You look at this Ability that I finished writing at 8:30 this morning and it says, "How to Start a Practice," and it's something we have had under trial here and it works. And it's the most workable darned idea you ever saw in your life. And it's going to be so workable, about the only thing that makes it fall down is the incapability of the individual attempting to execute it. And he, of course, could be sufficiently bunglesome, every time he answered the phone, he could say, "What the hell do you want now," you know.

Okay.

Well, that's not within the program. But we know now that an auditor can start a practice and continue on along this line, outside the field of psychotherapy.

Want to talk to you now on how to do a process named Union Station.

It's simply an ad that says – you run in the paper – says "Personal Relations." Ad – run it in the personals column. Of course, you have to run it quite often and long – couple of weeks before you'll get your first call probably because people'll think it's a code message. It says, "Personal Relations." They see it's there time and time again. They finally decide, "Well, he means business. I'll call him up." "Personal Relations: I will talk to anyone for you about anything." Now, you've heard of that around here, heard a rumor about it. But you didn't know how well it was going. It was going two and three calls a day in spite of the fact the phone wasn't manned except between four and six.

If you believe that Union Station — if you believe that Union Station and R2-46 in general supplant all other auditing you are falling into a pattern of error which has been consistent with Scientology and Dianetics for a long time.

Okay. Now, I want to talk to you about something far – far more important than what I've been talking to you about, as if anything could be more important than that.

Every time a new process comes out everybody says — expected to say, "Well, now this is it," and all other stuff goes by the boards. I would go so far as to say that a person who did not know his Six Basic Processes and Route 1, really had no real business doing too much Union Station on somebody who was in rather poor condition.

I want to talk to you about the dissemination of a subject called Scientology which has just become impossible.

Union Station is a process which belongs at the level of Locational Processing, which is just below Two-way Communication. And when it has been run and is pretty darn flat, you will find that the preclear is in pretty good communication with the auditor and now he can really do Two-way Communication, can't he? And so that after we've done a little Two-way Communication he's willing to originate some things, and so forth, then we've got him just now in a position where, maybe, he could do a little bit of subjective work.

With the arrival of the concept that the highest knowingness that you can reach is not to know about anything, we have crossroaded with all of the philosophies of the East and have gone beyond. We just left the human race.

The Invent, Assign, Recall Processes are subjective processes.

This idiotic secret was the secret that held this universe together. And the day when you found yourself in it and were blinking around and saying, "Hey, what happened? How did I get here?" and the first time you decided that you'd rather get out of it, this thing was the secret which held you in it.

And when he could handle a subjective process pretty well, he could certainly do some 8-C, couldn't he? And he could certainly do some Opening Procedure by Duplication and by this time certainly he can remedy havingness, and if he can do that, then he can spot spots. And if he can spot spots he can do Route 1. So, it's going according to schedule but we have put a tremendously powerful process down below Two-way Communication where I think, you will agree, we desperately needed one. But because an individual has been leveled out fairly well on Union Station does not mean he is now in the best condition that Scientology can put him in.

This was why you stayed in it and why you didn't leave, because you had to know something and you didn't know what it was! And you know why you didn't know what it was, this thing you had to know? It's because the thing you had to know was "not to know." The little squirrels run around in their cage; the giraffe stands up in the zoo; the acorns drop from the tree, all because they don't know that they mustn't know. And that's why they go on being squirrels and giraffes and acorns. But the moment that you no longer are held by this fact, when it becomes a very positive and complete fact to you, when your cognition on this is very sharp, things cease to be a trap. They can no longer be a trap of any kind.

Now, completely aside from the Six Basic Processes and the new — the position of Union Station at the level of Locational Processing, we have another factor which has been introduced — two factors, really: the — Axiom 53 — the stable datum necessary to the alignment of data; and with that we get the factor of chaos. It's the chaos that supports and gives power to the stable datum on a reactive level. On an analytical, a rational level, it is the first postulate which gives power to the second postulate. The second postulate is a dead thing without the first postulate to back it up and give it power. So on an analytical level we have: Not-Know — Know.

That's an interesting thing to know because if a man knows how to walk out of the door, he ceases to be a prisoner of that jail, even though he still can walk around in the jail.

Here's the thetan and he Not-Knows so he can Know. It's real cute. He can do a lot of involved things concerning his not-knowingness and one of the most involved things he does is Not-Know, then Know and then Forget that he now Knows so that he can Remember it.

Compulsive and obsessive knowing, inhibited knowing – that's the trap.

So we have postulate one: Not-Know — this is on an analytical level; postulate two: Know; postulate three: Forget; and postulate four: Remember. But forgettingness is a harmonic of not-knowingness and rememberingness is a harmonic of knowingness, and the second and fourth postulates depend for their power upon the first and sec — third postulates.

It's very interesting, isn't it, that a child is easy to exteriorize. A child is very easy to exteriorize and an adult is rather difficult to exteriorize. Who has been educated? Well, that's about all there is to it.

We have postulates one and three which are Not-Know and Forget, and postulates two and four derive, in totality, their power from one and three and two and four are the two things people have the most trouble with: Know and Remember. And they're dead things; they have no dynamic potential in them whatsoever — no dynamic potential in postulates two and four. They are dead. Their life is only apparent life. There's something kicking around the corpses of two and four and the something which kicks around the corpse of two, Knowingness, is Not-Knowingness, and the something which kicks around the corpse of four is Forget.

Now, the only excuse, and I'vetold people this many, many times, the only excuse we have in Dianetics and Scientology to educate anyone is because we're teaching them how to undo what they know. That's the only reason – excuse we have to call this education at all. But you will still find, here and there, that a person who has studied long and continuously at Dianetics and Scientology, is harder to process than a person you grab in off the street.

Hypnotism is exclusively dependent for its action and operation on the sequence of postulates one, two, three and four.

Why?

By hypnotism, we have a somebody there who not-knows. We get him fixated on a piece of knowingness. We make him forget it and then he remembers it in terms of action. And we have there the entire explanation, mechanics and modus operandi of hypnotism and hypnotism at last is completely explained.

Now, here is a great oddity and something which shows up the fallaciousness of believing that your total out is to be totally ignorant. That's fallacious – to be totally escaped you must be totally ignorant; that statement is fallacious.

Another way to hypnotize somebody would be to put him in the middle of chaos, everything going in all directions, everybody shooting at him and suddenly throw him a stable datum, and make it a successful stable datum so that it's all called off once — the moment he grabs this. And this gives you the entire formula of brainwashing: interrogate, question, lights, pain, upset, accusation, duress, fear, privation and we throw him the stable datum.

In other words, your desire should be total not-knowingness. You see at once that the reductio ad absurdum of this would be that the ideal state for a thetan would be to be completely unconscious. That'd be the ideal state, wouldn't it? Flat on his back, completely unconscious, ten thousand feet up; that's ideal. Never know anything from there on. That's what that statement says and that statement is not true. See, it isn't the most ideal state in the world.

We say, "If you'll just adopt 'Ughism' which is the most wonderful thing in the world, all this will cease," and finally the fellow says, "All right, I'm an 'Ugh.' " Immediately you stop torturing him and pat him on the head and he's all set.

All right now, if that is the case, however, that this whole theory of not knowing about knowing has a bug in it – if that is true that it has a bug in it someplace – the bug is simply this: People have worked hard enough on knowingness, on forcing you to know and forcing you not to know, that the subject has gone beyond your own self-determinism so that you are no longer able to control at will what you know and don't know, and you get knowingness classified as bad and good.

Ever after he would believe that the moment he deserted "Ughism," he would be drowned in chaos and that "Ughism" alone was the thing which kept the world stable; and he would sell his life or his grandmother to keep "Ughism" going. And there we have to do with the whole subject of loyalty, except — except that we haven't dealt with loyalty at all on an analytical level but the whole subject of loyalty is a reactive subject we have dealt with.

To forget and remember selectively at once is an ideal state for a thetan.

So postulates one, two, three and four actually descend from the analytical into the reactive and are the bridge between the analytical and the reactive; and the action of remembering that which you have forgotten is to some tiny shadow a reactive action, and we carry it several more, one, two, three, four harmonics down the line — it becomes obsessive.

He can forget anything he wants to. He can remember anything he wants to.

How does the individual remember if he goes way downscale into the reactive bank? He remembers by dramatization and dramatization belongs with the lower harmonic of postulate four, Remember. Instead of analytically recalling it, he goes into motion. He waves a pink flag or something.

See, that's a nice state of beingness, and yet, this has become identified and jammed and messed up, one way or the other, by cross-experiences, until an individual begins actually to believe that the most desirable thing is unconsciousness and the best thing you could possibly be is unconscious and you'll have many a preclear begging you to give them drugs. They know how they ought to be: unconscious.

In psychosis he knew that some action, something he remembered once won, but he's no longer too able to analytically inspect. Forgettingness is now chaos and to salvage himself from that chaos he does an action without analytical inspection which is a lower harmonic of something that once won as the fourth postulate. In other words, he gets a stable datum. This stable datum was all right.

But unconsciousness, when you get along the level of Homo sapiens, just opens the door to further aberration as we know very well from Dianetics. So unconsciousness is simply a lower harmonic of not-knowingness, that's all it is. So the hooker here is: not-knowingness through space and energy is bad, but knowingness by consideration, or not-knowingness by consideration, is ideal.

Let us say that he has become a waiter in a hotel having been at one time a general in the Russian army and things get very confusing and the head waiter starts bawling him out and everybody starts going to hell around him. On an analytical level he's liable to draw himself up and say, "You forget, comrade, that I was once a general." That's how he handles the chaos.

So we have the same old time-worn difference: The thetan who depends upon space and energy for his awareness, his alertness and his knowingness and his not-knowingness and so forth, is in bad shape. He has a dependency that should be overcome and when you start to not-know in terms of energy: trrrrrrrr, screens, huge spaces, castles, dungeons, reactive banks and an individual at last begins to forget thing – things by keeping around a store of not-knowingness; and simply by consulting whether or not this not-knowingness matches another not-knowingness, he can put engrams into restimulation.

Sure enough, the head waiter says, "Well, that's right. You really aren't a general now but I know how things are," and he kind of knocks off, see, gives him a little win.

Doesn't that look weird to you?

After a while, this individual when he's surrounded by too much motion such as a baby crying or some other violent action, will solve the situation by instantly putting a paper hat on his head.

So we see that what an individual knows about a situation isn't upsetting at all unless it is accompanied by a store of automatic not-knowingness which enforces the knowingness upon him. So it is only true that not-knowingness is bad when it exists in such a form as to force knowingness upon you. In other words, I have to know about this situation because I – it contains so much not- knowingness; and then we get the engram, the reactive bank and all the other manifestations that we know people are fighting.

Now, do you understand that ununderstandable, noncomprehensible thing called psychosis?

There was an old process, 1963, which gave people the right to be nothing.

Let's take behavior as a tremendous scale from clear up at the top all the way to the bottom and let us say that that whole big scale of human behavior and reaction, or the reaction of life — that whole big scale all the way down the line begins — when we get onto a scale; before that time there is simply life. It is alive. It is aware of being aware and everything else but it's there.

"Just get the idea you have the right to be nothing," in most elementary form.

Now, when we get onto that scale we go into not-know. We come down the scale a quarter of the way and we come into know, and we come down the scale one-half and we come into forget and we come down the scale three quarters and we get into Remember and our next level at the bottom of the scale would be Not-Know. We've started all over again when we hit the bottom of the scale.

And the individual would invariably,sooner or later, if we could run it at all, cognite, heave a sigh of relief and say, "You mean I have a right to be nothing.

All right. Now, do you realize that any tiny portion of this scale that you'd care to snip out with your scissors contains in it postulates one, two, three and four. And it's quite interesting that if you just took this scale and looked at it with a magnifying glass, you would see that it not only broke down into these huge parts but that a little section of it runs like this. It's saying, you take a magnifying glass and you look at this and the print on it's very small, and as you go down scale it goes down from: Remember, Not-Know, Know, Forget, Remember — see — Not-Know. And we put our magnifying glass on that and we say, "Hey, we can tell what the whole scale is by inspecting these tiny parts." See, this little section, and this little section has in it all of the parts of the big scale. And so, we would happily — putting our magnifying glass on the little scale and being only able to see the little letters, not the big ones now, we would say, "Well now, look, the highest function of life is remember." And if you don't remember then you don't know. See, that's very obvious, isn't it? And you solve not being able to know, by knowing, says right there below that and right below that it says, look at that, Forget.

You mean – you mean I don't have to answer up to all the ambitions of my parents and my wife and my business and sssss..." And right away that individual would start to be effective and amount to something. It had been returned to his free choice. But that he had to amount to something, which was not in the field of his free choice, was in itself, compulsive and aberrative.

So, the worst possible thing that could happen to an individual we could say, fallaciously from this, would be — the best thing that could happen to you is to remember, and the worst thing that could happen to you is forget.

Now, let's just take a look at knowingness and not-knowingness and we see that an individual finds not-knowingness bad or confusing or upsetting, simply under those conditions where he has to know. And there not-knowingness is real bad. "Who is shooting at me?" "I don't know." Oh, no! No! This is a bum situation, see? But the individual, oddly enough, will hang on to the not-knowingness.

Why? Why would we make this adjudication? Is because we wouldn't know which one was one and which one was two and which one was three and which one was four. So, actually we would be reading the scale looking at this small gradient as four, one, two, three. See? Four, one, two, three the scale would go; and we'd say, "Well, therefore we know all about psychotherapy. We just get everybody to remember everything and they're all well." Um-mm.

Why?

We have to work it, study it, test it and get an axiom like Axiom 36 about a lie; and when we've got that as a little yardstick then we can look at this scale all over again. And we can say, "Look! Look, the way — the proper way this scale counts is one, two, thee, four; Not-Know, Know, Forget, Remember; Not-Know, Know, Forget, Remember. One, two, three, four; one, two, three, four and the scale does not read then Remember, Not-Know — see — Know, Forget. See, that's the wrong way to read that scale. The thing reads very simply and very adequately: Not-Know, Know, Forget, Remember.

Well, he's got it all worked out in terms of quantity. He has to have so much not-knowingness in order to have so much knowingness until he'll hold anything into him which has a sufficient quantity of not-knowingness connected with it. Hence, you get the Rosicrucians saying, "Secrets. Just write in here and we'll give you the answer to a lot of secrets. We're all very secret." And people say, "Gee, a store of not-knowingness. Hah!" And they write in and they get back a bigger store of not-knowingness than they bargained for.

All we'd have to do then is skid on this tiny gradient of the huge scale just to get the sequence wrong.

Now, the bag called the reactive mind always has a little feather or tag sticking out of it. Here's this huge amount of not- knowingness called the reactive mind and it's got this little tag sticking out of it saying, "Known," and you pull this tag a little bit further and it says, "Known," and you pull the tag a little bit further out and it says, right there in Sanskrit: "You're hooked, brother!" Now, the oddity is that every reactive bank that I ever investigated had a clear-view tag that the individual knew was there and all he wanted you to do as an auditor was pull it a little bit further, and in Sanskrit it would eventually say, 'There." What was holding that not- knowingness there? Nothing.

If we had a circular dog, we were liable to pick up his front legs as being the front of the dog and we'd say, "It's very obvious now that this circular dog begins with those front legs, goes to the hind legs, goes to the tail and the very last end of him is his nose." Well, this is what psychotherapy has done. It has misread the beginning of a circular dog. A dog begins with his nose and we have made just as obvious a discovery as that but it is tremendously sweeping; so much so, that it moves us right on out of Homo sap. Just bing! Because the way we can look at things and think about things now are entirely different than Homo sap; and you understand that Homo sapiens is called Homo sapiens because he has a method of looking at things. He thinks about them. He is an animal with reason; but his reason, I am afraid, is entangled, upset and chaotic, simply because he considers the first postulate is remember or he might consider the first postulate to be Know — probably he does. First postulate is Know, second postulate is Forget. Then he has no relationship for forget — for Remember and Not-Know. He didn't even see them on the scale. So we've made some very sweeping advances here, to say the least.

What was holding the knowingness there? The not-knowingness. The not-knowingness, in this case, is the dynamic impulse and the knowingness is simply fixed because it is backed by the first postulate. The activity the individual undertook to discover what he didn't know backs up and gives force to what he finds out.

No, the one, two, three, four, whether you look at it as a huge scale which goes entirely from complete serenity down into the depths of irrationality and reaction; or whether you look at it from the tiny level contained in the area of enthusiasm or the area of apathy; see, whether you look at it in vignette or in entirety, it is the same scale. And its parts go in the same sequence as the whole and that sequence, regardless where you pick it up is Not-Know, Know, Forget, Remember. And the reason it's that way, is because that is the way it works. Not because I've said so or you've said so or we've agreed that this is the case. We have some gruelingly arduous tests to back this up.

I could give you a demonstration of this very easily if we were fascist in inclination and didn't care what we did to human beings. You know, in other words, a psychiatric experimental approach, human vivisection or something of this sort, very easily, by setting up a problem wherein an individual was made utterly frantic by numbers of people telling him that he had had a phone call but they didn't know whether it was a man or a woman or what it was about or where it was from. But everybody the individual encounters tells him: phone call. If we carry this on for just a little while and then let the individual answer the phone call – you know, he'd run around and finally find a phone, find out who it was that called him and so forth. And that -this didn't go on very long and then he called up and it was the laundry and the laundry was saying to him, "Your clothes are ready," the thing would blow! The thing would blow.

Not-knowingness on a subjective level to a person who has not had Locational Processing adequately run in the beginning, is a terrifyingly overpowering process. It simply keeps flicking out his stable data before he has a chance to as-is the chaos. It leaves him in the soup.

But I remember a story written by Kenneth Brown Collings, an old war correspondent, in Liberty magazine. He was covering the Ethiopian war and I think he wrote this little story in Liberty.

So, this tells you now where Union Station belongs on this huge scale - Locational Processing. We're going to let him look at something he is fairly accustomed to: people. Or we're going to let him look at some objects and we're going to build him back up this scale; and we can expect that he will go through all the harmonics of any scale we have: the old Tone Scale, the Know to Sex Scale (the early one) or the Not-know to Mystery, it's all we can call it now. He'll go through those harmonics and climb up scale, but he's climbing up scale toward what with Union Station? He's climbing up scale toward being able to see another human being, a necessary thing for his conversation with human beings.

A war correspondent sitting out in the middle of Ethiopia somewhere sent for a bottle of whiskey and a father and his ten sons went after this bottle of whiskey clear up to Addis Ababa and it was an enormous distance and the ardures of obtaining that bottle of whiskey and bringing it back took the lives of nine of those sons, see, and the fellow sat there and he couldn't drink the whiskey. That was just too expensive a bottle of whiskey.

We've gotten him to establish some terminals. But we've done more than that, we have run out a great many reactive computations with regard to other human beings on several processes, all at the same time. The first and foremost of these processes that we're doing is, oddly enough, Matched Terminaling. That ever occur to you?

Now, similarly, if we had this fellow who was going to answer the phone call climbing cliffs, going through thud and blunder, dragging it out, mystery building up about this phone call long enough – actually the person on the other end of the line could say, "Your laundry is ready," and the lock wouldn't blow, wouldn't blow at all. The fellow would now come around and tell you, convincingly, that laundry is a pretty damned important thing. Just like this war correspondent was telling you that whiskey was an awfully important thing, too important to drink.

Therefore, you wouldn't want an area where all the people were of the same order of wealth at all. Would you?

Laundry would, thereafter, become a sufficiently important object to the individual to drive him practically daffy on the subject. But you understand the volume of action he would have had to have gone into to have finally gotten this phone call.

You'd want kid — an area where you had kids and little babies and old people and middle-aged people and wealthy people and poor people and — you know. Otherwise, you'd simply Match Terminal out of existence, mechanically, all the guy's reactive computations towards being middle class, fairly well-off.

Up to a certain point, it simply would have blown as a lock. But backed by more and more and more action, unknownness, worry, concern – all unknownness – it would eventually have amounted to a point of where he'd no longer have been rational on the subject of that phone call. It would have driven him mad.

But quite aside from that, we don't care what we're doing to his body, we're asking him to get used to this idea that there are people in the world and that you don't have to know all there is to know about them. You can relax where people are concerned, and having relaxed where people throughout the world are concerned, you can certainly relax where I am concerned as an auditor and we can get on with this business. And you can get relaxed enough so that you can recognize that this reactive bank belongs to your body and doesn't belong to you, and therefore, inspect it on a subjective process level.

It isn't how big a dam the knowingness is, the little block of knowingness there. Its size has nothing to do with it. Its size is made and created by the amount of unknownness which preceded it. And when you've learned that, why, you can see then that what you get to know isn't awfully important. What the preclear finally found out was not awfully important. But the amount and ferocity of unknownness preceding it established its greater or lesser importance.

Do you see what would happen to an individual if he did a subjective process while he himself thought he was a body? Ownership would get in your road. He would start owning every computation that turned up out of the body's bank and this would be identification deluxe, wouldn't it? You would actually assist his identification with the body.

The rationale of the datum, the known datum, its quality and bearing upon life, is established by the first postulate.

Now, the clue to all this, as to which was right — Know or Not-Know for Union Station — the clue to this order of postulates — which one was number one — was done on a matter of testing.

Do you realize that a person could spend all of his life trying to find out how many tail feathers there were on the end of a roc or an auk; and when he finally found out, you would have had the most impressive book: there were two tail feathers. But he would go on and he would write and write and write and write and write on this subject of two tail feathers given enough unknownness preceding it. He invents importances for the knownness to the degree that there's been unknownness.

Did people exteriorize on the second postulate? No, people would never exteriorize on the second postulate. So, if Know was the third postulate or the first postulate, people would exteriorize, wouldn't they, given Axiom 36?

So where aberration, and aberration only is concerned, we have this interesting fact: that the unknownness is the establishing and monitoring factor, not the knownness.

See, you'd have to have that early — the first postulate — you'd have to have the condition whereby they were separate from. Well therefore, would they exteriorize on Know or exteriorize on Not-Know? Well, we know very well now that they don't exteriorize on know.

The evaluation is not the datum that is known; 1t is the amount of unknownness which preceded it, and that's the evaluating function, and that's reactive, you understand. That's the reactive mind at work.

You use Union Station on the basis of the positive side and they do not exteriorize as a result of running it. They get better, they get more cheerful, other accidental effects are present, it's a good process, but they don't exteriorize. Which tells you at once that it isn't going then in the right direction. It must be going in some other direction, so that, Know must be the second postulate. And if Know then is a second postulate, what the devil is the first postulate? Of course, the first postulate is just Not-Know.

So we have this airplane pilot who flies – you'll understand this much more clearly in just a second – this airplane pilot who becomes an airplane pilot because of one engramic phrase: "You're no earthly good." We can see this man. He started a garage. He did this, he did that and he failed, failed, failed, failed, failed at all these things and eventually took up flying and succeeded but always was unhappy after he landed at the airport.

Now, at once you must realize the actuality of Axiom 36. We aren't running a dichotomy in which we have to run so much Not-Know and then so much Know. We are not doing a process where Know is equal to, but opposite from, Not-Know, a primary mistake Man at large has made and one which we're in no position to make at this time. We mustn't make this mistake now.

Now look, it isn't the phrase, "You're no earthly good." It must have been the turmoil, the unknownness, in other words, the not- knownness of the area in which this phrase rested which gave that phrase that much violence. And so, this phrase then, by token of that much unknowingness in his vicinity, becomes the monitoring, guiding principle of his life.

It's not a dichotomy. It's not the positive and negative side of the electric motor. It is Not-Know — the first postulate, the first condition — followed then by a postulated thing or condition, which is the thing which you now know.

All right now, let's look at an engram. An engram isn't very serious if somebody walks up and steps on your toes and says, "You skunk." That's not very serious. Fellow simply walked up to you and stepped on your toes and said you're a skunk, because there's not very much chaos there into which to put a stable datum.

So, Not-Know is natural and Know must be an awful swindle. And so it is, but you run it in the direction of not-know and your preclear will start to get less and less concerned with the mass called the body and he will exteriorize. He gets exteriorization manifestations as a result of running Not-Know.

But if this individual walked up to you from behind, slugged you over the head, kicked you in the ribs, wound you up in the hospital, but somewhere in the midst of all of this he said, "You're a skunk," you'd probably start to smell like one. Do you see how this could be, hm? The amount of pain and unconsciousness, it said in Dianetics, established the effectiveness of the engram. Never truer than today.

Now, what is the goal of this process? The goal of this process is simply to get the individual into two-way communication. How far could the process be carried forward, supposing you made this the only process that you were going to do?

It was not the wittiness or "double-entendreness" of the phrase; it was the amount of pain and unconsciousness. And what's pain and unconsciousness but not-knowingness.

Well, you could probably carry it right on through to the end, all the way through; but sooner or later you'd have to change off onto entities, thetans, gods. You'd have to come off of people, see. Because it had become pointless after a while on people. You'd probably come off onto the universe, like what -"Give me some things you don't know about that space, about that chair," you see. "Some things that chair or that space doesn't know about you." Right away you would run out the early barbaric Christian concepts of religion; God is the supersaturated ether which inhabits all space. And this would run out and a lot of other things would run out. God knows all about you — that's an interesting thing to run across aberratively, isn't it?

You know that you can give an individual enough switched not- knowingnesses so – so as to turn his body at length into a roaring furnace of pain? You don't even have to touch him. You could just confuse him and puzzle him enough so that he'd hurt! He'd hurt as bad as though he'd been shot by a bullet. And there's guys all over this town today that are dying because they don't know something.

All right, therefore the goal of the process is just to get the individual into good, solid two-way communication. Now, there are many other things the process does, such as move the fellow out of the human race, but we won't bother with these. We're going to work it in the framework of the Six Basic Processes.

If you look at the knowingness as the thin, pitifully thin little dam, that an individual puts up so as to hold back the enormous power of the unknown, we see at once what people are trying to do. We also see what hypnotism is and what this thing called a stable datum is.

Now, understand that Union Station is one process and postulate one, two, three and four are a theory which has some experimental proof. And the two then are necessarily not — are not necessarily married to each other and are inextricable. Don't identify one with the other because this postulate one, postulate two, postulate three, postulate four of Not-Know, Know, Forget and Remember can be applied to any of the Six Basic Processes. And if it's going fast on Not-Know and slow on Know, which it does for Union Station, be assured that the principle will remain constant through other processes. So we get a variation in processes something on this order. We get something where we're stripping off engrams or something of this sort or things that concern this individual, one way or the other.

Now, a stable datum is that datum, Axiom 53, on which other data can be aligned or on which other data aligns. A single datum is necessary for the alignment of other data.

We say, "Well, now, tell me some things you don't know about your reactive bank, about that engram, about splitting universes, about your father, some things your father doesn't know about you." Don't think these'll work though unless you've done Union Station and work easily because it'd be too tough a process. It'd practically spin your preclear right on in. It's an interesting thing to do. It occasionally, undoubtedly - given enough two-way communication and enough auditor presence you could probably get away with doing just that. You know, you could probably take this fellow who is half-spinning and you say, "All right, give me something you don't know about insanity." If you were good enough as an auditor you could beef the individual's Tone Scale up during the session of processing to a point of where he could run a higher process. Remember, an auditor can always do this. We take a fellow who's creeping around at black eighteen, you know, and somehow or other we beef him up during the session and we say, "Well — I … uh — Black XVIIIs aren't hard to run."

Well, now we drop into an enormous chaos – one datum. The individual goes slurp. But it could be a very tiny datum, very inconsequential, even irrational. If he got a very irrational one, he was simply unlucky. If he got a very, very bright, smart one, he was lucky.

How do you know? You never ran one!

He's lying there, he's just been run over by a car. Somebody comes along and says, "That's the luckiest s – of a b – in the world." You know, they're always saying this: if he'd stepped off the curb one moment sooner, he'd been hit by the taxi and the truck.

You brought him up to a black five by your skill as an auditor and you audited for the entirety of the session a black five. At the end of the session, he might have relapsed a little bit and become a black eight, not a black eighteen but you weren't running a black eighteen.

So the individual, after the accident, is liable to have the feeling that his mother belongs in a kennel, but also that he is terribly lucky and he'll go around telling you, "You know, I'm awfully lucky, awfully lucky." He's using that piece of knownness to stem this great tide of the unknown: the stable datum.

Similarly, you take an individual who could only possibly do Locational Processing — you start running a subjective process on him. Well, how do you know you didn't beef him up into the subjective processing band by your ability to audit, to acknowledge, to get his communication, his awareness of the auditor, his awareness of the session? You made all these things good. You were auditing somebody who could run a subjective process. Never overlook that fact.

Now, you audit a preclear, let us say, and you carefully take out of the preclear every stable datum you can lay your hands on without removing one item or atom or wiggle of commotion, chaos, unknownness and the boy will leave the session and go out and somebody will say to him, "You are a goat," and hell go, "Mmaaaa." How does he manage this?

In other words, you can beef a person up. You can bring him up scale for the duration of the session just by the fact that you are there, by your personality, your beingness and your skill. But letting all things just ease along the way we are, do it the easy way. Take a person — run Union Station flat.

Well, what would you think of engineering, what would you think of engineering that cured the entire Mississippi flood condition by removing all the dams everywhere in the whole drainage basin of the Mississippi River?

Now, you could take Opening Procedure by Duplication — by the way, I'm not giving you advice on how to run this process or giving you any particular change in the process — but Opening Procedure by Duplication, we used to ask, "Do you see that bottle? Go over and pick it up." And then we asked him what he knew about it.

You'd think that wasn't very good engineering, wouldn't you?

Well, let's ask him three questions in order that he doesn't know about it: "What don't you know about its weight, its temperature?" Get the idea? You could keep him going back and forth between these two objects, not knowing about them and Op Pro by Dup would exteriorize him much faster.

Well, we have to put it in quantitative forms just so you'll get a good look at this because not-knowingness is only aberrative in quantitative form.

Now, it's pretty darn hard to run Opening Procedure of 8-C, pretty darn hard to run Opening Procedure of 8-C on a Not-Know command basis. So, until we get real inventive, why bother to alter it because the goal of 8-C is to show the individual that he can become an effect without dying in his tracks.

Qualitative, simply changing your mind, and saying, "I don't know about that. I know about that. I don't know about that," see, no quantity, no motion, space, energy connected with it at all. Nothing wrong with this. You can get away with that. But here, you as an auditor, take a look at this Mississippi and it's in horrible flood. This Mississippi is saying to you, "I am the father of all waters. I made the Nile River, I got evidence. I made the Hwang Po, the Ganges and my waters fall directly aver Zambezi Falls." And you'll say, "Oh,come now, you're kind of buttered all over the universe, aren't you?" "No, no this is a fact! I can prove it." And you say, "Well now, let's do something about this river because it's crazy." And so we take enough atomic fission and so forth, or dynamite or some such thing, and we go and blow up all of TVA like the Republicans are trying to do. We go and blow up every dam and every levee of the Mississippi.

It teaches him something then, doesn't it? I don't think it has anything to do with Know or Not-Know, beyond the fact that you hope his cognition will come up to the point of where he'll Not-Know.

We say, "There, we've solved the problem. Huh! Nothing to it, problem solved. And we're quite alarmed when the Mississippi starts to run out just south of Savannah, Georgia. Only now it's not the father of waters. Somebody has come along and told it, after you blew up all the dams, that it's god and this is all it says now, "I'm god and you better believe it or else." In other words, you could blow up a minor neurosis into a flaming psychosis by blowing up a few of these dams, couldn't you?

But you could run it on the basis of chaos, the only suggestion that comes up, and not suggested as a process. You understand this? This is not suggested as a process.

Now, don't ask me why psychoanalysis has never had a result in sixty years of presence. And if anybody says psychoanalysis has ever had a result, you'll know, by the simple test of what you know, that he must be lying.

You could put it on a dramatization — this is just — I'm just kidding with you — dramatization level, whereby you said, "Do you see that wall? Well, go over and touch the chair." You could turn the whole process, as many auditors have, into bringing about a tolerance of chaos. You could do this.

Maybe the guy had a good night's sleep, but the chances are that psychoanalysis will turn a neurosis into a psychosis or a sane person into a neurotic.

But in view of the fact that its goal is simply to demonstrate to the individual that he can be an effect; in view of the fact, oddly enough, that communication does as-is matter, energy and space and increase life, it would be a more formalized method of two-way communication on the subject of command. Particularly, if you made him give you orders for 8-C for a while - it's something that a lot of preclears won't do, by the way, you know. They let you run their machinery but then you say, "All right, now you sit in the chair and you give me some similar orders to those I've just been giving you." The preclear'd just practically collapse. The idea of giving somebody else an order is so antipathetic to them, they've taken up modern child psychology.

By doing what?

Now, nevertheless, Remedy of Havingness immediately on inspection demonstrates that there isn't anything about Know or Not-Know about it. It fits into these principles. These principles influence it, but all you're doing is having the individual bang masses at himself. You didn't ask him to know about any of those masses, did you?

By dredging up every stable datum they can lay their hands on and giving him a lot more about libido, gibido, bibido.

I told you a long time ago that the significance in the mass had very, very little bearing on the Remedy of Havingness — very little bearing on the Remedy of Havingness. And a great deal of experimentation taught me at length that to give the mass he was mocking up to push into his body significance was detrimental to the process. "Mock up some mass," is a better auditing command, anything in that direction.

"You see, it's because you cast eyes like that on your little sister. That's why you're like this." They just plowed up the fact that he has decided his father was a dog because his father beat him and that's why he's like he is today, is because his father beat him, you see.

I'm not giving you that as a specific auditing command but if you say "planet," if you say something of this sort, all right. But remember all you wanted was some mass. And when I run Remedy of Havingness on people I explain this; I don't care what kind of mass this is or anything of the sort.

Now, that is a stable datum. How much violence is this holding back?

"What do you think you could mock up? Do you think you could mock up something that has a lot of mass, like a sun or something?" "Oh, yeah." "Well, all right. Mock up a sun." See, I've taken the significance off of it.

Might be quite a bit, quite a bit of unknownness in there, you see.

Now, the least significant process you ever wanted to run into in your life is Spotting Spots, just as such. "Do you see that spot?" or "Pick out that spot," any one of the early auditing commands that went along with this were always totally without significance. And what do you know, it did weird things to masses and spaces and all kinds of things.

So we say, "Do you ever recall a time when your father beat you seriously?" And he says, "Well – um – um – yeah, one time. Yeah, one time." And you say, "Huh, can you recall any other times?" "No." "Well then, it wasn't true that your father was like this, was it? You actually were suffering from a mother complex, an Oedipus. You see, mother fixation caused the father jealousy to libido on the rip-rap, and you are sexually aberrated." See, right – we pull out this datum so he's got it all figured out – the reason he's like he is, see. He's got a stable datum. We pull this out of the road and quickly tell him that it's sexual.

The reason it was, is because how — you know how stupid anybody can get? Space. Look at the tremendous amount of space around the individual.

I guess we put him on the Know to Sex Scale in a hurry, didn't we?

There's nothing in it to know. Only one datum there. So after a while an individual begins to prefer black space. It at least might have some mystery in it. It might have some not-knowingness in it somewhere, from the datum that it's black space.

Cute trick, huh?

The fact that there is space there, is a knowingness. I'll leave it up to you to discover in your auditing what's ahead of space. Space is obviously a second postulate, isn't it? But a spot in space is again a place where something could appear but about which you wouldn't have to know anything. So, it's a very permissive process.

But listen, if the analyst was forcing an individual to know, to know, to know, to know, to know, to know and never giving him the slightest opportunity, ever, to not-know, as the years went along, as a complete analysis does, you sooner or later would have plowed your boy in with evaluation, evaluation, evaluation.

Now, let's take Route 1. How would you use not-knowingness on a Route 1?

Now, we don't evaluate for people. We find out it drives them batty. But let me tell you, the only way it could drive somebody batty would be to pull up the stable datum on which he's been operating and then evaluate for him.

Well, one of the steps in Route 1 runs the person all over the universe.

That would drive him batty. That would be the very process that would send him off of his rockers.

You know that you can have him find or not find and then not-know about each one of those implants and they go zing, ping, crash, boom! After a short time he couldn't care less. This gets real dull. Of course, you should audit him a little bit further and push him up through that band of boredom.

See how that would be? Let's run out the engramic phrase and then sit right there end say, "Oh, your mother wasn't so bad to you." Let's run out the engramic phrase in the prenatal and then say to him, instantly, "Your mother didn't try you so bad," and put that in as a supplanted stable datum to "My mother was horrible to me," and the guy can't accept it. He can't put this dam up in front of all that not-knownness, see. He's got no dam and he's engulfed.

Boredom simply comes about from knowing everything there is to know in your immediate environment. Boredom comes about from a tremendous supply of knowingness and practically no not-knowingness. And an individual departs from boredom by going out and discovering himself some not-knowingness and then starts down Tone Scale and we get more and more not-knowingness and less and less knowingness until we get into apathy which is total not- knowingness, see.

And therefore, as you run preclears and see people improve on not-knowingness processes, you will very, very quickly fall to the idea that psychology and psychoanalysis and psychiatry, with their fixation on remember, force, chaos and confusion, have never worked and never will work. And we can only adjudicate then, they must be some kind of an operation. They must have something else in mind, because they don't work.

Now, Union Station then is done best by an auditor who understands exactly what he is doing because sufficiently fascinating phenomena occur to derail and sidetrack anybody who doesn't know his business.

Now, you'll know by experience that they don't work. You can't audit a half a dozen preclearsin the direction of not-knowingness and watch them improve without becoming cognizant of the fact that something which went solely in the direction of "you've got to know," or in the direction of "more confusion," would be unworkable.

"Oh, how fascinating," you know. This fellow has a... An analyst starting in to do something like Union Station, would be the reductio ad absurdum.

Well, isn't this interesting! From what eagle height can we now look down on the mice. Tells us much more than we bargained to know, right away. And the only reason I'm talking to you about this at all, is not to run down psychiatry or psychoanalysts – I dare say there has been an analyst or two, maybe Freud himself, who had some sincere desire to help somebody out. We don't know what the rest of them were doing, but they certainly weren't thinking and they couldn't have been observing. But we have no interest in running them down beyond demonstrating this to you. That was psychotherapy: to make a person know more or to give him more confusion or to give him more confusion and make him know more.

He would say, "Now, what don't you know about that man over there?" - something like this and the fellow would say, "Well, I — I don't know what's under his clothes." And the analyst would say, "Aaaaaah, now let's get down to business, enough of this shilly-shallying around." He would get so engrossed, his interest would be so fixated that he would immediately come off of the process because the things he was looking at were too interesting. He has found some deep significance here. He's going to explore this significance.

Here we take an insane person and we give him a tremendous confusion of electric shock and so forth. He's got to find another stable datum, hasn't he, to dam that up, he thinks. Another stable datum has got to be picked out of somewhere. So God knows where he'll pick it up or what it'll be but it sure won't be rational.And now we make his environment even more confused and he has to pick up another stable datum; and now we make his environment more confused, and he has to pick up another stable datum; and now we make his environment with a new shock more confused and he can't find one – he drowns. He drowns in chaos.

In other words, what happens? We get the skid principle. That's a nice technical term, the skid principle. Look, the first postulate will slide into the second postulate. First postulate slides into second postulate. So you say Not-Know and then slide into Know. You say, "I don't know anything — well, come to think about it..." Get the idea? The first postulate is so mobile, so unfixed in time and space, that it will instantly start to disintegrate the second postulate and therefore, the second postulate will come quickly to view.

Not-knowingness in terms of space, energy and matter becomes unconsciousness where life is concerned. Not-knowingness to a thetan who is not quantitatively orientated is simply not-knowingness. See, there's nothing to it; the easiest thing in the world. It's – so he doesn't know.

So, we say to this person, "Now, give me something you don't know about this person." Fellow says, "All right. I don't know whether he's wearing a mustache. He has his back toward me go — you know my father had a mustache when I was very young." And you say, "That's fine. Now, give me something you don't know about that lady." "Well, well I don't know — I don't know where she bought her shoes. Uhhhhmm — I got a pair of shoes here that I bought the other day." What's he doing, huh? This is a skid, isn't it?

Now, if you wanted to drive an interrogator mad, just keep telling him you don't know. And the funny part of it is you can probably hold out longer than he could hold out. You probably could. It's only when you start to tell him that you do know something that he can come off of it and get a little sane again because he's postulating all the time that there is a knownness here and you're saying, "Not known, not known, not known." He'll after a while begin to dramatize, "I must investigate." Not to get any answers, see, "I just must investigate." You'll find him crawling along the baseboards and you ask him, "Whatcha doing?" "I'm investigating." "What are you investigating?" "Huh, I'm investigating!" And he'll become very angry with you.

Well, if you're a real stupid, poorly trained auditor, you would believe because of the tradition of man with regard to remember, you would believe that we were trying to run this not-knowingness to find out some hidden knowingnesses. No, we're not. We're running not-knowingness to get rid of it. And we don't give a darn what he knows. It has no significance beyond the fact that he has a lot of not-knowingness dammed up with a lot of stable data and he's doing this skid.

He has some sort of a datum that he is a personality that investigates.

He's something — now, look how he'd be in life. Look how he'd be in life.

That's the only stable datum he's had while interrogating criminals, or anybody else, if they consistently told him they didn't know.

Look at that hopeless state this individual would be in if he was reactively doing this, consistently and continually, right on down the line, all the time.

The wrong thing to do is to tell him anything. If you could hold out against it long enough you'd just simply cave everybody in. Don't say, "Well you know, I was really at my apartment, you know, when all this happened," and so forth.

Supposing he were doing this. He goes out here, there's a car parked and he says, "Well, I don't care what kind of a car that is," kind of occurs to him and — goes right around and looks at the radiator. He walks up the street and says — sees a little sign on the mailbox and the mailbox says "Collected at such and such and such and such and such and such," and he says, "I never write anybody any mail. Why should I? When is it collected?" You get this skid principle. They slide from one to two or from three to four.

If you just kept saying, "I don't know anything about it. I know, but I don't know anything about it. Yes, that's all very well, but I don't know anything about it," the guy will eventually get mad at you, then finally go thzea.

Now, let's see it operating in a more reactive line: forget to remember.

Now, that's how you'd unmock somebody. Just get stupid but simply reiterate it, that you just don't know.

Now, forget and remember are not totally reactive, you understand, but they contain not-isness and so forth. So, the individual says, "Well, I'll just have to forget her. I see her face before me." Now, that is simply the skid principle, nothing else more significant than that, just as easy as that. He see — tries to forget something or he decides to forget something or he thinks that something is forgotten and he remembers it. Now, there is a little test on this. If you were to say to an individual who was trying to remember something desperately, "Well, tell me something you could forget," he would come up with the datum he is trying to remember.

Don't pull this trick: "Well, I don't know, but..." and then get – tell him some data.

See, hell skid from that forget into remember.

Just say, "Well, I don't know. I don't think that's knowable at all. I don't think there's anything connected with it which is knowable in any way, shape or form. The problems of the mind cannot be solved. The problems of the mind cannot be solved and just for variation, the problems of the mind cannot be solved." Of course, everybody's un – mind sooner or later's going to unmock because they're holding their mind up as a stable datum against the tremendous chaos of existence. Their mind is their one line of protection. Their mind is this stable datum: "I can always get a solution. I can recognize the problem and get a solution." Stable datum. When they have that completely unmocked, they're insane.

Forgetting is not-ising knowingness which makes it the third postulate.

Follow me? So, it'd be quite an operation, wouldn't it? Be a lovely operation. Keep saying to people, "The problem of the mind cannot be solved. The problem of the mind cannot be solved. The problem of the mind cannot be solved. The problem of the mind cannot be solved. Nobody knows about that.

And remembering is recreating the forgotten thing. We're just running on postulates one, two, three, four. So an individual who is obsessively trying to forget, will at length do nothing but remember.

Nobody knows about the mind. We just do what we can. We electric shock and prefrontal lobotomy and so forth and do what we can. We're at least in action. We're doing something. But the problem of the mind cannot be solved.

Saw a cartoon one day that knew more than everything in Freud's textbook. Individual came in and said to the analyst, he said, "All day long I just go along with this horrible, grim reality." So, there he — he's unable to forget anything, you know. He can't go into a nice fantasy or delusion, can't have himself a nice spin now and then; he's wrecked. An individual would be in this kind of a condition, he'd be an army captain, let us say. And an army captain is supposed to report to the mess hall at such and certain times and inspect the chow and is supposed to do this and supposed to do that and he's supposed to do this and he's supposed to do that and he would start going through these motions. It'd become more and more routine, more and more automatic and one fine day after he had been at this for a few years, why, somebody would be sitting alongside of the road fixing a tire and he would come along. You know, he wouldn't be able to fix the tire? That's not part of his routine as an army captain. "Fix a tire," you tell a sergeant.

Nobody knows, really." Or we represent entire chaos, complete, utter chaos, electric shock, prefrontal lobotomy, sanitariums falling in, caving in, everybody getting murdered in the sanitariums and nobody even investigating as to why – why the attendant killed this guy, and so on.

So, this guy is a civilian and the army captain is now out of the framework of the army and there's no sergeant. But the person who has the flat tire is a frail, little girl who couldn't possibly use a jack. What do they do?

"Chaos! Chaos! Chaos," everybody says, running around in circles. "Chaos! Chaos! Chaos! Chaos!" Looks to me like the same operation gone into action as "The problem of the mind cannot be solved. The problem of the mind cannot be solved." Follow me?

Well, the least that will happen is the army captain will probably 1.5 about the whole thing. You know, get mad at the jack, mad at the tire, and so forth.

Now, if that were done continually and were merely an operation, you would look for the most of the commotion which would occur in a society to come from the area of the problem of the mind. See, you'd look for most of the commotion -politically, economically, mechanically in the society – to come from the field of the mind, if that was the operation on which they'd already begun. It wasn't admired, was it? Nobody admired this "The problem of the mind cannot be solved," and those things which are not admired tend to persist and they also tend to get more and more bogged down. Until today, we have this dramatization going on, this gorgeous dramatization: electric shock, prefrontal lobotomy.

He's liable to get real upset. Why? It's off his beat. It's off his reactive beat.

One sanitarium out in Arizona, they were sterilizing every woman who came in there.

And that's not too good an example. He is remembering, don't you see, by action, consistently and continually. He will then depend more and more upon what he remembers and more and more upon his action and less and less upon his ability to simply Not-Know and Know. What's the trouble with him?

Isn't this interesting.

He has lost the ability to say, "I am not an army captain." To not-know himself as an army captain and to know himself suddenly as a garage mechanic or a service station man. If he were in very good shape — you see, in spite of how much routine he'd been through or anything else — in very good shape he'd suddenly say, "Well-" as he lays aside his coat and stars and bars and so forth, he would simply say, "well, good garage mechanic like myself..." You've often heard people say things like this being in pretty good shape, rather kiddingly, you know, "Well a good electrician like me can fix that up." You know, guy isn't an electrician at all, he's a bookkeeper. See, but he's in pretty good shape and he goes ahead and fixes it up. Why?

Why?

He can not-know himself and know himself as something else and then not-know himself as that new thing and know himself as the old thing with no fixedness.

Well, some of the psychiatrists had gotten some of the patients pregnant. I beg your pardon, that really wasn't the situation. That wasn't the situation. They weren't men enough.

Sooner or later, he'll get trapped into the idea of having to forget he is an army captain or forget he is a bookkeeper and remember from some other area or past how you fix a tire or fix an electric light switch. And he's dead.

Now, if we simply went out on a gnostic line – interesting word, simply means we know that we know – and we kept saying, "The problem of the mind? We know about the problem of the mind," people would just hear that from you and they'd say, '%huh," but then they would drift a little direction away from you and they would drift a few days away from you, you know, and all of a sudden they pick up the paper, there's more of this going on, they'd kind of feel wobbly again. They'd come around and see you again, just to hear you say that again, you know.

And that's why Beingness Processing is such a fantastic process. But Beingness Processing now has a new command, "Give me some things you could be or not be," type of command.

"Problem of the mind, yeah, we know about that." Gnostic approach. We know that we know, see.

You could say, "Give me some things now that you could not be. Some things you don't know how to be." The guy will turn up on that one the earliest and most horrible thing that has ever been done to anybody, which is, "know thyself." If your total capability depends upon you being unconsciously you, simply doing things, you know, we have the individual who is told to know thyself wiping out all of his not-knownness and becoming a fixed identity and a fixed beingness.

Actually, that as an operation and totally in the absence of knowledge would unmock the other operation 100 percent, which is why you get this frantic defamation of any Scientologist who comes up around a hospital. And they're saying, "Well, what are you doing here?" "Uh – I don't know. I'm just – uh – looking these people over." "Why are you looking them over?" "Yeah, well, I know what's wrong with them." "Well, you know what's wrong with them! Well, the doctors don't know what's wrong with them! The psychiatrists don't know wha–– what do you mean? You don't know..." See, instant defamation. And if you simply said, "Well, that's all very true. I'm not trying to convince you of anything or them of anything. I just know what's wrong with them." And if you didn't do anything else but go to a particular hospital and pull this gag on one new person or another in that hospital every day or two, the place would blow up. You see, you just wouldn't tell anybody a thing beyond that.

Another type of Beingness Processing which doesn't work is: "Be something now which would not be known. What could you be that wouldn't be known?" Involvedness of this character. But let me show you that it's as important to be able to not be something, as to be something. And when you yourself as an auditor can not be an auditor and be an auditor at will, and then if you suddenly become something else, to be it or not be it and be an auditor again at will, you're in there cooking.

"I know what's wrong with them. I didn't say I was going to do anything about it. I just know what's wrong with them." You see, you'd stand as the stable datum and don't think you wouldn't get cuffed around somewhat. You would. But it never hurt anybody to get cuffed around. Now – I'm a good example of that.

But if you're an auditor doing something else or if you are a business executive who is now auditing, you've had it. You're right into that reactive swing. You're forgetting and remembering in the level of action. You should be able to not be an auditor and be a garage mechanic or a bishop or anything else, see, and then not be a bishop.

All right. Applying what you know about not-knowing is one thing, using it as an auditor is quite another thing and trying to impart it to the public is entirely something else.

Actually your ability to communicate to people is to approximate a terminal with which they will communicate rapidly, not condescendingly but simply not be what you're being and be something else.

What do you know in Scientology?

So, rapidity of be and not be is very vital and this depends upon an individual's ability to Know and Not-Know, and these two things are of comparable magnitude and almost comparable value in processing, except of course, be and not be implies that the individual has mass.

Well, we know that the highest order is not to know a thing.

How do you do Union Station? You do it first by knowing all these theoretical backgrounds. You know such things as the skid principle. You know about exteriorization and you carry it on up to a level keeping up tremendous amounts of acknowledgment and communication. You carry it on up at a level where the individual at last goes into two-way communication with you and his fellow man.

I want to give you in this hour another way to express this – much simpler way to express this.

Now, the actual commands — which are used with your knowledge of all this other material — the actual commands is something you don't know about that person. You indicate the person. "Give me something you don't know about that person," you say to the fellow, and he says, "Well, um-a-di-dum-badum, let's see, uh — see — uh — see — uh — see — see. I know he's not wearing a hat." Well, now if you suddenly jack him up and make him clarify his terms and all that sort of thing with you, you're liable to bust two-way communication. So you gently infer to him in the next five or six questions that he is not quite hitting on all four cylinders. You want to know something he doesn't know about that person.

Scientology is a method by which an individual can not-know at will. He can know or not-know at will. Makes sense to everybody. They know there's a lot of things they'd love to not-know, but they've lost control of this ability and this would be about the highest ability there was in the face of all this confusion and chaos.

Now, your criticalness of the preclear is very light, very slight. You don't care whether he gives you something horribly abstract or something very common or anything else. You just want to be satisfied, not by nagging him but — because remember you're usually running a person who's below two-way communication, he won't stand any nagging, he'll just shut up. You just run him very gently and you say, "Give me something you don't know about that person, now that person over there, the girl in the red hat, give me something you don't know about her."

In order to solve a case, it is not necessary then to pull up all the stable data or to erase all of the chaos. It is only necessary to put the case into a condition where he does not consider himself to be part and parcel of all the energy in space and that he himself is not energy in space. Put him into a condition where he can change his mind about things. And as soon as you've done this, he will sooner or later begin to know about not-knowing and then not-know about not-knowing, at will.

"Huhhhh. Well, I don't know where — I don't know where she bought her stockings" "Okay. That's fine. That's very good. That's swell." Totally adequate answer. Lord knows how many fixations on stockings you just blew — that isn't your business. You don't care anything about it one way or another. You pick out another person and say, "Give me something you don't know about that person." Simple.

Thus we have a condition of beingness which measures up to our pan-determinism, our self-determinism, the dynamics, all the other factors that we know, adding right on up.

All right, one person after the other. One shot per each. You level this thing down until two things happen on that side of the question: until the person is through the entire session with just that one side or until he boils off. And he all of a sudden starts to dope and boil off, flip the question or in any event change it by the time the next session comes around.

Well, we've gone a little step higher and the Know to Mystery Scale has become the Not-Know to Mystery Scale which contains Know on its scale still.

Now, what's the second — you change it for the next session. You'll run the other side and this other side is: "Something that person does not know about you," that's the auditing command. "Tell me something that person does not know about you." Now, you can, of course word these things in such a way that they communicate, but "don't have to know," and so forth, has been found to be a little bit enforcing and it's a little more complicated. Let's always use the simpler formula. So, "Something that person doesn't know about you," and the preclear goes on and you would run that question for the whole next session or until the preclear boiled off, at which moment you would reverse the question.

So, it still depends on dragging the individual out of his combat with energy and confusion and getting him into a certain benignity and we find out that using not-knowingness is about the fastest route out because it's the first postulate and this runs off a great many second postulates. But sooner or later the individual, unless his self-determinism is very badly suppressed by breaches in the Auditor's Code and other things, we discover that the individual, at length, is able to think and be without being immediately and instantly influenced by space and energy and matter.

Of course you give them lots of acknowledgment and you say yes — a lot more conversation and acknowledgment has to be used on this obviously than would ordinarily be used on a process.

And when we've got him to a point of where his thinkingness no longer has to be influenced by these things, he naturally is a stable Theta Clear.

All right. Now what do we mean by flipping the question?

Get him three feet back of his head so he isn't dependent on the body to think for him and his engrams to react for him and you've made it.

It's very simple, we say, "Something you don't know about that person?" and he's answered this question about forty times, you pro — about forty different people or the same person twice or three times, that's perfectly all right, you see — you know, the woman in the red hat, the man with the pink pants, the girl with the wooden shoes, the little boy with the baby brother and you can go right back to the woman with the red hat. See, one question per each. We don't care how many times we hit these people but we don't hit them one, one, one, "Woman with the red hat — something you don't know about the woman with the red hat — something you don't know about the woman with the red hat - something you don't know about the woman with the red hat." You're liable to unmock her.

And the processes which you know in the Six Basic Processes are those processes. All we're doing is leaning a little heavier on the first postulate which we have discovered to be, at long last, not-knowingness.

All right. So we just hit this.

I wish to call one thing to your attention: a quarter of a century of work on this subject, all in the direction of knowingness, and five years with all of us intensely going in the direction of knowingness, have turned up the datum about not- knowingness.

Now, what do we mean by flipping the question?

This tells you at once that we are superior to either one.

All of a sudden you've asked — the little boy with the baby. You've said to the preclear for about the dozenth time now, "Give me something you don't know about the little boy over there with the baby brother" and the preclear says, "Nyaaaauh, well. Huh?" "I said give me something you wouldn't mind the little boy with the baby brother knowing about you." "Oh, is that what you said? Oh, I see. I got you, yeah. Well, I don't mind if he knows I'm standing here." Now, how long do you run this?

Thank you.

You just run it until he's out of the boil-off and then you flip the question again. See, until he's good and alert, then flip the question again and you'll all of a sudden find out the boil-off point has disappeared. You don't run it the other way until he boils off in the other direction. You got it? You don't run this from boil-off to boil-off.

Now, get how you do this? He gets groggy, so you flip the question. Now, if you're a real sharp auditor you will notice he's getting groggy before he ever finds it out and you'll flip the question. You'll notice the declining curve of alertness and you will know that about five minutes from now he's going to be wanting to lie down somewhere. And you just flip the question at that moment and you run it until he's good and bright and alert, and then flip it again and get back to that question that made him boil off. The question that made him boil off, of course, was — let us — usually would be, "Something that person does not know about you," and he runs this and a boil will occur. It'll occur much more often on that end, because this is something he doesn't much contemplate.

All right. Now he started to boil and you said, "Now give me something you don't know about that person. Give me something you don't know about that person, something you don't know about that person, something you don't know about that person, something you don't know about that person.

Good. Something you don't know about that person. Good, Fine. That's swell.

Good. Fine. That's right." "Now, did you know I acknowledged you?" "How's — oh — did ya? Yeah, so you did. Yeah, that's interesting. Hey, what do you know, you've been saying that all the time, haven't you?" You know, some kind of persiflage like this. Anyway, he gets — he gets to remembering, after a while, that he's in an auditing session and he's alert and he's feeling better about it, and then you say, "Now give me something that person doesn't know about you" and you'll find he'll go a little bit longer this time. And all of a sudden he doesn't boil off in that direction at all.

Boil-off is not therapeutic. The number of hours a person boils off is not a measure of how fast they're getting Clear. Made an adequate test of this a long time ago.

Now, there's an alternate process which an auditor can throw in at any time. Let's say that the individual cannot grasp these syllables. They're going whirr-clunk. Something he doesn't know. "Uh — something I don't know, ummm — something — uh — what did you say? Uh — let me see, that's a real interesting question you asked there. Uh — I don't mind knowing anything about the person." You're having semantic difficulty, an inability to resolve the auditing question. Now, if you don't think that's important, you're not a good auditor.

Sooner or later a question — an auditing question won't communicate. You can actually run a person for half an hour doggedly, bullheadedly, stupidly on your part and the individual doesn't know what you're saying. He's never rationalized it.

For instance, you tell somebody, "Invent a game." Somebody right in this room I had to tell that to one time — and this person went on for fifteen minutes describing various known games to me and I kept saying, pointedly, "Invent a game" and the person would say, "Well, tennis — tennis — checkers."

"Good. That's fine. Invent." I was darn near getting that word up in neon lights. But to this moment that person has never flattened that process.

You know why? The person never started on the process. Isn't that a real good reason for never flattening one? Well, when an auditing system does not communicate, that is to say, when you have this type of question, you got noncommunication.

In Union Station, you go off to an entirely different process which is simply R2, I think, 47 and it is a very interesting process. It is the same process. It simply says to the individual, "Find a person around here you're separate from." "Find a person I am separate from." Now, this is observable in terminals. There is no abstract matter here at all. It's quite observable and the person will look through the crowd — and this person, by the way, will carefully search and finally find some old bum or something or — oh no, probably usually some good-looking, well-dressed young fellow or something and say, "I'm separate from that person." See?

First choice. Then you just go on with this question as though you're running Union Station and it's got a reverse: "Now find a person out there who is separate from you." And the person very often will not see that this is a reversal. They'll cognite on it sooner or later. Run the same thing — they'll still boil off on this sort of thing. You run that separateness process.

Now, the — this alternate process also does something else which you should be cognizant of and which is terribly important. It brings about an exteriorization if run long enough and is a process you could jump into if the person started to yo-yo.

Now, you know what a yo-yo is? The person says, "You know, I think I'm — no I'm not out of my head but I had the funniest feeling I — I'm out of my head right now. I mean, I kind of look — no I — I — uh..." Now, sometimes when this yo-yo occurs, when they start bouncing in and out of their skull, they very often go out of control as a preclear.

Now, you get that phenomena?

They go out of control as a preclear. They go into autocontrol. You found that you exteriorized them but they were auditing a circuit all the time, and so therefore, they go on auditing the circuit but you're not auditing them.

They think you're interfering with them now auditing the circuit. You're auditing the circuit. They're auditing the circuit. “Get out of my road”, they kind of feel and they will go banging and caroming all over the room or the universe, sometimes, real upset. And the way you get around that is that separateness thing. Just keep them at it. It's a good, simple command, see. They can bang all around the room and still answer it. So, that is actually a lower-level or an emergency interjection into Union Station — that Separateness.

Now, you run Union Station with tremendous amounts of acknowledgment and two-way communication, knowing the Auditor's Code, following it very closely. You run it best walking around, not sitting down. You run it in parks, bus stations, but not in federal airports. You run it in places where you are relatively inconspicuous but are part of the public. You can walk through crowds running it. You don't have to sit down as a fixed spot. You can get out on the traffic of F Street and simply walk down S Street running Union Station and these are excellent places to run it. And the essence of it is simply to keep the preclear in- session, aware that a session is in progress, aware of an auditor, acknowledge, vary your process only to match his understanding of it and that variation is simply to make sure that he's doing what you say but you don't nag him too much because you'll break his two-way communication. Keep up an even flow of communication with him. He'll talk more easily and more easily and more easily to you.

Now, the negative side, is today the official Union Station as far as you're concerned and will be that way in the next HCA manual and the other is a peculiar test Union Station, see, negative side. Now, experience I am sure will bear this out.

Well, that's the way — the way you run Union Station, and I hope it helps you out.

Thank you very much and good night.

Thank you.