all, it wasn't being made directly; and the automatic machinery went by the boards, and all of a sudden wasn't being made, so several people started making it surreptitiously, one way or the other; and then it got very scarce from that, and these people were inhibited from making it. How did they get inhibited from making it? Simply by other automaticities. Because one person couldn't make it, another person shouldn't make it too, because that gave monopolies on it. Oh boy. And we go down the line further and further and further.

But what mechanism is keeping you in present time? It's the agreement that everybody's in present time. It's no accident that going out into the wilderness for fourteen days and simply sitting down, not talking to anybody, will either drive you mad or clear you. Because you shake out all the agreement — you key out. Do you see? No agreement. You're not asking anybody if the sun rises. The world starts looking entirely different when you do this. I did it when I was a kid. I was very, very fascinated — to the fantastic effect that it produced.

Well, all of which starts out by having a person at cause, which is creating a sensation or an energy, and bringing them down to the bottom rung of being an effect. Because not only can they not create it, but it never has been created, it shouldn't be created, and shouldn't be touched if it were created, and if it were created it would be illegal and somebody ought to be shot.. . You see, this is way down. And that is just the span between cause and effect.

Now, here's the difference between cause and effect. All right, I haven't touched this ashtray yet and I say, "I am now going to move this ashtray." [sound of ashtray being moved] Now, was my statement before or after the shift of the ashtray?

Now, there are several other spans between cause and effect. This thing about time, directly, is a direct span between cause and effect. Now, this is a way to bring somebody else on up the line of cause and effect. But remember, they only have that sensation there because they know it's there. But it's a good track to take a Homo sapiens on. See, they can feel that sensation back, they know it's there finally. This is a good track to carry Homo sapiens along, because Homo sapiens, in each and every case, has a fondness for this type of sensation. He eats. Sex, kids, and so forth, up the line. And is the state, in most of your preclears, where they can't eat very much. And as far as sex is concerned, well it's kind of expected of them but they hope not. And third dynamic, they'd rather play the only one, you see, and never talk to a group. And the fourth dynamic, "Mankind?" That's about as far as they go on that. And it's "What room?" Yet, withal, as far as sensation is concerned, they manage to be (quote) "happy" (unquote). As happy as Homo sapiens ever could be.

Now, I'm going to say, "Gee, you know, that ashtray is about to fall over. I'd better [sound of ashtray being moved] move it." Was my decision before or after the ashtray?

You have a thetan who is total effect, you have no thetan. See that? You got as much thetan — you are as much as you are cause. And you can actually, unfortunately for you, experience as much as you can cause, see? So a person who is no — you might say, down there almost to no thetan — isn't experiencing anything. See, people want to be an effect. If they want to be an effect, they drift too far away from cause and there they go.

Well, we'll go through this again. Is this effect, which is to say, after the fact? "I'm going to move the ashtray." All right, is this cause? The ashtray is liable to fall over — it is falling [sound of ashtray being moved] — I've moved it in time." Which is cause and which is effect?

Now, what's the gradient scale of sensation? Well, it's from taste, or physical discomfort because of taste, on up through the milder forms of sexual sensation, on up through the feeling of friendship, on up through the feeling of a benevolent beingness, on up through just an emotion which would sort of be life. And, by the way, unless somebody's pretty well exteriorized here, I would think right this moment it would be very hard for me to describe this.

Female voice: Cause is in the future.

In the first place, man has never described it. He's talked about a "lively feeling" and a "feeling of life," and it's drifted along in his language, so that it tells you that he felt it once, but I'm almost sure he hardly ever feels it anymore, so as to describe it. Because that is about as high-powered exhilaration as anybody wants to contact. It's like — actually, in its own form, it's like walking into a ten-thousand-volt generator and grabbing hold of both of its electrodes, but very pleasant to do so. Jolt! See? Life!

That's right. Cause is in the future. Cause leads. And as long as a preclear is squirreled up about this — and a lot of them are — in fact, any preclear who's having any difficulty at all is. He thinks that because — "I will now move the ashtray" [sound of ashtray being moved] — he thinks he's being an effect because he said, "I will move the ashtray," before he moved the ashtray. And before moving the ashtray, of course, puts his action prior to the motion of the ashtray, which, of course, makes him look like he lagged behind the motion of the ashtray. He did no such thing.

And we go on up to mest. mest is very exhilarating in its actual working state. Because he likes barriers. And that's sort of a basis of "Whee! Playground! Whee! Barriers! Gee, look at that nice thick building! Gosh! What? You mean it's that many light-years to the next galaxy? Gee!" See? "Gosh! Look at all that distance!" You know, zing!

The clear way to — happened here, is that in the future of the motion of the ashtray, he decided to move the ashtray. And in the past of his decision, the ashtray moved. Fac One had as its almost entire purpose the reversal of this concept: it turned the past into the future and the future into the past. All right.

And we go on up to seven, it's no joke that the word spirit means two things. Much, much earlier than when man had a definition for feeling lively, and knew what it meant when he said it, he had another one called spirit. That's elan. Honest, I don't know, you run across it in the bank once in a while, but manufactured in this society? Nuh-uh. Elan: spirit. It's a word which still carries its dictionary definition. It's less and less used in the society at large. You say, "She was a very spirited woman." Sounds awfully old-fashioned, doesn't it? It doesn't mean "lively," it means something else. It's another set of emotions.

So what's cause? Cause is your own decision, command or postulate of action. And as long as this precedes action, a person is self-determined. But as soon as one's postulate begins to succeed action, he is other-determined; because his postulate is being caused by other determinism than his.

And now we run head-on into God, or what man calls God, and we find some new material there. Because the serenity of total pervasion of an area is without equal. And once in a while a thetan will pick this up in his bank and he'll say, "What the heck is this? Oh, gee-whiz, yes. That's the time when I had this whole woods I was looking after." You know he had a whole wood, like Frazer's Golden Bough, you know. Only this time, not corned up like it is in Frazer's Golden Bough. I mean he actually was the guardian of a wood, as a spirit. He was the spirit of the wood. He pervaded the whole area, and what benignity and serenity and occasional interest and so forth there was in all this — ah dear, dear, what was this? Well, that's a sensation.

He reaches out here spontaneously and he shifts the ashtray, then he looks at it and wonders why he shifted the ashtray and he says, "It's a good thing I moved the ashtray." That's automaticity. What's the prime key to all automaticity? Why is automaticity strange and peculiar? It's only strange and peculiar because it interferes with the barrier "time." Or it is the barrier "time." Time is the one single aberration, as far as that's concerned. You can, with ease, pass through any other kind of a barrier.

And oddly enough, each one of these are stronger sensations than the last. So we think of this thing called eating. Well, that's a fairly strong sensation. Well, sex ought to be a stronger sensation. Friendship ought to be a much stronger sensation than that, and here we go on up to the serenity. Now, just compare that to the most currently poetic description of sex, you see, and look where we would have to go for adjectives. The language just doesn't stand up to it, because the language breaks its back, and gets forbidden right now, if it describes an orgasm. And there's — there it goes. But man — man deals with this at just about his highest level: the taste of beer and an orgasm (audience laughter) is just about the highest goal of many people. You wonder why somebody pulls a blank when you try to tell them about thinking or Scientology. Just compare it with their sensation range.

But by pulling on yourself the trick that we will all agree on the appearance and disappearance, with regularity, of space; and then we will depend upon some symbol which we put up which is spelled t-i-m-e to symbolize this appearance and disappearance of new particle positions; and when we will agree that these particles do not move except in this pattern (you know, of our agreement) according to certain laws; and when we all hook into the same regulator on the same subject and then depend utterly upon time; and then make all of our havingness this stuff which is so created — we, of course, can't have the past again. Nor can we have the future again. Nor can we have the future in advance.

Now, you ask somebody to be causative right off the bat, being sort of quick-like, and you run into responsibility.

So it becomes a horrible, hectic contest on the part of the individual, where he pantingly is keeping himself somewhere in the vicinity of these particles — present time. He's trying to coordinate with their motion consistently and continually, and that is the strain which he's undergoing.

Well, what's responsibility got to do with this? You're going to have to make him feel the effect of what he's caused. That's what he thinks. Responsibility is having to feel the effect of what one causes. Full responsibility is just causing everything and to hell with the effect. See? That's everything. But if this person believes, knows, that he can cause only bad effects — he doesn't want to feel any bad effects.

Now, make no mistake. That is the strain which he is undergoing. We're not going out any further than this and say that is the strain because of this significance and that significance.

So, as you work him up the line, remember to work the sensation band for both bad and good effects, because he does have this evaluation. When you start to get tastes, remember that — bad tastes as well as good tastes. Because you're going to work him up the field of responsibility, and he doesn't want these bad effects. Therefore, he won't be responsible. Therefore, he won't cause. So without telling him anything about any underlying theory or anything that goes back of it, you just keep him plowing away at getting what emotions he can get into things, and what tastes he can get into it, and what smells he can get into things, bad and good, and what sensations — sexual sensations and frigidity and other things — and forbiddingness, bad and good.

Worry. What's worry? Worry is being slightly back of causative instant. Not quite being in causative instant. And one tells himself all the time that he's worrying about something that's going to happen in the next eight or nine days. But the truth of the matter is even if he inspects this just a little bit, he will find that it's an instant thing — it's an immediate thing.

Now, many of these cases you'll pick up will have to be run a long time on "effort of worry." Worry. That is a sort of a sensation that is very close to effort itself. It is a sensation. It's very debased, but it's better than no sensation at all, and it's sort of downgraded from sex. You'll get people that they — their emotions get undifferentiated; they — emotions get all balled up at the lower end of the scale.

He expects — if you go in with an E-Meter you'll find out the preclear is momentarily expecting something to happen. What's he expecting to happen? He's expecting to coast back of this agreement just far enough to click out of it. Well, that's a real worry. So he's making a big effort to stay up with that thing which he is creating. That's — it's a grimmest joke of all that one is playing on oneself.

Now, when you show a thetan that he can cause, and if you get him really to cause these various emotions, with what persuasion you can (it's part of Step I) — if you can get him to cause these and feel them, and then just cause them and know he's caused them, you'll have him up pretty well, finally, to the rather forbidding level of being able to cause them without caring he caused them — and other people feeling them.

One is in good shape, exteriorizes easily and everything goes along swimmingly and nothing keys in — what a gorgeous time he has — because he's in advance of all his automaticity when he's in what we will call "causative instant." And causative instant is being just a split second ahead of the actual change of the particle because you're actually assisting their change. And what is being the "effect instant"? That's being always, with postulates, a split second after the shift.

Now, he'll think of this on his way up, and you'll say, "Say, do you suppose ..." Anytime he says, "Say, do you suppose that somebody else might feel this? I just put this terrific sensation of hatred in that woman there behind the cigar counter" — he's exteriorized by this time or something, you see — "and I just put that big hatred down there. Now, you suppose that really upset the customers?" or something of the sort. I'll let you in on something. If he's worried about it, he can't cause it. See that? If he's worried about it, he can't cause it.

What is the difference between an analytical process or an observational process — we ought to call it the observational mind — and the stimulus-response process? What's the difference, then, between these two minds? What's the difference between the thetan and the stimulus-response bank?

Now, that poses a rather horrible moral problem, doesn't it? But the funny part of it is, is only when he worries about it would he try to cause it capriciously and maliciously. So, if he's worried about the horrible effect he's having, he's running up against another one — he's afraid of what he'll think because if he thinks where he is, then they'll find him too. If he thinks such a thought might happen, it'll happen. He's fighting shy because he believes that he'll be bad effect. So remember when he picks up something on that order, if he just voices this to you, and say, "Ha! I'm kind of scared that, gee, I'm — mmm — I don't like this." Be sure and you get some bad effects — the bad effects.

The stimulus-response bank is a fraction of an instant back of the shift of these particles called MEST. And the observational, analytical mind is in the causative instant just a fraction of a second before the change. And I mean it's a fraction of a second! This thing could be figured down to as small as a billionth of a second as the difference between being able to get out of your head and not being able to get out of your head.

Now, all the way running along this, there are a lot of side effects. Interesting ones. There is the feeling of unconsciousness in about eight different guises, at least.

Now, what are the processes which remedy this? Well, I'll frankly tell you I haven't invented them all yet. Because every time I think about this problem, and cave my brains in somewhat or another, in trying to figure out how to put it across, I always find a new one. And most of them are pretty faint, because the gain that you're working for is very slight.

There's the unconsciousness which comes over a person during drowning — that's horrible, right at its beginning. There is the unconsciousness of a person going into an hypnotic trance — another sensation. There is the unconsciousness of a person going under ether. There's another one, of the unconsciousness of going under nitrous oxide, which happens to be an entirely different one. You'll every once in a while pick up a preclear who has a horror of this — I mean, just a screaming horror of it. You just say, "Now, put the smell of nitrous oxide in the wall," and he just — "Where is the door?" See, he just — "I don't want anything more to do with you!" And there is the unconsciousness of restfulness and sleep — another unconsciousness. And there's the unconsciousness caused by a concussion or a blow — another one entirely. These are different uncon­sciousnesses — each one is different.

But I've found this process rather uniformly effective — if carried out long enough on the preclear. And he finds himself fighting time so much, and so impatiently, that he'll drop back into stimulus-response several times. And on a preclear who's having a lot of difficulty, you as the auditor would be utterly flabbergasted how long you have to do this before he begins to know what he's doing without your telling him. It's fabulous getting this point across to a preclear who can't exteriorize.

Now, generally, as he starts up scale, you — he'll pick out unconsciousness, and unconsciousness is unconsciousness and that's the kind of unconsciousness he's stuck in. And he'll just keep throwing it out into the wall.

What's the process? There's two processes — there's actually three, but I'll only tell you about two of them that are immediate on this. I can give you others and so forth, because this is one of those wide-open doors. I mean, we've got the basic fact, and it's just what gets dreamed up on that that's important. And that is, you simply seat your preclear in the midst of a bunch of mest objects — you know, dolls, toy cats, hats and so forth. And now you give him the steer, you know, the first time or two, and then you more or less deliver it into his own hands what he's doing. And you start it out this way: you say, "All right. Now you decide to move that hat to a new position. Okay, now you decide it."

Now, remember that any of these sensations can be scarce, and remember that any time he can't get it, it's because it's too scarce — not because he has an inability to create it. Any time you start saying that people have an inability to create, you're cutting your own throat as an auditor. It's a wrong phraseology for you as an auditor, even though I use it occasionally because it's such a pat phrase in English. If you wanted to get the practice definition of what's happening is, is on sexual sensation he has to waste it first. He doesn't have an inability to create it. See, the modus operandi is he'd have to waste it first. He can get it. There is no sensation which he cannot duplicate, no matter how bad off he is. There is no missing piece of machinery in the thetan. Thetans do not have different native abilities which permit some to create this, and permit others to create something else.

And he does. And he says, "All right."

Now, pending to all of this — which I hope you understand more about Step I because of this — let me give you something that you may not at once recognize as the highest level of all of this. You go back there in old 8-80 and we talk about aesthetics, and we talk about beauty and ugliness. The feeling called "beauty," when condensed and debased and degraded utterly, becomes sex. That's not because sex is bad, but just because the sensation contained in beauty and the power of beauty itself is so much greater.

And you say, "Now do it." He moves it to a new position.

Now, things are beautiful because people agree that this sensation is generated by beautiful things. But it's that sensation more than anything else. It's a terrific sensation. And you will find your preclear went by the boards when he didn't believe he could have beauty anymore — whether beauty through poetry, whether beauty through a beautiful man or a beautiful woman. Part of a girl — they think men are beautiful (to you male preclears, they occasionally do) which, by the way, a male preclear completely overlooks. And I've found some female preclears that — they're just blank on this subject. "Men thought women were beautiful? How weird." Yeah, because they didn't. Now, that's just an agreed-upon "what is beautiful?"

Well, of course, his automaticity is being junior to your automaticity throughout, anytime, so you've got to get this up to a point where he is doing the whole thing and you just leave him there doing it.

We'll find beauty way up there in those upper strata. You'll find somebody who lost the concept of beauty about writing poetry, and break his case. Funny, isn't it? So that's what you're racking around for. Because if a person cannot create the beautiful, he won't create! And that's what kicks him off, right there in the beginning.

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

So remember to look for that one and to have him create the sensation of beauty, and create things which he considers beautiful. And you don't have to validate the fact that these experiences have happened to him. But that experience that really broke his back had to do with beauty. He lost something beautiful, or he lost some ability, he thought, which was a beautiful ability, and he went by the boards. Bing! Now he's not going to cause anything. He's not going to exteriorize.

And what's our next step? We say, "All right. Now get the idea that you're going to move the ashtray to a new position.

Okay.

"Okay." He gets the idea.

And you say, "Now do something else."

And his wheels will kind of go screeeee, skid, and he will do something else. But he will get wise to this, to be colloquial. After a little while he'll realize that he did something else on a "disgust" stimulus-response. So the desirability of existence, as it reduces, is what brings about stimulus-response. See? All right.

Now, the next step. You say, "All right" — there's some other things you can do in this same channel — we won't bother with them. The next step is, you say, "All right. Now decide to move that ashtray to a new position." (Or that hat or that dog — preferably some other object.) "Now do so." And he does so. You say, "All right. Now decide to move the ashtray to a new position. Now do so." He does.

You'll notice at about that time that he has started to go automatic as far as you're concerned. Because your preclear is as bad off as he is apt to go automatic on anything. So you tell him at this time, "Now you yourself decide to move this ashtray, or move some object there to a new position. You decide it, and decide when to do it."

"Okay." And then he'll sit there and he'll do it.

About that time he'll — he may start to protest — or a little bit later, he'll start to protest. He'll tell you this is silly, that it's not getting anyplace, that "you don't know why you're doing that," and he's liable to have all kinds and varieties of protest. Why? Because you're making him actually push up that fraction of a second and he feels like he's being speeded up beyond a point he can tolerate it.

Well, actually, that intolerance of pace will not take place. It's not upsetting. There's nothing to that. You just get him to push on through it. You say, "Decide to move something else." He seems reluctant to. You say, "Well, all right. Now decide to move that pencil. All right. Now move it to the new position. Now pick out the new position it's going to move into."

Oh, you see, he's — probably didn't do that before. He just knew he was going to move it. But you decided this new position he's going to move it into.

He does. Now you say, "Now decide to move the ashtray again to a new position." And he actually will this time select the new position. And you say, "All right. Now, having decided, get the idea that you suddenly have to move the ashtray over on your right." He will.

What you're working there with is interference and interruption of action. And what you're working with is basically automaticity and interference with the cycle of action, so that we can't finish cycles of action. And what we're working with, right straight along as we go, is trying to return into his mind the idea that he makes up his mind to do something and then does it. And that'll key out all of his machinery.

How many hours does it take? It's perfectly idiotic. It'll almost drive a man mad. You're only trying to move him ahead maybe a billionth of a second. He'll get the idea that he should think of all these things and do them instantaneously. This is upsetting to him that he doesn't do all these things instantaneously. He's just trying to make a postulate work. This is his own laziness showing up with him.

Now, instead of that, what we force him to do is to take it carefully, maddeningly, and make up his mind to do something and put it to a new position and then not do it; make up his mind to do something and change it to a new position and then have the idea that he's got to change it and move something else instead without moving that object; and merely make up his mind and change it to a new position and do it. And the last is the best.

You say, "All right. Now make up your mind you're going to move the pencil to a new position." He selects the new position. And you say, "Now, don't do it." Dzzzzzz!

This is not all the factors of existence at work in time. But this is directly handling that barrier called time and will overcome it. Putting a person in present time is probably moving him not more than a billionth of a second. Changing him from effect, which is why he can't get out of his head and is waiting for something to happen, to cause is probably no more than that. So I recommend to you for your use, on cases which don't exteriorize easily, this process.

Okay.