Это очень простой и легкий в применении процесс, которым можно добиться продолжительных достижений. Он не смешивается с другими процессами и не является частью какой-либо стандартной процедуры действия. Он не является частью чего-либо обычно вами проводимого. Он не имеет какого-либо особого применения к кейсу того или иного уровня. Это независимый процесс, который к тому же очень просто назначать.

Формула этого процесса такова: все определения и аксиомы, системы и шкалы Саентологии следует использовать таким образом, чтобы добиться от преклира большой способности выносить разные точки зрения. Это означает, что любая существующая шкала, любая система основ мышления или бытийность может быть так подана в процессе прямого провода, что приведет преклира к более высокой способности выносить.

Если говорить более понятно — следует уяснить, что делает огромное количество преклиров и почему одитор с некоторыми преклирами сталкивается с большими трудностями, чем с другими. Огромное количество преклиров получают процессинг целиком и полностью только из-за того, что они неспособны привести себя в такое состояние, в котором они умеют выносить гигантское количество точек зрения; и поэтому они хотят получить процессинг — для того чтобы отойти от фиксированных точек и избавиться от необходимости их наблюдать; так что одитор одитирует того, кто находится в полном уединении и от Саентологии требует только того, чтобы она помогла и поспособствовала этому уединению, сняв, например, заряд с инграмм. И если одитор это делает, то он предоставляет преклиру некоторую смену точки зрения в том смысле, что нечто стирается, и у преклира пропадает необходимость на это смотреть.

And this is a lecture on viewpoint Straightwire, a process which is very simple, very easy to use and has continuous advances.

Легко видеть, что это слабое направление. Потому что тем самым одитор в некоторой мере ставит под сомнение способность преклира выносить точки зрения. Время само по себе вполне может вызываться неспособностью выносить прошлые точки зрения — человек не хочет иметь эти прошлые точки зрения, и поэтому уходит от них с некоторой равномерной скоростью; и когда он превышает нужную скорость отстранения от них, то его начинает закупоривать во времени, у него появляются навязчивые стремления, связанные со временем, он становится очень дерганым, начинает торопить время, страшно торопить события, чувствует, что у него недостаточно времени для того, чтобы завершить все, что от него ожидается — и это по очень крутой кривой переходит в точку, где индивидуум просто сидит без движения, полностью признав тот факт, что у него нет времени ни на что. И поэтому он ничего не делает, хотя знает, что ему надо что-то делать; но он ничего не может делать, потому что у него нет на это времени. Это верх идиотизма, но именно в этом состоянии находится огромное количество людей.

This process is not mixed with other processes; it's not part of any Standard Operating Procedure; it's not part of anything that you would do ordinarily; it doesn't particularly apply to one case level or another case level. It is an independent process which in itself is very simple to administer. It can be, I suppose, self-audited, but I wouldn't advise it offhand.

Время — единственная произвольность, введенная в жизнь, и она вполне заслуживает исследования со стороны одитора. Неготовность выносить точки зрения вызовет закупорку во времени. Чем меньше точек зрения человек способен перенести, тем хуже эта и закупорка, и общее состояние его бытийности. Как я уже говорил, одитор может справиться с этим разными способами. Он может стирать локи, вторичные и инграммы *Лок, вторичная, инграмма: лок — это умственный образ-картинка не болезненного, но волнующего опыта, который человек пережил и который по своей силе зависит от силы более ранней вторичной или инграммы, которая была рестимулирована во время такого опыта. Вторичная — это умственный образ-картинка, содержащая мисэмоцию [закапсулированное горе, гнев, апатию и т.д.] и действительную или вымышленную потерю. Она не содержит физической боли — это момент шока или стресса, который по своей силе зависит от более ранних инграмм, которые были рестимулированы чем-то в окружении, когда происходила вторичная. Инграмма — это умственная картинка опыта, содержащего боль, бессознательность и действительную или вымышленную угрозу выживанию; это запись в реактивном уме чего-то, что действительно произошло с человеком в прошлом и в чем содержатся боль и бессознательность, и две эти вещи записаны в умственном образе-картинке под названием "инграмма".. Стирая их, он может добиться у преклира способности "выносить видение" того, что находится в банке. Или индивидуум может получить такой процессинг — экстеризацию, например, — что он сможет развернуться, посмотреть на разные вещи и обнаружить, что они не так уж и плохи.

The formula of this process is: all those definitions and Axioms, arrangements and scales of Scientology should be used in such a way as to bring about a greater tolerance of such viewpoints on the part of the preclear. That's a formula. That means that any scale there is - any arrangement of fundamentals in thinkingness, beingness - could be so given in a Straight-wire that it would bring about a higher state of tolerance on the part of the preclear.

Давайте просто возьмем нечто среднее между этими двумя подходами и осознаем, что тот человек, который не экстеризуется, не желает иметь экстеризованной точки зрения. Он не чувствует, что может выносить экстеризованную точку зрения. На это у него может быть множество причин, и одна из наиболее частых — суждение, что кто-то может украсть у него тело. Другими словами, есть чрезвычайно ценная точка зрения, которую он может потерять при экстеризации. Получается, что, должно быть, точек зрения недостаточно много; точки зрения, очевидно, слишком ценны, чтобы их использовать. И это приводит к тому, что точки зрения становятся невыносимыми.

To make this more intelligible, you should understand what a great many preclears are doing and why an auditor occasionally has trouble with one preclear more than another preclear. A great many preclears are being processed solely and entirely because they are unable to bring themselves to tolerate an enormous number of viewpoints, and being unable to tolerate these viewpoints they desire processing so that they can fall away from them and not have to observe them. And the auditor is auditing somebody who is in full retreat, and Scientology is being used to aid and abet the retreat. By taking the charge off of an engram, the auditor at once gives the preclear something in the way of a change of viewpoint, in that he erases something so the preclear doesn't have to view it anymore.

Вот кто-то стоит и смотрит на то, как его семью рубят на куски какие-то солдаты, индейцы или некие другие дикари. После такого эта точка зрения станет для него настолько невыносимой, что он на ней зафиксируется. Именно факт отказа ее выносить и фиксирует его в этой точке зрения. Причина этого описана в различных шкалах согласия-несогласия, о которых я рассказывал в лекциях Филадельфийского докторского курса — этот тот факт, что, если в этой вселенной вы хотите что-то получить, вы не сможете это иметь; а если вы этого не хотите, вы это получите. Это инверсия, и когда эта инверсия возникает, индивидуум обнаруживает, что он каждый раз терпит поражение в отношении всего, на что было направлено его определение. Если он начинает чего-то желать, то сразу же обнаруживает, что не может это иметь. В действительности, он сам предпримет шаги для того, чтобы обеспечить это неимение.

Well, as you can see, this is a weak direction - he erases something so the preclear doesn't have to view it. In other words, what the auditor is doing is to some degree holding in question the ability of the preclear to tolerate viewpoints.

Он хочет создать приток — и получает исток, он хочет исток — получает приток. Нет ничего печальнее картины психотика, которого пытаются уговорить избавиться от материального предмета — отдать его кому-то, выбросить его, выкинуть какую-нибудь старую ненужную ерунду типа ветхого носового платка — просто пытаются уговорить его оставить это. Нет, нет, он просто не может этого сделать. Он будет все к себе прижимать, и я клянусь — если вы дадите ему гадюку, злобную гадюку с разинутой пастью и ядовитым зубом, то он схватит ее и прижмет к груди. Все, что попадает ему в руки, он хватает — и вы никогда не отнимете этого у него.

Time itself may very well be caused by an intolerance of past viewpoints. A person doesn't want viewpoints in the past, and so at a uniform rate he abandons past viewpoints. And when he no longer is following this uniform rate but is abandoning them faster than the uniform rate, he starts to jam in terms of time and becomes obsessed about time, becomes very hectic, begins to rush time, push hard against the events of the day, feels that he doesn't have enough time to accomplish everything he's supposed to accomplish. And this falls off on a very rapid curve to a point where an individual will simply sit around idle, fully cognizant of the fact that he doesn't have enough time to do anything and so doesn't do anything, but knows he should be doing something but can't do anything because he doesn't have enough time.

Вы как одитор, каждый раз, когда пытаетесь заставить кого-нибудь избавиться от чего-то, просите его избавиться от навязчивой точки зрения. Вы увидите, что каждый раз, когда вы просите кого-то что-то отдать, он начинает держать это еще сильнее.

This is idiocy itself, but is the state in which you find a great many preclears. Time is a single arbitrary which entered into life, is well worth investigating on the part of an auditor.

Существует множество процессов. Существует огромное количество процессов — все эти стандартные процедуры действия, и в хороших руках они будут работать. Существует процессинг вселенной, существует процедура продвинутого курса, существует процессинг творчества, и так далее, и так далее — есть огромное количество техник, которые могут быть со здравым смыслом применены к преклирам. Существует огромное количество процессов прямого провода, существует старый прямой провод. Самый ранний прямой провод, который у нас был, который, между прочим, является заметным усовершенствованием фрейдовского анализа, работал так: скажем, мы видим, что преклир боится кошек. Мы говорим: "Вспомни какой-нибудь случай, в котором ты боялся кошек", затем: "Вспомни кого-нибудь, кто боялся кошек", а затем: "Найди какой-нибудь случай, когда кто-то сказал тебе, что ты похож на этого человека". Вот примерная формула этого процесса — просто прямой провод, и вейлансы очень даже мягко отваливались. Тем не менее, от одитора это требовало здравого смысла.

Now, an unwillingness to tolerate viewpoints will cause a jam in time. The fewer viewpoints which an individual will tolerate, the greater his occlusion and the worse his general state of beingness is. As I said, an auditor can remedy this in various ways. He can erase locks and engrams, and by erasing them make it possible for the individual to tolerate the view he finds in his own bank. Or, an individual can be so processed, as in exteriorization, that he can be caused to go around and look at various things and find they're not so bad.

Одиторы иногда становились экспертами по прямому проводу, и при помощи простого задавания поисковых вопросов и наведения индивидуума на воспоминание об определенных вещах могли приносить кейсу большое облегчение. Почему происходило это облегчение? Индивидуум жил в полной уверенности в том, что он не может выносить какую-то определенную точку зрения, но потом пришел одитор и продемонстрировал ему, что эта точка зрения была в прошлом и, следовательно, выносить ее можно. Это, по сути, и есть база подобного прямого провода. На этом вы получаете выключение *Выключение: это релиз или отделение от реактивного ума или же некоторой его части. — приняв прошлую точку зрения, индивидуум приходит в настоящее время таким образом, что не смотрит в прошлое. Это цель великого множества процессов, и она довольно сильно отличается от "стирания прошлого, чтобы у него больше не было необходимости смотреть на него или переживать его".

Now let's just take the mean between these two and realize that a person who doesn't exteriorize is a person who does not want an exteriorized viewpoint: he does not feel he can tolerate an exteriorized viewpoint. He may have many reasons for this, but one of the main reasons he will give, of course, is that somebody may steal his body and so forth. In other words, here you have a tremendously valuable viewpoint which he's liable to lose if he exteriorizes.

В прямом проводе точки зрения у нас есть совершенно, исключительно новый вид мышления. Его не следует смешивать с тем, что мы делали все эти многие последние годы. У него с этим нет никакой связи. По сравнению с любыми процессами, которые вы до этого делали с преклиром, у него совершенно другая цель. В нем используются преимущества экстеризации, и они сводятся до прямого провода. Мы добиваемся того, чтобы индивидуум пробежался по вселенной, глядя на вещи, наблюдая за ними и испытывая их. Это Гран-Тур — подобное ему упражнение — и здесь мы сводим это к прямому проводу, который проводится в интеризованном или экстеризованном состоянии.

But, viewpoints then must be scarce, viewpoints are obviously too valuable to be used, and this comes about by viewpoints becoming intolerable.

Работа идет просто на той основе, что преклир находится в таком состоянии из-за того, что он не выносит многие точки зрения; и вся цель процесса состоит в том, чтобы привести его в состояние, когда он может выносить точки зрения. Вот и весь процесс.

Let's take somebody standing watching his family being butchered by soldiers or something of the sort - Indians or other wild people. And he would go along afterwards so intolerant of this viewpoint that he would fixate on it. It's the fact that he refuses to tolerate the viewpoint which makes him fixate on it.

Ключевая фраза этого процесса: "Ты не возражал бы". Почему я объявляю об этом как о чем-то важном, новом, очень вам полезном? Существует много разновидностей точек зрения. Если бы мы взяли Полную Знательность и разделили ее, то обнаружили бы, что сначала попадаем в пространство — и это было бы восприятием. Нам необходимо воспринимать, чтобы знать. Это уровень Смотрительности. Если уплотнить это, то обнаружится, что для того, чтобы знать, необходимо Эмоционировать. Человек должен эмоционировать. Мы сдавливаем восприятие и приходим к эмоциям — для того, чтобы знать. Если мы сдавим и уплотним это еще сильнее, то получим Усилительность, а если и ее уплотнить, то получится Думательность, а если уплотнить и упаковать Думательность, получим Символы. Примером этого может быть Слово — что оно, как не упаковка мысли; а если уплотнить и Символы, то мы в действительности получим более широкое определение Символа, мы получим животных. Вы, вероятно, представляете это в терминах точки зрения тела — если не очень хорошо это понимаете, но определение Символа: "масса со значением, которая может перемещаться". Это Символ и, конечно же, это животное. У животного есть определенная форма, которая дает ему определенное значение, оно подвижно, и если вы увидите, как Думательность уплотняется в форму, то вы поймете, что такое искусство. Оно — очень простая вещь, описываемая множеством слов.

Now, the reason for this lies in the various agree-disagree scales in the Doctorate lectures: the fact that if you want anything in this universe, you can't have it; if you don't want it, you're going to get it. This is an inversion, and when this inversion comes about, an individual finds himself overwhelmed each time on whatever his own determinism is. If he starts to desire something, he will find out immediately that he can't have it. Actually, he himself will take steps to make sure that he can't have it.

Думательность уплотняется в Символьность, идеи превращаются в по-настоящему твердые предметы, а когда они становятся способны перемещаться, у нас получаются символы; когда же эти символы наблюдаются — оказывается, что они связываются с другими символами, и получаются ассоциации, они ассоциируются с тем или иным и берут что-то от того или от другого, и так мы получаем Поедательность. Мы здесь описываем огромный диапазон, весь смысл которого можно выразить так: "У меня есть идея о форме в этом пространстве и материи, и я собираюсь взять все это вместе и всю эту массу сделать единой". Как только мы это сделали, что-то создается. Но не стоит ожидать, что созданная вещь начнет что-нибудь создавать. Эта вещь ничего не создает, и потому для поддержания существования ей необходим обмен энергией, и так мы получаем Поедание. Далее берем Поедание и уплотняем его — то есть создаем нехватку пищи и большие трудности с ее добычей — и получится уплотнение, которое полностью неподвластно времени — мы выходим из времени и получаем Секс.

The point is that you have an inversion: when he wants something to flow in, it flows out; when he wants something to flow out, it flows in.

Вне настоящего времени получается будущее, что и есть Секс.

Now, there's nothing more pathetic than watching a psychotic try to give up any material object. I processed a psychotic just on this basis: trying to make them give me or give up or throw away one possession, such as an old Kleenex or almost anything - just try to make them give it up. No, no, they just won't do it. The material object is there, they clutch it to them, and I swear that if you handed them an adder, wide-mouthed and fully-fanged, they would clutch it to their bosom. Anything that comes in, they immediately seize, and that's that.

Индивидуум слетает с трака времени как раз в этой точке между Поеданием и Сексом, и ничто другое не будет так плавать по траку времени, как сексуальная инграмма. Такие инграммы плавают просто по всему траку времени. Они ни к чему не привязаны. Они очень подвижны. Индивидуум в Поедании начинает уезжать из настоящего времени при первых признаках непорядка, и начинает дико тревожиться по поводу того, что он будет есть завтра — и когда эта гастрономическая проблема сводится к абсурду, возникает состояние, где: "Я не могу решить проблему того, что буду есть завтра, следовательно, мне лучше передать ее кому-то другому"; и потом индивидуум переходит на линию протоплазмы, идет по ней, создает новую форму — и готово.

Now, you as an auditor are trying to make somebody give up something. In essence, you give up a compulsive viewpoint. Well, every time you ask them to give up something, they're liable to hold it closer.

Это наилучший способ решить проблему питания — просто отложить ее на завтра; а завтра, возможно, еды будет больше.

Now, there are many processes - there are a great many processes. There's all the Standard Operating Procedures, and oddly enough in good hands they all work. There's Universe Processing; there's Advanced Course Procedure; there's Creative Processing, on and on and on and on; the tremendous, tremendous amount of technique which can be applied with good sense to a preclear.

Есть готовый способ продемонстрировать это. Обратите внимание, в каких странах размножаются быстрее и интенсивнее всего. Это Индия и Китай. Обнаруживается, что в них есть крайний, хронический недостаток пищи. Можно, конечно, сказать, что, мол, у них сильная нехватка пищи потому, что они размножаются, и из-за этого вся пища съедается. Нет, как раз наоборот. Они съедают всю свою еду, поэтому и размножаются совершенно сумасшедшим образом. Это также можно проверить на животных. Если морить животное голодом, оно начнет быстрее размножаться. Если бы, например, посадить животное homo sapiens на исключительно углеводную диету с очень низким содержанием протеинов — между прочим, она совсем не способствовала бы производству эстрогена или андрогена. Этот факт про диету доказан — но если вы посадите его на углеводную диету с очень малым количеством протеинов, то вы немедленно увидите, что он начнет тревожиться по поводу размножения. Происходит это потому, что вы направляете ему очень внятную информацию как раз в то место, в котором он ее лучше поймет — то есть в желудок, сообщаете ему о том, что он не способен получить достаточное количество еды сегодня, так что ему придется не есть завтра. Поэтому страны Западного полушария, сидящие на углеводах, сильнее всего тревожатся о размножении и о завтрашнем дне. Нет нужды тратить много времени на доказательство этого. Это просто шкала от Знать до Секса. Уплотненная Знательность.

There's enormous numbers of Straightwire. There's old-time Straight-wire, the most basic Straightwire there is, which by the way is better than Freudian analysis. It's a marked advance on Freudian analysis, the first Straightwire we ever had, which... We notice that the preclear is afraid of cats, so we say, „All right. Now, let's recall a time when you were afraid of cats.“ „Now, let's recall somebody who was afraid of cats.“ „Now, let's find a time when somebody said you were like this person.“ That was, to some degree, its formula.

"Я не знаю, как мне жить сегодня, следовательно, я буду размножаться сумасшедшим образом, чтобы я мог появиться завтра — то есть тогда, когда, может быть, я узнаю, как жить" — вот последняя черта. Итак, если вы заметили это, в такой цепи над Сексом должна стоять Смерть. Человек предполагает свою собственную смерть, и из-за этого уходит на линию протоплазмы. Так появляются шопенгауэры, Воля и Идея, тесно связывающие между собой Секс и Смерть — а также определенные животные и насекомые, которые так тесно связывают секс и смерть, что сразу за сексом у них наступает смерть. Торговцы страхом любят рассказывать о пауке "черная вдова". Я не знаю, почему паук "черная вдова" так привлекателен для многих людей, но почему-то это так. Я заметил, что он в основном популярен в Калифорнии — в Южной Калифорнии. Там огромное количество пауков "черная вдова", и большинство калифорнийских девушек, если вы начнете вести с ними какие-либо разговоры о второй динамике, рано или поздно сообщат вам, что самка паука "черной вдовы" съедает самца после того, как они совершили половой акт. В любом случае, суть здесь в том, что в действительности, когда вы опускаетесь по этой шкале, несмотря на то, что этого на шкале нет, вы обнаружите "Смерть" прямо перед "Сексом". Знать, Смотреть, Эмоционировать, Усилие, Символ, Поедание, Смерть, Секс. Смерти там нет, но здесь показано, где начинает работать этот механизм.

Just Straightwire, and you sprung apart these valences very gently. However, it required a great deal of good sense on the part of an auditor. An auditor now and then would become a Straightwire expert and by just asking such searching questions and causing the individual to recall certain things, he would bring about a great deal of relief on the case.

Бытийность тоже может находиться где-нибудь на этой шкале. Бытийность может быть на этой шкале, и если попытаться ее туда поставить, то тянет искать ее где-то наверху — но истина в том, что она везде: и внизу, и вверху, но нигде она не выражена так хорошо, как на уровне Символов. Человеческая раса имеет вид формы — масса, значение и подвижность. Подвижная масса со значением — это тело, это слово в словаре, это флаг на крыше — его тоже можно перемещать, и у него есть значение. Вы обнаружите, что человеческим существам ужасно нравится быть символами. Часто люди вокруг любят быть сексуальными объектами. Так что эта шкала неким образом сходится вокруг бытийности. Человек может быть Усилием — и в действительности мы совсем не обнаруживаем бытийности на вершине этой шкалы, мы находим ее внизу, довольно низко по шкале, тогда, когда человек доходит до такого состояния, что ему нужно быть чем-то, когда он уже практически на дне. Дополнительное исследование поместило бы бытийность, по крайней мере, на уровень Символов. На этом уровне человек становится вещью, и часто бывает, что преклир в основном является своим именем.

Why did the relief take place? The individual has been going along in the full belief that he could not tolerate a certain viewpoint. And the auditor has come along and demonstrated to him that the viewpoint was in the past and therefore is tolerable. There's, in essence, the fundamentals of such Straightwire. You get key-outs on this type of Straightwire.

Посмотрев далее, мы обнаружим, что существуют различные разновидности точек зрения. Есть нечто, что можно назвать точкой знания. Это главнее, чем точка зрения. У индивидуума тогда не будет никакой зависимости от пространства, массы или чего-то еще. Он просто знает, где он есть. Есть точка зрения, точка восприятия, и к последней можно отнести вид, запах, речь, слух и все другие вещи, которые можно отнести к этой категории точки зрения. Обычно мы размещаем это по шкале на уровне "Смотрение", но сюда также можно отнести все остальные восприятия.

Well, there's that process which is: get the individual in present time so he isn't looking at the past. That's a goal of a great many processes. Another one is: wipe out the past so he won't have to look at it or experience it.

Опускаясь ниже, мы получаем нечто, называемое точкой эмоций. Это та точка, из которой человек излучает и принимает эмоции; затем следует еще точка усилий — это область, из которой человек выдает и принимает усилия. Еще немного ниже мы найдем точку думания, на ней и лежит это "пережевывание мыслей". Здесь человек думает, не смотрит. А если мы спустимся еще ниже, то получим точку символов — она и есть настоящее место слов. И ниже этого — точка поедания, а еще ниже — точка секса.

We have in Viewpoint Straightwire a very, very new type of thinking in this. This is a new type of thinking. This is not to be confused with what we have been doing for the... lo, these many years. It hasn't any connection with it. You should think of this as something entirely different, because it has an entirely different goal than any process you've ever done on a preclear. It takes the benefit of exteriorization and reduces it to Straightwire. We get an individual to race around the universe and look at things, observe things, experience things. That's Grand Tour and that sort of drill, and reduces it right down to Straightwire which is done interiorized or exteriorized. One simply goes on the basis that the preclear is in the state he is in, because he is not tolerating many viewpoints. And the entire goal of the process is to bring him to a point where he will tolerate viewpoints. That's all there is to the process. The key wording of the process is, „... you wouldn't mind.“

Если вы рассмотрите каждую из этих расположенных внизу точек как стремление создать пространство, вам станет понятна большая часть поведения человека. Давайте возьмем в качестве примера человека, который пытается создавать пространство при помощи слов. Слова не создают хорошего пространства. Так что человек, пытающийся создавать пространство при помощи слов, рано или поздно попадает в плохое состояние. Гораздо более низкое, чем человек, который пытается создать пространство при помощи поедания пищи. Здесь все оказывается наоборот, не так ли? И затем есть человек, который пытается создать пространство сексом — и это действительно перевернуто. Этот эффект идет в обе стороны от середины шкалы. Самая низкая часть шкалы Поедания — это кал и моча. Люди будут пытаться — и пытаются — создавать пространство и этим способом. Собаки, к примеру, всегда пытаются создавать пространство таким способом.

All right, let's give an example of this. Why do I announce this as something important, something new, something that is very useful to you and so forth? That's because, as I told you a few days ago in a lecture, there are many varieties of viewpoint. If we were to take knowingness and squash it, we would find we were first getting into space, which would be perception. We have to „perceive to know.“ Now, if we condense that, we find out that we have to get „emote to know.“ The person has to emote. We squash perception and we get into „emotion to know.“ Now, if we squash down and condense even further emotion, we get effort; and if we condense effort even further, we get thinkingness; and if we condense and package thinkingness, we get symbols (as an example of this, what is a word but a package of thought); and if we were to condense symbols, we would get actually the wider definition of a symbol - we would get animals.

Есть люди, которые пытаются создать пространство при помощи усилий. Это — использование силы, это — Чингисхан, скачущий и устраивающий резню в деревнях. Он пытается создать пространство. Заметьте, что прежде чем куда-то скакать, вам нужно уже иметь пространство.

It's very strange, when you think about it. You're probably thinking about it in terms of a viewpoint of a body, if you don't see that clearly. But the definition of a symbol is a mass with meaning which is mobile. And that is a symbol. And of course that is an animal, too. An animal has certain form which gives him certain meaning, and he is mobile.

Мы поднимаемся чуть выше — и, может быть, вы знали кого-то, кто пытался создавать пространство при помощи эмоций. Затем мы поднимаемся еще чуть выше и добираемся до способа, которым вы делаете пространство на самом деле — до смотрения. В действительности вы добиваетесь создания пространства знанием. Вы просто знаете, что существовало некоторое пространство, что должно существовать некоторое пространство — вот и все. Настолько просто. Это эффективный способ обращаться с этим, смотрение — другой эффективный способ обращаться с этим, а когда мы опускаемся до эмоции, начинается неэффективность. Люди, которые пытаются создавать пространство при помощи эмоции, не добиваются многого. Это в буквальном, в действительном, в переносном и во всех других смыслах, которые вы можете здесь придумать. Пространство слишком сгущено, и наносит ответные удары. Но это все же выше состояния того человека, который создает пространство упорным трудом, толчками или проявлением силы.

And if you see that thinkingness condenses, then, into form, you will understand art, just in so many words - a very simple thing. You have thinkingness condensing into symbols, in other words, ideas are condensing into actually solid objects. And when these are mobile, we have these symbols, and when these symbols are observed, they are found to line themselves up with other symbols and take and associate - associate with one and another and take things from one another - and you get eating.

Другими словами, мы обнаруживаем, что здесь, в Усилии, у нас довольно широкая шкала — и вы видите, что находящиеся здесь люди достигают гораздо меньшего, чем те, кто пытается создавать пространство эмоцией. И теперь мы попадаем в диапазон Думания — там те люди, которые пытаются создать пространство Думанием, то есть самым недейственным способом из всех, какими только могут пользоваться люди для того, чтоб что-то сделать.

That's a big band we're covering in there. That's the whole business from „I have an idea about a form, in this space and matter, and I'm going to get it all together, and I'm going to make this mass together.“ Well, the second we've done that, something has been created. Now, don't expect that thing which has been created to create anything, because it won't. So, it is a thing which isn't creating and therefore must subsist on an interchange of energy, and we get eating.

Когда мы опускаемся до Символов, мы встречаем страну, которая старается вывесить свой флаг там и сям по всему миру — что не создает ей большего пространства; а затем мы попадаем в Поедание и встречаем индивидуума, который создает пространство, предлагая пищу. Скотовод, например, делает это. Он создает пространство при помощи скота. Толстяк тоже пытается создать пространство пищей, и так далее. И вот, когда мы попадаем в область Секса — то там, конечно, человек думает, что если он сможет достаточно быстро и широко размножаться, то приобретет множество разновидностей пространства. Конечно, в конце концов он оказывается без пространства. Это наиболее плотная активность, которой вы можете заняться: секс. Вы можете найти такого человека, у которого весь банк состоит из закороченных контуров — он “поехал” на сексе. Но помните, что мы смотрим на постепенную шкалу от Секса прямо вверх, вплоть до уровня Знания.

Now we take eating and condense it down - that is to say, let's make food scarce and let's make it very hard to get - and we got a condensation, you might say, which completely escapes time itself. And you go outside of time and get sex - that is to say, the outside of present time and you get future time, which is sex. An individual goes right straight off the time track between eating and sex, and there's nothing will float on a time track like a sexual engram. They just float all over the time track; they don't nail down at all; they're very mobile. Believe me.

И если кто-то к вам приходит и говорит вам о том, что единственная аберрация — это секс, пожалуйста, посмейтесь над ним. Вы можете дать ему ответ. Да, именно так мы начали рассмотрение этой проблемы — мы обнаружили, что люди сходили с ума из-за секса. Затем мы исследовали проблему глубже, и в ходе многолетних изысканий было выяснено, что секс является частью постепенной шкалы человеческого опыта, и, по сути, является деятельностью по созданию пространства, и что люди пытаются создавать пространство различными способами. И когда они опускаются по шкале слишком низко, то они покидают жизнь в настоящем времени, и в этой точке они начинают тонуть на уровне Секса. Таким способом они пытаются создавать впереди на траке некоторое будущее впереди на траке, и все превращается в хаос. Это — попытка извлечь опыт из внешних источников, и усвоить этот опыт.

And the individual, in eating, starts to slide out of present time by this token alone - and most people are terribly worried how are they going to eat tomorrow. And when they reduce this down to the reductio ad gastronomy, you get to a point where „I can't solve the problem of eating tomorrow, so, therefore, I'd better just leave it all up to somebody else and slide in on the genetic protoplasm line and go up the line a little bit and get a form and be another form.“ That's the best way to solve eating, is just to live tomorrow. And maybe tomorrow there will be more food.

Действовать на уровне Секса — это на самом деле сумасшествие.

This is by the way, such a thoroughly easy thing to perceive that a simple test will demonstrate this. Now, let's take a look at those countries of the world which breed faster and harder than other countries of the world. And we find India and China. And we find that these two countries have the greatest food scarcity. Now, we could say, „Well look, they have the greatest food scarcity because they keep breeding people and that eats up all their food.“ No, no, it's the other way to: They eat up all their food and so they breed like mad.

Когда вы исследуете этот диапазон и здешние инверсии, то увидите, что это дает огромное количество вопросов для прямого провода.

And this can be tested with an animal. If you starve an animal, an animal will procreate faster. If you were, for instance, to give any family of Homo sapiens a carbohydrate diet, with a very, very low protein diet... And by the way, this would be, you'd say, terribly unconducive to the production of, well, estrogen, androgen. It's true, it would be very unproductive to it, but if you give them a high carbohydrate and very low protein diet, the next thing you know, they'll start to get very anxious about breeding. You're telling them in essence, right where they can understand it - in their stomachs - that they are unable to obtain enough food today and so must eat tomorrow. Therefore, you get countries of the Western hemisphere, which are very heavily starch-dieted, and you'll find out that these countries are the most anxious about breeding and about tomorrow. Why, no reason to stand around and prove this for hours - it's just the Know to Sex Scale and you get condensed knowingness. „I don't know how I'm going to get along today, so therefore I'd better breed like mad and appear tomorrow and maybe I'll know then“ is about the last ditch.

Основной вопрос будет базироваться на точке зрения полной шкалы, и так проще всего поймать преклира. Вы просто берете точку зрения на этой шкале — точку зрения Секса, точку зрения Усилия и так далее.

Well, if you notice this, death must come in this band above sex. And the person presupposes his own death, to indulge in the protoplasm line. See that? And so we get people like Schopenhauer and The Will and The Idea and so forth, closely associating sex and death. And we get certain animals and insects and so on, which so closely associate sex and death that they accomplish death when they accomplish sex.

Система вопросов будет выглядеть так: вы просите преклира дать вам:

People always - particularly fear merchants who come along - they always like to tell you about the black widow spider. I don't know why the black widow spider is such an attractive beast to some people, but its apparently so. I notice that it exists mainly in California - Southern California. Lots of black widows down there. And most California girls, if you get into any kind of a discussion on the second dynamic at all, will sooner or later inform you that the female black widow spider eats its mate after consummation of the sexual act. I don't know why this is, but well, it's probably Californians. Anyway, the main thing is here is, actually, when you go down this scale - although it doesn't belong on the scale - you'll find death just before sex. In other words, it goes: Know, Look, Emote, Effort, Think, Symbol, Eat, Death, Sex. See, only Death doesn't belong there. But just shows you where this mechanism comes in.

"Что-то, что ты не возражал бы знать".

Now, beingness might also be on this scale somewhere. Beingness might be on this scale, and if it were, you would have a tendency to look for it up toward the top. But the truth of the matter is it's all up and down the scale. And there is no beingness like that beingness at Symbols. And you'll find most of the human race having been made into a form, that is, a mass which is mobile, has meaning - a mass with meaning which is mobile (that's a body, that's a word in a dictionary, that's a flag flying above a building, it can be moved around and so forth). You'll find out that they indulge very, very heavily in being symbols.

"Что-то, на что ты не возражал бы смотреть".

Well, you'll find people around being sexual objects too. So that this scale sort of interlocks on beingness. A fellow could be some effort and actually we don't find beingness up at the top of the scale at all, we find it down there pretty low on the scale. So when an individual has gotten to a point where he has to be something, he's practically out the bottom.

"Какую-нибудь эмоцию, за которой ты не возражал бы наблюдать".

Now, that controverts to some slight degree something I said many, many weeks ago on this. But if you remember many weeks ago, I said beingness didn't belong on this scale. Beingness is an activity or a condition and you might as well throw it onto the scale. So I just threw it onto the scale and didn't discuss it further. Further discussion examination would have to put beingness at least at Symbols. A person becomes things at that level. So if you find a preclear madly being his name, where is he?

"Какое-то усилие, за которым ты не возражал бы наблюдать".

All right, now let's look this thing over even further and find out that there's - I told you the other day - some different kinds of viewpoints. Well, there's something you might call a „know point“ - k-n-o-w point. That would be senior to a viewpoint, wouldn't it? An individual wouldn't have any dependency on space or mass or anything else, he'd simply know where he was.

“Какие-то символы, которые ты не возражал бы видеть”.

Now, there'd be a viewpoint, which is a perception point, which would consist of look and smell and talk and hear, and all sorts of things could be thrown in under this category of viewpoint. But ordinarily we simply mean at that level of the scale, looking. But you can throw all the rest of the perceptions in at that level of the scale.

“Какое-то поедание, которое ты не возражал бы рассмотреть”.

Now, we go down a little bit, and we would get something called an „emotion point.“ It would be that point from which a person emotes and at which he is emoted.

“Какой-то секс, на который ты не возражал бы посмотреть”.

And then there would be something else called an „effort point.“ And the „effort point“ would be that area from which a person exerted effort and that area into which a person received effort.

And we'd go down a little bit more than that and we'd find we had a „thinking point.“ And there, of course, we get figure-figure-figure. The person is thinking there, not looking.

And we go down a little bit further than this, and we get into - from a „thinking point,“ - we just get a „symbol point.“ And there, really, properly, we get words.

And below that we get an „eating point,“ and below that we get a „sex point.“

If you considered each one of these below Know as an effort to make space, a great deal of human behavior would make sense to you.

Let's take an individual trying to make space with words. He's simply trying to make space with words. Words don't make good space, and so an individual who tries to make space with words sooner or later gets in bad condition.

Now, let's look at another one, much lower than that, and a person who's trying to make space with eating - of course that's inverted, isn't it?

And then there's the person who is trying to make space with sex. And boy, that's really inverted. That goes both ways from the middle.

Of course, part of the eating scale... the lowest part of the eating scale is excreta and urine. And people will try to make space with that. Dogs are always trying to make space, for instance, that way.

Now, then there are people who try to make space with effort. This is the use of force. This is Genghis Khan riding out and slaughtering a bunch of people - he's trying to make space. You notice the space had to exist before he could ride out anyplace.

And we go up a little higher, and maybe you've known somebody who tried to make space with emotion.

And we go up a little higher and we get the way you do make space, which is by looking. Actually you make space by knowing. If you just knew there was some space, there would be some space. That would be about all there was to that, so it's so simple.

Now, that's an effective way to go about it. And looking is another effective way to go about it.

And when we get down to emotion, boy, that's getting real ineffective. People who try to make space with emotion don't get very far. And that's literally, actually, figuratively, any other way you want to look at it, they just don't get very far. You can't make much space with emotion. It's too condensed and it kicks back and so forth.

And then there's the individual who makes space by working hard or by pushing hard or by exerting force. In other words, there's quite a little bit of band there, you see, to the effort band. And you'll find out they don't get very far either, but they get less far than people who try to make space with emotion.

And now, we get into the thinking band. And people who try to make space with thinking, boy, that is about the awfullest activity anybody could engage in, is trying to make space with thinking.

And of course we get down to making space with symbols. This is a nation trying to fly its flag all over the world and so forth. And, it doesn't make much space.

Then we of course go into eating. And an individual by offering things to be eaten, such as a cattleman - you know, he offers things to be eaten - he's in a king space with cattle. And a fat man, of course, is trying to make space with food, so on.

Now, when we get down into sex, of course, if an individual could breed fast enough and far enough and that sort of thing, why, he'd wind up with all kinds of space, he thinks. And of course he winds up with no space. This is the most condensed activity you can get into, sex. If you want to see somebody's bank all short-circuited and jammed, it's certainly short-circuited and jammed on sex. But remember, we're looking at a gradient scale that runs from Sex right straight on up through to Know. And anybody comes along and tells you sex is the only aberration there is, laugh at him. Say, „Yes, that was how we entered the problem. We found out that people were loopy on the subject of sex, so then we examined the problem. And having examined the problem for many, many years, discovered that sex was part of a gradient scale of human experience, which is an activity of trying to make space.“

And people try to make space in various ways. And when they get down too low, why, on the sexual scale, they're abandoning life. When they get into sex they're abandoning present time life and trying to get some future going on the track, and that throws them all around the place, because sex is really a cave-in. It's the effort to have an experience externally. You know, pull an experience in.

Well, if you look at this band up and down, you'll see that it inverts here or there. So, it gives you the doggonedest, most enormous number of Straight-wire questions, when codified correctly, that you'd ever want to ask anybody. The basic questions would reduce this thing, first from just the standpoint of viewpoint of the whole scale.

And there's where you'll catch your preclear most ably. You just take viewpoint of the scale: viewpoint of sex, you see and viewpoint of effort and so forth. And you would ask a question like this: You'd say, „All right, let's give me some effort you wouldn't mind observing,“ „... type of effort you wouldn't mind observing,“ „... a type of sex you wouldn't mind observing,“ „... sexual activity you wouldn't mind looking at,“ and so on and so on and so on and so on. You know, ... “some eating you wouldn't mind watching,“ „... some emotion you wouldn't mind observing“ - just as quiet and mild as that.

Now, the systematic questions, as you go into the line, would run like this: „Now, give me something you wouldn't mind knowing,“ „...something you wouldn't mind looking at,“ „... an emotion which you wouldn't mind observing,“ „... some effort which you wouldn't mind observing,“ now „...some thinking which you wouldn't mind observing,“ and now „... some symbols which you wouldn't mind seeing,“ and „... some eating which you wouldn't mind inspecting,“ and „... some sex you wouldn't mind looking at.“

Well, that's the simplest way to phrase these questions. But as we go on from there, of course, these questions can get much more complicated, because we simply interweave every single part of Scientology and get the individual to pick out some kind of a viewpoint by gradient scale which he wouldn't mind observing or wouldn't mind experiencing.

Now, as we go on a little further from this, we find out „...some effort you wouldn't mind engaging in,“ „...some effort you wouldn't mind having leveled against you,“ „...some thinking you wouldn't mind doing,” „...some things you wouldn't mind thinking about,“ (better question) „...some things about you, you wouldn't mind people thinking,“ and so forth. In other words, you throw him into the centers of those viewpoints. As what? First as cause and then as effect. Which is, of course, then obeying the entire communication chain - C to E being the definition of communication: cause, distance, effect.

So, „Give me some people you wouldn't mind looking at you.“ And you'll finally get him down to „Give me some things, now, you wouldn't mind eating,“ and „... some things you wouldn't mind being eaten by.“ You see, cause to effect. Let's get the action involved in it.

But how complicated would you have to be with this Straightwire? Well, you wouldn't have to be very complicated. You can actually take the first lineup which I gave you, and just play that over and over and over and over and over, and you'll clear up the fellow's bank and turn on his sonic and visio. That's not an idle promise, for I've been working with this process. And at first, when I was using the process, it was so complicated that I rather despaired of an auditor using it, since it took into consideration the many considerations of the preclear. And finally just broke it down to a point of where it no longer took into consideration any of the considerations of the preclear, and so it became a simple enough process to put out and a process which could be used to advantage.

Now, you go over and over and over this, and the whole object of it would be to bring the preclear into a higher tolerance of viewpoints and, of course, this will eventually fish him out into having some space. You accomplish all the goals there are just by that highly permissive quiet approach. Now, if you don't think this will turn on some somatics, you're quite mistaken. If you don't think it won't turn on some aberrations, you're also mistaken. It's liable to turn on some very, very vicious ones. Because your preclear will immediately determine that you are asking him these questions in order to beat him into apathy, and his first acceptance of any viewpoints will be an apathetic acceptance. He will suddenly conceive that you're just asking him, „All right, I'll give up and abandon all the fight every place. And all right, so I will look at my mother. All right, I don't mind looking at my mother. I don't mind looking at my mother punishing me.“ You're pushing him right straight through the tone band.

Now, an auditor using this process shouldn't kick the bottom out from the preclear. And if he tries to press the preclear too hard and push him around too hard, he'll really produce this apathetic reaction. You're inviting the preclear to look at things which he ordinarily would find intolerable. And you're just going in there a little deeper and a little further and a little further and a little further, and you're just inviting him to do this and to do that and to look at this and do that.

And your goal is... Without directing his attention toward any specific thing (that's the one thing you leave alone with this process - don't direct his attention to anything specific; let him pick up what he picks up, good, bad or indifferent), why, you will find him eventually looking a red-hot electronic or an atom bomb in the teeth and saying, „Yep. Yeah, viewpoint of my town being wiped out by an atom bomb. Yep. Yep. Yeah, yeah, that's pretty bad, to be radioactively burned that bad. Yeah, I guess I could experience that.“ You just search a little further, occasionally, and ask him, „Well, how would you like to experience such a thing?“

And he'll say, „Oh, no-no-no.“

Now, you'll find out that he will run into one which isn't on this scale - a viewpoint of aberration. People try to make space with aberration. And he will run into this sooner or later and tend to fixate on people who have made a lot of space with aberration. Particularly if this fellow is an auditor, he's liable to fixate on aberration and look constantly and continually for aberration rather than to realize that 99 percent of living consists of nonaberrated conduct. It's the fact that a culture gets stuck on the remaining one percent which invites a person to plumb only into that one percent. But if he does, he's overlooking the bulk of living.

Just because you were part of a culture which had a taboo against touching banyan trees, would be no reason for you then to exclusively process the touching of banyan trees. Do you see that? If you went into the Mugwumps in Lower Catatonia, you wouldn't find very many customs which made good sense to you. So you would consider all these customs as aberrated customs, and you would be very likely prone to process out these strange, weird and fantastic customs. And these would demand your interest to such a degree that you would overlook the fact that even the Mugwumps are doing a lot of things which are a lot of fun, and which they enjoy doing, and so forth. In other words, if an auditor looks at aberration only as a part of conduct, he is not really clearing up the life of the individual at all. You want to get his attention off of aberration rather than to get it on it.

But people make space with aberrations. And an auditor tends to fixate on such people because those people evidently can make space, and certainly have made space in the past when there was no remedy for their aberration. They said, „Boy, is it safe to be aberrated! There's no cure for it.“

Now, you've done a terrible thing. You've come along and told the fellow that he isn't safe being aberrated anymore, you're going to cure him. Of course, his primary impulse, if he really realized what he was doing, would be to knock you off. You're spoiling his game entirely.

All right, as we go over this Straightwire, we find out that many other items could be added into it. An auditor could use the ARC triangle. „Who could you like?“ „What wouldn't you mind agreeing with?“ „What could you agree with right here?“ „What could disagree with you?“ Just that. And you would get the reality and the affinity sides of the communication triangle.

Now, you could get fancier than that. You could get up to a point of „Who wouldn't you mind hating you?“ „Who wouldn't you mind hating?“ Because hate and so forth is usually a nonacceptable viewpoint.

But as soon as you start going out terribly wide with this and including all the other elements that you can think of and so on, it gives you quite a repertoire. But you had better not get too complicated because it'll stop producing results for you out there in about the third or fourth echelon. So you stick along with the ARC triangle, the Know to Sex Scale and primary principles such as duplication. „What wouldn't you mind duplicating?“ „Let's look around and find something you wouldn't mind duplicating at the moment.“ And stick close to home, in other words, with such things as the dynamics.

Now, let's take this whole thing and run it against the dynamics. And we discover that we have a... In any one of the Know to Sex Scale, we have eight dynamics at every level. We have the effort of sex and the effort of God at the Effort band. You see, the complexities of life are made up from the fact that you have eight dynamics at each level of the Know to Sex Scale. See, there's knowing about sex, there's knowing about spirits, there's knowing about... This is all in the knowingness band. It doesn't necessarily... know about these things doesn't take you into the dip on further condensation - you simply know about these things, that's all. Perfectly at liberty to know about anything you want to know about. There isn't anything damaging about knowing.

And then we go into Look, and of course you can look at anything on the eight dynamics - so you've got eight dynamics there at Look. But remember that Look includes lots of perceptions, other perceptions, even though sound dives down to Symbols, see? Sound, hearing, the transfer communication of symbols goes way on down the bottom of the band there. Nevertheless, actually, it belongs in the field of perception which is at Look, see? Hear. Look, hear - these things go together.

The hardest thing there is to turn on in a case - lookingness turns on long before sonic, and sonic is the hardest thing there is to turn on in a case - because an individual will turn it off. So, we mustn't neglect in this Straightwire process such things as sound. All right, „What wouldn't you mind listening to?“ „What sound wouldn't you mind making?“ „What sound would it be all right for you to make?“ so forth. „What sound would it be all right for you to hear right now?“ And you pursue that course of questioning for a while, and you will find an individual's ears will hurt and pop and snap and various things will occur, and sonic is liable to turn on.

But of course, if you haven't hit the rest of the band, his sonic won't turn on. You see, you've got a lot of things there he's afraid of looking at and afraid of hearing. He's also afraid of other people hearing things. „What would it be all right for other people to hear?“ So we could spread this all out onto a bracket, couldn't we? We, in other words, play this thing almost any way. There's almost an infinity of questions here.

We get emotion - of course, there's an emotional level from the first to the eighth dynamic. And quite in addition to that, there are about eight very, very specific emotions. So we've got eight dynamics for each emotional scale. Look how this plots out for Straightwire questions.

And we've got effort for all eight dynamics, and we've got all kinds and types of effort. We have the force - ideas of force. We have electronic, we have mechanical effort - you know, there's lots of them.

And the same way about thinking. There's all kinds of thinking. There's mathematical thinking, there's intuitive thinking and there's spontaneous thinking and telepathic thinking, and you could get very complicated if you want to.

Well, the funny part of it is, is that's what your preclear's brain is going to do the second you start asking him simple questions. See, he'll start racking around all over the place. And what you're looking at here is, if you plot these eight dynamics at every level on the Know to Sex Scale and then plot the eight dynamics on each corner of the ARC triangle, and if you were actually to arrange the Know to Sex Scale as a triangular column (you know, Know to Sex at each corner of the column, and that triangle, bottom or top, were the ARC triangle), you see there - did you get that picture?

Let's take ARC at the bottom - pretty condensed - and we take it and apply it to sex, see? And then we have agreement and disagreement about sex. And then we have - over on another corner, why, we have liking and other emotional reactions toward sex. And then we have at the other corner sexual communication. So that at each point there we could take the Know to Sex Scale totally in communication, Know to Sex Scale totally as it comes down the line in terms of affinity and the Know to Sex Scale totally in the form of reality, which is agreement. And we would have the nicest-looking column there you ever wanted to see. It's the ARC triangle gone solid on us, and we plot it in chunks on the Know to Sex Scale vertically. See, we just got a stack of triangles - a vertical stack of triangles - and they're all lying there flat. You see that?

Well, by the time we've pushed this around and drawn it around a few times and worked it around, we find out that, my golly, we're working with a jigsaw puzzle now which can be plotted almost in any direction that comes up with practically the same answers. And it interweaves and interlocks. And these interweaves and interlocks and interrelationships are the basics of the complications known as life and human behavior and animal behavior and any other kind of behavior. (Going to write a book sometime on behavior along all of the eight dynamics.)

It gets very interesting when you get to the eighth dynamic, you have God behavior. Then you have to, of course, take into account all kinds of things, such as what is the acceptance level of God, and so forth. It gets very amusing after a while when you start plotting out behavior, but you could get awfully complicated in this line. You could sit down and you could write ten fifteen-million-word books without any trouble whatsoever, tracing out numerous examples and so forth.

Well, it's so easy to get complicated, that why don't you leave that up to your preclear? And why don't you stay with these great simplicities, such as the corners of the triangle and the Know to Sex Scale. And you find out he's studiously avoiding the third dynamic, why, you take note of it sooner or later and ask him, well, what's something about groups he could agree with or he wouldn't mind experiencing; what kind of a group would he mind experiencing - something like that.

Just steer him a little bit, because he can get complicated enough. And your whole goal is a very simple goal. That's to give this individual some tolerance of viewpoints. Try to make him tolerate viewpoints, wider and wider, more and more of them, and he will start changing his mind. And that is the first thing that processing ought to do, is change a preclear's mind - process doesn't change a preclear's mind, it isn't any good at all. And that's one thing this process does, with rapidity! You say, „Now, let's... Some kind of effort you wouldn't mind looking at.“

„Oh, effort. Oh-ah-oooh. Ohh, effort. Um... effort? What do you mean by effort?“

„Oh, well, you know, just effort. Putting... Somebody putting out some energy and so forth.“

„Woo-oo, let's see.“ You get this kind of a reaction; you're liable to get a long communication lag. And then all of a sudden the individual happily thinks, „Ha! A dancer. I wouldn't mind watching a dancer. That's right, I wouldn't mind watching a dancer.“ Yeah, he's real certain now, he just wouldn't mind that at all. He has suddenly realized that effort was part of art. You've made him change his mind about effort, to that degree that now he recognizes that effort is an essential part of existence, not something you would ignore all the time.

The next thing you know, he will say, well, he wouldn't mind his mother doing housework - wouldn't mind watching his mother doing housework. And he'll think about all the complaining that he listened to when he was a little kid and he all of a sudden reevaluates this whole thing: „It served her right! Yeah, anybody that unhappy about something or other ought to close terminals with it.“

Then he realizes that he himself has kept areas, even if they were only a summer camp and so forth, certainly clean and burnished bright - and maybe a compartment on a ship when he was in the service or something like that - he's kept that all duded up, and he's worked hard at this sort of thing and he begins to wonder a little bit just what the devil his mother was talking about. It was a small house, there was only a couple of kids, there wasn't too much work to do and all he ever heard about was how hard she worked. And now he's scratching his head wondering how this could come about.

Well, he's liable to hit one of these tracks of association and want to soliloquize for the next eight hours. You are not interested in consideration, you are interested in looking at and that's all you're interested in - you're interested in looking at. You want him to tolerate viewpoints. You don't give a damn for his opinion about a viewpoint. Because every time he starts to give you a bunch of considerations and stretch it all out and explain to you this and explain to you that, without suddenly damming his communication line but by expertly detouring him, get him to look at something else. Because there's... You don't want him in the think band. You just landed him in the thinkingness band. Instead of looking, now he's perfectly willing to think. And do you know, that he could probably go on thinking for the next 76 trillion years without getting anyplace with it. And that's a solemn and horrible fact, that thinkingness doesn't happen to wind up in solutions.

Thinkingness is based upon the fact that a person doesn't know, so he has to think about it. The solution depends upon the fact of his postulating that he does know, and then he knows. You see, in order to do thinking, you have to assume that you have to go through some kind of a process in order to arrive at an answer.

Now, there's another horrible thing that happens about preclears, is, you see, they have to have assumed an inability - assumed that they had an inability - before they have it.

Now look how this blocks processing. They have to assume that they can't do so and so in order to have it remedied. And you leave them parked there - I've gone into this several times, we didn't have a process which easily remedied it - but an individual has to assume he's sick before he can make up his mind to get well. The reason he's sick, basically, is in the postulate band. He's had to make a postulate that he's sick before he can make up his mind to get well. Now, if your preclear has had to make up his mind that he's aberrated before he can get sane, he's still riding on the postulate that he's aberrated. But he's still better off having made the postulate that he's aberrated so that he can get over his aberrations, than to coast along gibbering like an idiot for years and years telling everybody how sane he is. You see, he'd be crossed up there in universes - something of the sort.

Well, what does this do... this process do for universes? We have the three kinds of universes: the other fellow's universe, the preclear's universe and the physical universe. And what does it do for these universes?

Well, any universe is essentially existent in the space created by looking-ness. See, any universe exists from the center of lookingness. So that if we speak of Mama's universe, it's the point from which Mama is looking - see, if we think of Mama's universe.

Now, we could take a terrific number of factors here that would complicate this universe, such as what does Mama say? What are her postulates, and so forth? And we get the space with the postulates. You see that? First she has to have some space, one way or the other, and then she has to put some postulates in there to have a universe. The basic definition of a complete universe would be some space which is tenanted by postulates. Postulates, of course, might wind up in forms of various kinds, might wind up in various conditions.

Now, you can ask yourself some day, why is it you see this MEST universe so well? And if you look around, you will discover that there are many people around who are so thoroughly interiorized into Mama's universe or somebody else's universe that they actually see Mama's engrams. And you don't have to go very far to investigate this. You take a preclear who is very badly interiorized into some other person's universe than his own, they will see that other person's pictures and not their own. Now, get that.

The fact that Mama made a postulate produced a visibility. Mama said, „There are snakes,“ and this individual then very easily gets pictures of snakes. But he himself can say, in trying to put up mock-ups, “There are flagpoles,“ and he doesn't get a mock-up of a flagpole. Curious, huh?

If Mama had said there are flagpoles, he would be able to see flagpoles. You see that? He must be running on somebody else's postulates than his own. So the manifestation of super-, super-, supervisibility, which is not the individual's super-, super-, supervisibility - you know, the individual, doesn't... when he puts up a mock-up he doesn't get this much visibility on it. You know, he has terrific visibility on mock-ups somebody else has put up, you know, like Mama's statements and so forth. You are looking at a condition there of living in somebody else's created space.

Now, what would you think of somebody who could look out here and see a factory chimney with great ease and yet couldn't mock one up of his own? You would suspect him of being in another universe, wouldn't you? Well, whose universe is he in? He's in the physical universe, that's the universe he's in. Its postulates are so strong and impressed upon him so strongly, that its reality is much greater than his own reality. Therefore we used to talk about - and in the book 8-8008, talk about - agreement with the physical universe. You can agree with it or disagree with it, but as long as its postulates outweigh your own postulates, you're going to have difficulty.

Now, there's a lot of complexity here that we needn't even look at. And that complexity, however, that we do need to look at - the part of it we do need to look at - is this: Look, an individual is in the physical universe and then he's reinteriorized, you might say, into somebody else's universe, such as Mama's. And Mama's pictures are very bright to him, but his own mockups don't exist. Oh, boy.

Now, the common denominator of universes declares for him that the physical universe is right there, you know? There is the physical universe. There it is. But he is not even in it. He has been in it and has to some degree... Well, you see, he was in his own universe, and then he got into the physical universe, and now he went into his last wife's universe and his mother's universe and he's in those universes. Well man, there's no telling what kind of a mock-up this individual is liable to get, if he gets any at all. Everything is kind of other-determined. If he gets any pictures, they're probably in a nightmare. He's running on somebody's declared statement that he resists all the time, and he goes to sleep and his resistance cuts down; the next thing you know he's in a full-armed play about something or other.

Well, when your individual is departed from the physical universe into Mama's universe, and so forth, on down the line, you've got this kind of a backtrack to walk with your preclear. He's got to get out of his mama's universe and into the physical universe.

Now, the only way he ever gets into a universe is by refusing to tolerate its viewpoints. If he refuses to look, he pins himself in the universe with his own energy and turns off the visio. There's two necessary steps here. He interiorizes by resisting - he goes into the universe by resisting the universe. A viewpoint he doesn't want is the one he gets. You see that? Because he's the only person really capable of putting out energy. So he has granted an other-determinism and, having granted this other-determinism, it backfires on him.

Now, let's look at this physical universe out here and discover that an individual has as much perception in it and of it as he will tolerate its viewpoints. And you're not going to get anybody out of Mama's universe, really, or out of the physical universe, until they can tolerate a viewpoint or an effort point or a sex point of any part of the whole darn universe. And when they will tolerate any point in it - any view, any effort - either as cause or as effect, they are then capable of withdrawing from that universe. Until they can tolerate all the various viewpoints of that universe, they can't withdraw from it.

So your preclear is going to think at first that you're just pushing him into apathy, because you're asking him to tolerate things. If he knows anything, it's this: that if he tolerates those viewpoints, it'll finish him. And that's the funny part of it: It is only by refusing to tolerate them that he gets finished.

So, the course and direction of this processing is to bring about the greatest possible tolerance for the greatest possible number of viewpoints.

Okay.