First thing we want to know about this is gradient scales. There isn't too much you have to know about gradient scales except this: You takes a small force to move a larger force, to move a larger force, to move a larger force, to move a larger force. That would be a gradient A scale of forces.

I think it was Swift' that says, "Cows have fleas who have smaller fleas upon their back to bite 'em, and smaller fleas have smaller fleas and so on ad infinitum," Well, that would be a gradient scale. This is a mechanistic approach on this; it isn't true, because theta can actually make a particle. You can postulate a particle into existence and it then, evidently, then exists. And that's how the particle got here.

But let's get that very clear right there as an important datum, A mock-up is an object. It is an item. It exists at a finite distance from the preclear. It is of a finite size, It has an identity and it has a location in space and time. You can actually mock up in the past, the present or the future. You want the mock-ups in the present or in the future, not in the past, really.

But mechanistically, it operates this way, and this is a low-level flow operation, whereby theta would pick up a tiny, tiny particle as speed, which was so slow that you couldn't tell really any great difference between this particle and no particle. See, you couldn't tell much difference between this particle and no wavelength. And therefore there would be, at this end of the scale, this tiny little confusion, and theta, a zero, would think it was still zero although it had this particle. And then this particle having this particle, it's now not quite zero, and it now has the ability to take another particle. And now that it has these two particles, it now has the ability to take another particle and so on. It can take bigger and bigger and bigger particles. And it would theoretically start out with one which was one over infinity in diameter and would wind up with Saint Paul's [Cathedral]. You see?

But in Self Analysis, to be on the safe side, we mock it all up past tense. That will run out the whole track. That's because it hits the people who are sure they only have mock-ups in the past, they only have terminals in the past They know they've got a past, so they can put a mock-up in the past.

And an engineer uses this continually: He makes the force of the river conquer the river. And theta uses force in that degree. It has a force inherent from a past experience, and it uses that force from past experience in order to make or alter a new force.

You will find, gradually, if you were looking into their minds, their mock-ups would drift first in the past, in the past, in the past, and then they would drift forward into present, a little more into the present. The next thing you know, they would be having mock-ups right up here, you see, right here in the room with them. And then the next thing you know, they'd kind of be mocking into the future and into their own space.

Every aberrated thought is preceded by a counter-effort. Here, give you a present time example of that: is a fellow walking down the street, and he thinks - he thinks policemen are wonderful.

But each time that mock-up has a finite location in space and time. It, at its optimum, is a three or more dimensional picture in full color, sound, motion and with all other perceptics present, and with a solidity one could perceive as superior to the solidity which he perceives to exist in the MEST universe. That one is an optimum mock-up.

The aberrated thought is "Cops are no good!" That's the aberrated thought we're going to go to here.

And a really optimum mock-up would be all those things, and have a persistence such that it would stay there after you had mocked it up and go on acting of its own volition, and other people would see it. Now, that would be a mock-up to end all mock-ups. All right.

And he's thinking - go walking down the street and he's really not thinking much about policemen, but if he consulted himself about them, he'd say, "Well, policemen are all right. They're there. They protect the law and order and the small children and the home and the government and we pay them" and so forth. And he's walking down the street, you see. He's thinking this or not thinking it, as the case may be. All of a sudden a bobby walks up to him and takes his hat off and raps him over the head. After that, he doesn't think policemen are so hot. (audience laughter)

Then we're dealing with a specific object, an item and thing here when we're dealing with a mock-up. We're not dealing with just an idea, pictures, something of the sort.

Now, there is an aberrated thought preceded by a counter-effort. Now, this can be that bad that he will say then, "All policemen are bad." That is his adjudication. He identifies to the degree that he's been smashed into MEST. And when you've shoved a number of particles into very close proximity, you have a piece of matter. And the tighter you shove them, the solider the matter is. And when you loosen them up, the matter is less solid. That's true of atoms, you see, and molecules and so on. It's also true of compounds. It's also true of sand. Sand can be drifting around loosely and then you feed it into something that compresses it suddenly, you've got a brick - glass brick. You could compress it solidly and you could compress it suddenly enough, by the way, that it would liquefy and actually turn into a glass brick just under pressure, boom. And you'd have a glass brick, quite solid.

You'll find out from individual to individual there's tremendous variation, tremendous behavior. One of them mocks something up and it goes off erratically and does this and that and other things, and he doesn't control it at all. Well, the trick is to get the mock-up as good as possible and under as full and analytical control as possible with the least possible use of energy. Now, you want - you want this mock-up under full control, you want it in a specific position, you want the person to be able to move it, place it, so on.

The operation of pain is a certain action with regard to particles, a very high level of particles. And life has itself very closely associated with being these particles, which it isn't - and it's holding onto a bunch of these particles which it considers livingness. And some other particles come along and compress those livingness particles too tightly and the sensation resulting is called pain. And this is pain. And it's very measurable and it depends on the swiftness of closure of particles or the swiftness of opening of particles.

You'll find out most people, wog people have mock-ups which are two-dimensional; they're flat and gray, or they're mocking up in black space, or they're doing this with the mock-up or doing that with the mock-up. Well, fortunately we can change the characteristics of a mock-up now as easy as you can change your hat. Let it sink in for a moment. Just because people get these various mock-ups is no reason they can't be changed in characteristic. A mock-up's characteristics can be changed almost at will by an auditor, simply by getting the preclear to admire the imperfections.

You can cause pain either by opening two particles too suddenly bringing them apart too suddenly, or by compressing them together too suddenly. And when we say too suddenly, we mean above the level of - or beyond the level of prediction, that's all, on the part of theta. It's an odd thing, but a fellow who knows he's going to have a needle shoved into his arm doesn't get anywhere near the pain as the fellow who doesn't know he's going to get a needle shoved into his arm. If you don't believe this, you can find some people who are looking the other way and shove a needle into them suddenly and measure the gradient of temper rise. (audience laughter). And if you were to take this same person and stand him up in a line and he watched the needle and he knew he - was going to go in, oddly enough, it would hurt much less.

"Get a mock-up." "Got it?" "All right," "What's wrong with it?" "Admire that," A fellow getting a mock-up in black space - "Admire that blackness." A fellow getting a mock-up - he can mock up women, but he never gets a woman with a face - "Admire that fact she doesn't have a face." Admire that facelessness, and faces will appear. And in such a way by admiring these imperfections, you can monitor and change the quality of mock-ups at will.

Now, when he's very aberrated, however, and has - oh, he's bogged down thoroughly in energy and matter and that sort of thing, he will postulate pain for the needle, and even though you didn't shove it in, it would hurt. See? Now, when a person comes down Tone Scale, they do that all the time. And they finally get the idea that pain is just terrible!

Now, to remedy blackness on a mock-up - blackness means just blackness. Actually, it'll appear to be something that people think something was in blackness, because blackness is so capable of having something in it. And they don't know for sure, so they just guess there is something in it. It's safer to have something in it than to doubt it has something in it, so we'll put something in it, so we'll say there's a blackness exists. Sometimes you'll get blackness flowing away from an individual, and it'll flow and flow and flow and flow and flow. There's no flow of blackness, but it'll flow anyway.

You take Home sapiens and say, "Now we're going to take out your left eyeball and rub it with sandpaper," and he winces: one, he has no confidence in being able to mock up a usable eyeball, so there's a scarcity of them, you see? And, two, he knows it's going to hurt.

Now, we get to people who are admiring how black it all is, and the darnedest things will occur to that blackness. Now, there's another method of remedying that, and that is to run what we call a bracket dichotomy on it, because preventing admiration, preventing admiration is black. When you see blackness, you know admiration is prevented.

Now, the terrible part of this is, is one actually postulates every sensation he gets. You think you get sensation from this and from that, you think you get sensation from turkey and you think you get sensation from something else. You're very convinced that sensation exists and that it comes from an exterior source. And the odd part of it is, is the more sensation you "take" from an exterior source, the less you could feel.

The second that somebody tells you, "Look, I've got a lot of blackness," you say to yourself right there this fellow is present - preventing admiration, not only in the past but in present time. How's he doing it? Who cares. All he has to do, if you're running him on flows, is get him to prevent admiration from flowing. Just do that.

First, it's more and more you can feel and then less and less you feel. One believes so long as one agrees that he is taking sensation from an exterior source, continually taking it from an exterior source and needs an exterior source to procure sensation, he is in agreement with the MEST universe, which is in itself, one might say, the average or the mean of agreement. It's the average agreement on the actuality of illusion. It's sort of the work-out average of agreements all the way down the track, and we sit here in the MEST universe. You've agreed on it very thoroughly. And by the way, your preclear and your group doesn't happen to want this changed. They know that wall is liable to disappear. They really know that, and so you start shaking them up with a process which is a very shaking process, and they'll fudge on you, they - "Ha-ha-ha-ha. No, no. Ha, No."

Just ask him, "Now, let's get the idea of preventing the admiration from flowing," "Preventing something from being admired. That's right," "Now protect something from admiration," "Now hide something so it won't be admired," This is subzero Tone Scale, bracket dichotomy, That's Professional Course stuff. I'm just giving it to you at this point, but there's other ways of handling this.

Now, the MEST universe and all these particles - evidently a very beautiful set of illusions. Pain itself is an illusion, but what a real illusion. So in the Professional Course we talk about reality and actuality - two different things.

The next thing you know, everything will turn blazingly white on him and practically knock his block off. And he'll say, "Gee-whiz, there's - there's ... There - there - there's - there's dogs, and there there's - there's my dog, Bingo. And - and there's this one and there's that one and there's Papa and there's Mama and there's - there's my schoolteacher and there's this one and, gee! How did all these people get here?"

Reality is what we have agreed on in this universe to be real, And actuality: Actuality is what you yourself are capable of making. Now that's actual, because you know you made it. But you've got the MEST universe here, you don't know that you had anything to do with making this, so that's merely real. So let's get the difference between those two things.

And you say, "Now, we're not interested in that. Just get a mock-up there, and prevent it from being admired,"

Now, here's the test of this whole thing. If you want to better anybody's ability to perceive, you'd think the best thing to do would be to handle energy and have them agree with energy and the laws of energy and the whereabouts of particles. You'd want them to agree with this, wouldn't you? And if they agreed with it and you study this and they would study it more and more, therefore they could perceive it better and better, couldn't they? Mm-hm.

"Now, there's my first wife, my second wife, my third wife, my sixth wife, my eighth wife, Gee!" That's blackness.

That is the theory on which science has been working, and it is not true. I'm sorry that it isn't true because it would all be so simple. It would be terribly simple if it were true.

The second you spot blackness you know somebody is preventing admiration from... Well, when I say preventing admiration from flowing, he's just preventing flowing. So you know he's stuck on the time track. Why? Because to get up to present time on the time track, you've got to unstick a person, and he's going to stick unless he's got some grease. And what's grease? That's admiration.

Naturally, you could then look at a piece of MEST - matter, energy, space and time, just a composite word - and just look at a piece of MEST here and you would say, "Ha! Now all we have to do is study the anatomy of that MEST and we will know all there is to know." Oh, no! That isn't true.

He can't get terminals because he hasn't got anything to let terminals flow, and his lack of that particle will keep him from flowing. It's very interesting. Very good manifestation, so on “I”.

You start studying this MEST and you start studying it to get data from it, and you plow in deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper. And you finally go to work for General Electric or somebody. (audience laughter)

Well, you're not too interested in this as a Group Auditor. But don't get downhearted if you have your class - the can'ts - segregated out and you have to process them.

Now, I would say - this is prediction, I've never noticed this - I would say the physics instructor at a school had more difficulty in his personal life than the English instructor in terms of handling things, automobiles and things, what happened to automobiles, but that the English instructor would have more difficulty in his emotional life than the physics teacher.

Now, don't take just one can't and process him and another can't and process him and another can't and process him. No, no, no, no, no. Don't give him any special attention, because you're denying the rest of the groups and so forth.

Now, that wouldn't hold at all, I mean, it's just one of those things that give you an example which might be true, because there are too many other factors entering in. If we had one who was purely a physics teacher and one who was purely an English teacher and who had never, one to the other, interchanged physics and English, why, we would find that to be the case.

Make a group out of the "can'ts" or the "maybe can'ts." Just make a group out of them and then process them for short, brief times. And how do you process them? Well, you process them this way: "All right, now get an idea that there's a mock-up out there."

One has agreed with the romantic and the emotional, has agreed and agreed and agreed with literary concepts, and he's plowed in with them. He'll just plow right on in.

The guy says, "Just an idea? There - class."

A writer generally goes bad in about three years. When I say, "Goes bad," I mean he stops writing. That's interesting, isn't it? By practice he ought to write more and more and more and more and more and more. And if it were true that just this MEST were actual and so on, he would really go on writing more and more. The more he practiced, the better he would be. Everything is sort of founded on that basis, and it isn't true. The writer practices writing and goes bad in three years. There's a dull stale taste in his mouth at every story he writes at the end of three years, believe me, and I don't care who that is.

And you say, "Just an idea. Yeah, just an idea there's a mock-up out there someplace."

Now, the person who studies this has a reali - has an actuality instead of a reality - who studies this MEST eventually gets to a point where he can't see it anymore. Well, that's silly. If it worked out the other way, if it had a reality, he would, of course, be able to see it better and better and feel it better and better when he knew more and more about it. And yet, he's getting worse and worse on it.

"All right. Ah, I get that."

He's getting worse on distances; he's getting worse on estimations of effort and so on. He starts wearing horn-rimmed spectacles and getting kidney trouble and all sorts of weird things start happening to this fellow. All he's got to do is keep on agreeing with this, just keep on agreeing with it. And if he agrees with it long enough, it'll finish him. Well now, that's silly, isn't it? You work that out and it's illogical. Well, why is it? Why am I bringing it up at all?

"All right. Now get the idea of preventing it from being admired." Wham, they'll go right out of their seats.

Because there is a way to improve this stuff so that it does. It gets more and more actual or more and more real - any way you want to phrase it. You could get this so your perception of it is better and better and better and better and better and better and better and better, and it's solider and solider and so on. How do you do that? By improving your ability to perceive an illusion.

This is horrible. Two or three of them are practically going to blow their heads off before you've run this process very long.

If your ability to perceive an illusion gets very good, your ability to perceive the MEST universe gets wonderful. You'd say, "Well, this is just a problem of perception," Well, it's kind of strange that it doesn't work out otherwise. If you, ha, let a fellow go out and perceive MEST and perceive MEST, practice perceiving MEST, he practically goes blind. But if you have a fellow go out and perceive illusions, perceive illusions, perceive illusions, his eyesight gets wonderful. So it tells you something about this stuff about which we are so confident, which is so solid.

That applies to little children, too. They're preventing admiration. You'll find out in little kids' cases there is - are members of the family who are preventing them from admiring others. "You mustn't admire your father." "You mustn't admire your mother." "You mustn't admire your great-aunt Bessie Leu." And the child doesn't want his mother to be so admiring of his father because it denies him admiration. He's got a scarcity level of admiration already.

Now, the fellow comes along and he pounds the desk and he says, "Well, this is solid enough for me, because I can feel it." Huh, very silly. What's he pounding the desk with? He's pounding the desk with a piece of MEST. And he's registering the estimation of the collision of particles in his fist and the particles on the desk, and this doesn't even vaguely agree that there are either particles in his fist or particles in the desk. Neither one. It doesn't prove anything.

So we've got these interpersonal situations preventing admiration, which is going on right in present time, and you just have to pull the cork on them and let those flows flow from terminals to terminals, and the case solves. And by the way, the case solves, which is what's interesting. It isn't just the mock-up. Whatever a mock-up won't do or mock up can't do, that person in his life isn't or can't do. There, that's a parallel. A person acts as good as he can mock up. Horribly true.

Just because a MEST particle can collide with a MEST particle is no reason MEST exists. All we can infer from that is the fact that as long as you can perceive that, we know that your ability to perceive it exists. And any time we go out any further than that, as a truth, we get in trouble, we get in real trouble.

Now, the odd part of it is, is the person can have lots of reactive mind and be sitting on top of this with lots of analytical mind. Remind me of a professor one time that was very famous, he - for his temper and so forth. And one of the - he got mad at the class, and one of them came up to him after class and said, "Sir, I wish you'd control your temper a little better."

We say, "We perceive this, therefore it exists." Well, for heaven's sakes, add these words to that: "for me" or "for us." Now, that's all you have to do and it's a correct statement. "I see this, therefore it is," is an incorrect statement. "I see this, therefore it is for me or for us," is a correct statement.

And he says, "Young man, I will have you know that I control more temper in fifteen minutes than you control in your entire lifetime!"

So, this beautiful, thick, solid, heavy, trying, painful, wicked stuff called MEST is just those adjectives to the degree that you agree with it. And when you start turning the current back on it and saying, "Nuh-uh," you can then and there, and only then and there, start controlling it.

Now, it's sort of that way with the reactive bank and the analytical mind. There's some of these people who just have a horrible reactive bank that they're controlling quite admirably. The only place you really see it reflected in conduct to amount to anything is in their mock-ups. But they're skidding in the direction of that inability.

The funny - funny things happen. It's not esoteric. By the way, all this is very easily traceable because we are dealing in natural law with the consecutive agreements on which we have agreed to agree down the track. And that includes the law of gravity.

Now, a person who is fixed, sort of, he - every mock-up he gets. He'd get a mock-up and then he couldn't move it anywhere. See, he just couldn't move this mock-up.

We agree that when you have this lump here called Earth, it's got gravity on it and you'll stick there. And as long as you believe that and so on, you'll stick here. But the second that you just don't - not just disbelieve it - the second that you make it unnecessary to believe it any longer, I won't guarantee that you'll stay here, but your body will.

By the way, there is a way of moving mock-ups. You move them a little bit and then you move them more. Gradient scale, you see? Do things a little bit and then do them more. And then do them more and more and more, and you get the whole thing going. Control something a tiny bit and then control it more and more and more. There - you can't get rid of this mockup of this man, well, all right, get rid of one hair on his head. And then get rid of two hairs, six, eight, his hair, his head, the man. That's getting rid of the whole mock-up. All right.

Well, let's see, this is - we're going out now into a realm of it that in a short series of this character we really have no business talking about. But we are dealing, oddly enough, with nuclear physics, because the first fellows to say this, the first fellows to come down with an ax on the reality of the MEST universe were the nuclear physicists. Who was it said at the end line of his book, "And when all is said and done, I cannot help but believe that this universe is just an idea." Any good physicist can reduce it reductio ad absurdum to a zero. And he does it with great speed. Atoms? Oh, yes. Sure, sure, public consumption. What's an atom? I don't know. Neither does anybody else. And the odd part of it is, they've never seen one, and the odd part of that is, they probably never will. But I suppose a few of the boys agreed that you would get a quantum of energy when you thought a certain thought, and after that we get an atom bomb. It's as silly as this. Now, all of this I want you to know - take it or leave it, it doesn't matter - but I want you to know it for this reason, so that you won't underrate the progress which can be made by bettering the ability to perceive an illusion. If you better the ability to perceive an illusion, you will better the ability to perceive and handle and act in the MEST universe. And that's what you're trying to do.

Producing a mock-up - can't produce a mock-up with somebody or other? Get something they touched once. Get their handkerchief. Now get a stocking. Now get a shoe. Now get a foot, feet, legs, body, head, mock-up, there it is. Gradient scale, you see. You do a little bit, and do it all.

When a child is trying to study, he's trying to find out how to act in the MEST universe. You want to better that ability, don't you? Well, you can better it right there at the start by bettering his ability to perceive an illusion.

Now, you can create things in that fashion. But if you just admire their imperfections, you can achieve the same and even a superior result. So we have this in Mock-up Processing as a big bonus right at the present time, here, you see.

Now, a child is pretty good at this. You'd say, therefore, a child should be able to get along very well at this. No, he's in a very unmanageable body. He's something on the order of a - a young child is something on the order of a pilot who has just been put in an eight-motored bomber. It gets switches, and you got hydraulic this and that. I mean, he's ... Gee.

Now, your three classifications, then - this kid who was too fast. (snap, snap, snap) Bang, bang! No persistence, you see? He hasn't any persistence at all. There's a nonadmiration of persistence present there, you see? Persistence is what's missing - pardon me, is nonadmiration, nonpersistence. So what you've got, you've got to admire - get him admiring the disappearance of things.

As a matter of fact, little babies can understand you. Nobody ever took the care before to ask a little baby something or other or give him a signal. They can understand you before they're very old. You can talk to them. Only you have to talk to them. You don't say, "Dah-dah, da-da" and so forth. And you expect them to answer you in English with a voice. And you're not going to do that because they're not in control of those vocal cords, but that doesn't mean they couldn't answer you. So you see, you don't quite know that until you investigate it all the way. You don't, just don't take it for granted that babies don't know anything.

It's very easy for you to figure out. Just get him admiring anything he's doing. That's the rule behind this, just anything he's doing. The mock-up disappears too fast, get him admiring that speed of disappearance. And the next thing you know, you'll find out that he's lost more terminals, more things, more homes and so on. Every terminal he ever had in his whole life has a tendency to go out from under and disappear. Boom, boom, boom! It's gone, gone, gone, gone, gone. Next thing you know, he can't get mock-ups. Reason he can't a mock-up, it's paralleling the reactive mind. Mock-up has a lot to with the reactive mind.

Now, we'll take a five-, six- and seven-, eight-year-old child, we're really having fun now. This person first began to learn how to run this eight-motored bomber - doing all right because they started in just naturally. They kind of got it by postulates and they were getting along all right, and then suddenly somebody said, "Don't go here, don't do this. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Start, start, start. Change, change, change." Somebody else was handling this bomber.

Now this fellow gets a mock-up and he can't get rid of it - nrrrr, nrrrr, nrrrr. He's had no admiration for holding on. People keep telling him, "Now look, you shouldn't hold on, you should get rid of it, you shouldn't hold on to this, you shouldn't hold on to that." He just holds on. And then they say, "We don't admire you." And he holds on. And they say, "We don't admire you." And he gets - then he gets insisting: "Look, I'm going to get some admiration for holding on if it kills me." Years later when you ask him to get a mock-up and he gets a mock-up - and you say, "All right. Now get another mock-up." "Now get a rabbit." "Now get an infantryman." "Now get an airplane." "Yeah," he says, "what do I do with the rabbit?" And you say, "Well, put it away."

Did you ever try to fly a plane, by the way, with a pilot on each wing as well as one in the middle? And after a while, the child says that this is all energy. "I have to handle all this by energy." So he gets worse and he gets clumsy. And then the next thing you know ... Of course, that's very silly. Why, how could a child handle anything by energy? Well, you handle things by energy by postulating you've got some energy, and then the energy will handle it.

"Yeah, Ha-ha. It doesn't go anyplace. As a matter of fact, the harder I try to put it away the more it stops right there." What do you do?

Now, a child has a hard time. And he's practically out of his mind by the time he's five. He's very hard to get in communication with by the time he's five, six, seven, eight. You see, parents sometimes will say, "Oh, aren't my children having a good time." The children are out there having psychotic fits! You know, they're running around the yard and running around a tree and they're falling over tricycles and banging each other up and ... Gee. Just horrible.

You admire - get him to admire its persistence. And if it disappears, you get him to admire the way it disappears. Simple. Whatever he's doing, get him to admire it. or it to admire him.

Oddly enough, what was destroyed in those children was dignity. If you ever want to see an awful lot of dignity, take a little baby that has been left alone, that is to say, hasn't been handled much and is - so on. Great dignity. Oh, you'd think they were the king of India or something. And you insult that dignity and they'll really come down on you, too. The child has been handled and pushed and bossed and pushed and handled, and their dignity is shot. The second that goes - bang.

Now, the phenomenon of boil-off is one that's quite important to you. And if you are teaching or processing a class like this and you are lecturing to a class like this and you saw two or three of the students asleep, and if you were really on the ball and you weren't making a tape, you would simply make them get up and turn their chair around. That's all. If you were all to turn your chairs around right now, you'd wake up and go home very fresh. Why? You've got sound flowing into the face of them. That's all. Really, I ought to ask you at this moment to turn around and have - and let the sound fly in the other direction. Because it would, it'd wake you up.

Now, the most hectic, excitable, and below that, apathetic children, or adult, will be those who have been forced to handle things with energy, and they've been kind of pushed at things. Force has been painted up to them as being really something. They've been manhandled pretty much, and they're kind of spun in. And they have a very harsh agreement. I mean, they believe in this universe. They believe they're going to get hurt~ They believe in all sorts of bad lions, And they have this idea that they can't handle anything unless they do it with force or with motion. The apathetic child knows he can't use any force, and so therefore can't handle anything, And the one who is hectic and so forth, believes they have to use all this motion in order to get something done. In either case, their dignity is gone. They have been used too much as a particle.

I think we might as well do that. Why don't - why don't you all turn around, face the other direction. (audience laughter; sounds of moving chairs) All right, now that you're all turned around, I'll finish this lecture.

Now, when you're dealing with children, you're dealing with particles, really. And you have to bail them out to a point where they're no longer particles, but they are something that makes particles. When you do that, they have recovered their dignify, and they've also recovered their poise, and they are also orderly and can now learn the MEST universe, But you know something about the MEST universe is they have to have a lot of imagination to counter-balance the necessity of agreeing with the MEST universe. And that is mostly denied them.

Now, the phenomenon of boil-off is a one-way flow; it's a flow that's been flowing too long in one direction. And you'll find at first a person, when he turns around and flows - gets a flow in the other direction - has a tendency to wake up.

A child goes around with a great deal of imagination. He imagines, imagines, imagines, imagines. And people come down on him rather heavily for it. Well, they're closing the line. They're closing his road to any stature by coming down on this. You're not trying to rehabilitate the ability of the child, however, to imagine. Don't make that mistake; this has more purpose than that.

Now, this works to a slightly lesser degree than in processing when you go through a program like you've just gone through. You're turned around now. Now you have the sound flowing past you in the opposite direction. It's very possible some of you might feel a little relief on this.

You're actually bringing him back to a point of recognition of what he really is, rather than just a particle.

Well now, this manifests itself in terms of boil-off. A person will simply go to sleep on too long a flow. And once in a while if you're processing children or adults, you will find them suddenly falling down across their desk and going out cold.

Now, here we have this gradient scale. At the bottom: the child as a particle or the adult as a particle. They're an object or a collection of particles. They're solid. They know they're solid. And they also think slowly, act slowly, are erratic, cannot concentrate and so on.

Well, don't think something horrible has happened. They've just put the mock-up in front of them and in front of them and in front of them and in front of them and in front of them, and they've flowed toward it and flowed toward it and flowed toward it till all of a sudden they went too far on the one-way flow and it knocked them out.

Now, the less that condition exists, the brighter they are. And so they come on upscale and they're less and less a particle and more and more a thing which creates and controls particles, and they go right on upscale. And you have to get a child pretty well upscale before they can concentrate and before they can absorb information.

Now what you do is simply turn the mock-up around and put the mock-up behind them. And you put the mock-up behind them and let them put it behind them. This first one they put behind them will brighten them up and give them a tendency to awaken and be brighter and fresher.

Now let's talk a little bit more about this thought, emotion and effort. Way high on the scale, if you have energy at all, it would be called in the band of thought; lower on the scale we have the band of emotion, and below that we have the band of effort.

So when you see a person getting groggy, you should, as Group Auditor, indicate that person and tell him to put the mock-ups behind him, or just as general practice, you ought to shift the position of mock-up on the whole group,

Effort is heavy. Those particles could be considered to be not just large, but particles which went crunch, which ran into things, which handled masses of particles and so on. We could consider this on this level: thought we might consider a gull or a bird or something like that, and emotion we might consider some relatively earthbound but still free particle, and effort we'd consider a bulldozer - real heavy! They can push, push and so on. That's the band.

Now that has two parts to it there. If you notice somebody getting groggy suddenly and inexplicably when the others aren't, you know he's got a mock-up where he shouldn't have one. So you just ask him, "Where did you put that last mock-up?" He'll say, "I put it behind me."

Now, effort is way down there towards zero on the band. Men who have to do hard work over a long period of time rapidly lose all of their ability to soar rapidly. And they use hard strength and hard work in general. You don't see very many people stepping out of the ditch-digging business into the upper realms of poetry. Once in a while you do, and of course that becomes very, very sensational.

You say, "Put the next one in front of you and go on with the rest of the mock-ups." And you should shift for the whole group the mock-ups and the position of the mock-ups where - at regular intervals, let's say, at the ratio of about six mock-ups.

Well now, what we have here, then, is a gradient scale of, you'd say, a type of particle. At each one of these levels you might say there's a particle. There's certain particles would be just below 40.0, and then there would be a certain class of particles down around 20.0 and there would be a class of particles around 0.0

Don't ever go on about - more than about six mock-ups without saying, "All right, now put them behind you," and six more mock-ups without saying, "Put them on the right of you," and six more, "to the left of you." And six more, "above you." And six more, "below you." And then "in front of you" again.

Well, supposing we had a road, and this road consisted of half road and half bridges. And you tried to walk down that road and you were getting along fine, and all of a sudden you found a bridge missing. It would leave you - if you couldn't span that area - it would leave you on the heavy part of the road, wouldn't it? I mean, it'd leave you on the part of the road you had traversed; it would leave you in a certain area.

You'll have to remind people of this once in a while. And you should change them around because they will very often have the idea of putting a mock-up out there in front of them. And they shift it behind them for one mock-up and then they put the next one out in front of them again because they got too strong a flow running and the flow is mastering them, and they're no longer mastering the flow You see how that would be? All right.

Now, let's say that a person starts down Tone Scale and goes from particle to particle to particle to particle down Tone Scale. In other words, somebody who was fairly high on the Tone Scale suddenly starts using heavy effort, and then turns around and starts to go back up the Tone Scale again and finds a bridge out. It would leave him with heavy effort, wouldn't it?

So, we shift the mock-up around. And when anybody starts boiling off, if they just boiled off and you didn't catch them in time, it's nothing very dangerous. They'll just simply sort of snore it off. And if you want to wake them up, you don't have to take them out someplace or do something special or get smelling salts or something. Just kind of shake them awake a little bit, easily and gently because they can be startled with this, and you just say, "Where was the last place you put a mock-up?" And they say, "I put one - I don't know."

Now, that's just a very crude analogy, because it isn't exactly what happens. A missing section of the Tone Scale would then inhibit one going back up.

And you say, "Well, put a mock-up, now, in back of you. Now get a current of water flowing at that mock-up," or some such thing or "Get something flowing from the mock-up to you." And all of a sudden they'll brighten. That's all. And you just got the way they'll run. Well, they'll brighten right up and they'll wake up on something like this. Now, therefore your mock-ups should be placed, and if placed too long in one position, will cause boil-off; and boil-off is just too long a flow in one direction. That's all that happens.

Well, let's say you had some kind of an idea that particle A was mergeable with theta and usable with theta and one could be theta as long as he had this particle A, and it was perfectly safe to go over into a more detached particle; that is, a particle that wasn't quite as intimate with theta. And then he gets over to B or C or D or down that line. And then he turns around and he says, "All right, now we've always got particle A, and so we can merge back into being theta again." And one day he puts it to test and particle A is gone. He can't get back into theta again; this leaves him in emotion or it leaves him in effort. Another analogy. Apt or not it's painting a picture by it, I hope. Let's take a mixture. There are certain chemical compounds which require a dash of something before they become other chemical compounds. And supposing you took this catalyst in some process - this catalyst that would turn this whole chemical compound over, and you just remove that catalyst and made it unavailable. The chemical compound never would be anything else but the chemical compound it had become.

There is nothing else you need to know about boil-off. It just happens that that's it. It means that the particles are changing in location to each other so as to produce and restimulate an old period of unconsciousness. That's what's happened,

Let's take something else. Let's take a bomb and let's put a fuse in it. Now, a bomb fuse generally runs into something like fulminate of mercury, which runs into granular TNT, which then explodes heavy TNT, This fellow handles this bomb on a gradient scale, in other words. This little flash explodes a little greater flash which is then capable of exploding this great big mass. And that bomb isn't going to go off at all, it isn't going to work if the fulminate of mercury is missing, You could try to blow up that granular TNT all you pleased. And as a matter of fact, even if you put a match to it, it would just burn. That bomb won't explode. In other words, we're getting further and further away from workability.

It doesn't matter, by the way, about boiling off. If you had a person boiling off for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours - we've boiled them off for as long as three hundred hours with no slightest benefit to the case. So don't get the idea it'll do the case any good, because it won't.

Now, similarly, if we consider particles to exist in the mind, we might say - and with a little study on this subject you will see the facsimiles, running facsimiles, behavior of particles, ridges, all of this, flows - you can observe all this. But the point is if there was a particle missing in the mind (crude analogy) the mind could safely then adventure into the handling of all sorts of things, and then turn around and find there was a missing bridge; or try to blow up these memories in order to be free of that experience or something of the sort and find there was a missing fuse; or try to make this compound into something else and have no catalyst all of a sudden. That would be quite serious.

Now, these mock-ups will do all sorts of things. They'll fly around like mad, They will go into various erratic levels of action. You can't be too sure of what the mock-up is doing for your group. Well, at a Group Auditor level you don't care what this mock-up is doing because you can be sure it's going to get better. But at first, you will have various erratic things happening about a mock-up. You will have a mock-up occurring there that, well, every time he gets a person, this person is jumping a hoop over - through a hoop. And just keep jumping through the hoop. He didn't tell this person to jump through the hoop, it's just what happens to this person. He will eventually get to a point where he's no longer doing this. I mean, it'll wear out.

We've talked continually for years on the one-shot Clear. Well, I've been thinking for a long time about there must be a button within the button within the button. We've got lots of buttons. We isolated about thirteen or fourteen buttons; they were quite important and they appeared on the Chart of Attitudes.

Erratic things not called for. Now, they'll complain to you that their mock-ups are doing these things or they will think it's very funny to have a mock-up amuse them this way. You needn't pay any attention to it at all. You can just know that mock-ups are going to do strange and peculiar things. And if you must do something about it, just get them to admire that peculiarity and it'll disappear. The theory behind mock-ups is that the MEST universe is an illusion, and that one must increase one's ability to create illusions in order to exist better and perceive better the MEST universe. And to think better, one certainly must be able to handle illusion. If he can handle illusion, he can handle imagination, which means he can handle the future. And the future is computational. Actually, what it is, is putting electric terminals into the future when you put mock-ups for the future: things to be admired, things for which I'm going to be admired.

But there must be one button. Well, there isn't so much one button as there's one particle missing. And this missing particle - it boils down to the fact that we were searching, really, for a missing particle that would have - there was something gone: a catalyst, the bomb fuse, the bridge, it was missing. And we couldn't quite make the whole jump. When a case was very bad off, we couldn't make the jump hardly at all.

Now, you do mock-ups in order to rehabilitate the individual's control of objects, persons, things, and these things all occur rather regularly. The processing of an individual of the group, away from the group, should be done just with that. You should take this individual all the way out of the group if you're going to process him. Now, I've mentioned to you this: you shouldn't process an individual all by himself up there in front of the group, because you've given him a special mock-up, and now the rest of the group will want special mock-ups. And you've cut down their ability to get mock-ups. So you just mark this trouble down as trouble and decide that you're now going to give him special mock-ups only in the absence of the group, And preferably so that the group doesn't know about it.

We could do it and do it on a sort of a gunshot principle, skirting it one way or the other and just gunning through somehow or other. But there was something that case that was the worst off was missing the most of that some other cases weren't. So it required considerable thought on this basis, and as soon as it started working with a gradient scale of particles going back up to theta again, it began to test particles. And I've tested lots of all sorts of particles. And it was interesting that an empirical test is, with our other techniques, very, very possible today. We can make a test, in other words, a laboratory test, just as though you were dealing with test tubes.

In other words, just - the class or the group's filing out or something of this sort. And you don't keep the person in the room and say, "And now we're going to process you some more," something like that. You say, "Well now, come in a little bit early tomorrow," or get them away from the rest of the group if you're going to do this at all. Or have an entire group that you're going to process individually. You get that?

You're working a case. Well now, what solves this case? And you could say all sorts of particles were missing, and sure enough, you would find evidence in each case that this particle evidently had something to do with it, but it was not THE particle.

You spot all of the people you've got to process individually and you move them into an awkward squad. And make sure that you call it an awkward squad or something of the sort and don't make it desirable at all. And so the rest of the group - the rest of the group don't get upset and so forth by this.

Now testing case after case after case one got the idea after a while that there was some sensation missing. All right. If there was sensation missing, then maybe Freud was right, hm? Maybe it was sex. All right. Now, let's take that sensation and find out whether or not this was the missing particle. Hm-mm. No.

Children particularly are very touchy on this subject. You can take out a certain strata of the group that you're processing and then handle them individually and put them back into the group again. You will find yourself doing this quite often.

Now, let's try and just run the concept of love. The Christian says that love, you know, all is love, love, love, love. Let's run it. Bogs the case down - bang, boom. Oh! Oh, boy, that's one you don't want to play with.

It is not terribly necessary that you do this. You save two-thirds of this group, you've done better than would have happened with these individuals otherwise. It's rather obvious.

Now, somebody else says, "Truth is beauty and beauty is truth, and never the twain shall meet," and so we try that. Does it work? Nuh-uh.

If you want to take that other third and do something very special for them, you'll find out that it'll pay dividends. You just bring them up to a level where they can hold their own with the rest of the group, though.

Well, do we know whether or not the thing will work? Oh yes, we do, because the preclear will turn on, now be able to remember and do lots of things that - IQ go up and all sorts of things would happen; facsimiles would disappear, deformities would go by the boards. In other words, got plenty of visual, testable evidence if that's the particle.

Now, the use of mock-ups by a professional is very wide and very varied, and a great many things can be done with this, but I would advise you in handling mock-ups in general and so on to leave that on a professional level. Handle them on these lists and handle them in Self Analysis, you're on good, sound, safe ground. And use admiration of their imperfections, you're still on safe ground.

So we go on down the line, We find out that - well, I don't know. Oh, this MEST universe is in wonderful condition on honor and justice. Justice, oh, boy. That's one everybody will writhe about. Let's test justice as though it were a particle. And what do we find in the testing of justice? It's a restriction. It's just an aberration. That's a horrible thing to discover, isn't it?

You start going into specific mock-ups or specific illnesses and specific things and so on, it requires a considerable command of the subject in theory and of flows and other things in order to get away with it. There's no need for you to do that. You give individual processing in terms, then, of Self Analysis, and you don't worry too much about a professional level action.

You tell people that injustice can exist and that justice does exist, and then you feed them injustice and that makes them outraged and pushes them down Tone Scale and they can be controlled. This doesn't say that justice is not a highly desirable, high-level thing. But in the engram bank, in the reactive mind, it's just an operation. So that wasn't the particle.

If you have a case that is very bad off, a case that's very, very bad off, get that case - if it has to have very special individual address get that case some professional auditing. Don't try to go too deeply into individual cases yourself. It's very true that you can handle psychosomatic illnesses in children and adults, but I would advise you to handle them with Self Analysis.

Well, how about nobility? Well, people should feel noble and so forth. Did that work? Uh-uh. No. That's another one.

And a psychosomatic illness is easily remedied, by the way, with list processing - processing by a list. Very easily remedied. Just have them put mock-ups in the area where the psychosomatic exists. Just have them keep putting up mock-ups in there. And then shift the mock-ups around here and there and put the mock-ups back in that area again.

Well, what about dignity? What about this, that? What about sacrifice? What about knowing? What about responsibility? What about the rest of those buttons up there at the top of the Chart of Attitudes? None of them fit. Isn't that funny that they just didn't fit, until all of a sudden we run into a particle you wouldn't quite have suspected offhand had any horsepower in it. But a bridge or lead aside or this fulminate of mercury is nothing compared to this particle.

Let's say they got a headache. And well, have them put mock-ups in their head for a while. But if the child has some permanent "permanent" - disability, it's - you'll find out that this won't be hindered. I mean, you won't - this child won't be hindered in any way by giving him processing as a member of a group or by giving him list processing. The child won't be hurt by it and might even recover from it. But I wouldn't expect it as a matter of course or demand that it happen. Do not treat this with the level of seriousness, in other words.

It's interesting, it's just a little bit upsetting because it's a particle that everybody agrees is kind of unworthy a little bit. It's something you shouldn't have too much to do with. It's a little sophistry, flattery and there's other things like this and it's kind of bad, and we won't give this one out. Well, you should have suspected that one as the first one then. Because this universe is sort of booby-trapped. And you should have suspected that that one which was the least of would have called in all of the liabilities of scarcity. Because of course the particle that was the key particle would be the particle that everybody said was the scarcest, or that shouldn't be used at all. And that particle is admiration. My, that's horrible, isn't it? Admiration.

If it's handled by Group Processing, all right. And if it's not, your individual processing should be limited to putting people in shape so that they can keep pace with the group. And I've given you how to do that. Now, it'll happen quite incidentally that a lot of psychosomatic illnesses will turn off in your group. Just consider it a bonus. You're trying to make people better able to live; you're not trying to make them well.

Now, a person goes along just so long in life, and he - admiration you know, he works to get some admiration; he doesn't get it, and it sticks him into working for some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, so it sticks him into working into some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, and it sticks him into working for some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, and it leaves him stuck as a very unadmirable character. It'll even make a Home sapiens out of him,

People come around and say, "Isn't that remarkable. Our little Bertram always had sinusitis." Or this group of war veterans you may be processing may have had all manner of shot and shell go through it, and you might have them, while doing your session, have them flopping around like fish out of water with somatics. Don't pay any attention to it. So they hurt. Good. The somatic will run out. That's all. You just keep on with this.

Now therefore, we are looking - when we look at this scale - we're looking at a scale which has a little particle in it that we can mark. Part of that gradient scale is a particle, and we can call that particle admiration. And it seems to answer up with people here, there, around - admiration. Now, that's the particle. And you don't have to know - you should... Of course, you know an auditor has to know about all kinds of things the way he has to handle flows and particles and things, but this - the point we're making here is that we've got a missing particle which, in its absence, causes effort and emotion to jam on the track. It is the catalyst particle which permits a flow between two terminals. And in the absence of this particle the communication line between two terminals won't function, It is the grease on which current runs. Now, you talked a little earlier about terminals; you don't get an interchange between two terminals unless you've got that admiration particle in there. And the second you don't have it there you lock up a terminal and lock up a whole section and lock up somebody in heavy effort. And you lock him up in engrams. Just like that. (snap) There he is, there he is. He's stuck. He's stuck with it. And he'll go on dramatizing it until he can get that particle.

Now, the handling of a psychosomatic illness is very simple, but you must have this piece of information: You must be consistent and persistent in mock-ups to run a somatic all the way out. A somatic is liable to turn on during the processing session where you're handling the whole group, and then the somatic is liable to come on stronger and stronger and stronger. And you as a Group Auditor could very easily lose your head and say, "My goodness, oh, dear! What am I doing to this poor man? He says if we give him just one more mock-up, it'll bash his brains in."

Well, I'II tell you what you do in that case: You give him just one more mock-up. And then you give him another dozen, because his brains in his head is not going to split him.

Whatever is turned on by Creative Processing will turn off by the same process. Now, don't mix processes, If you start in with a list, finish with a list. If something turned a man's headache on, for heaven's sakes, keep on with the same list. Don't suddenly switch off and start running flows on him. You could put the mock-ups in new places and that sort of thing, but don't suddenly turn around and say, "Well, we better run out an engram." No, no. No. The best process for it is Self Analysis type lists. And you run it until it runs out.

Continuing this fourth lecture on the theory of admiration, that thing which is admired will disappear, and that thing which is nonadmired persists. Now, that's a heck of a note, isn't it? This universe is rigged backwards unfortunately. It is actually, and people complain every once in a while about its contrariness and not-admire its contrariness and make it even more contrary.

Now, the easiest way to do something like that is, if your - if you have an older group, is to give a book to somebody or other, if somebody gets into trouble, and just tell them to go out in the other room and finish it off. Make somebody else read the list to them rather than give that person special attention yourself, because you'll have everybody with somatics on. All right.

So that, naturally if you get a free flow only in the presence of this particle called admiration - you get free flow then, it'll just flow itself out. And if you get no flow in the absence of this particle, you just get a stuck.

Another thing here is mock-ups must not be a consecutive story. You'll find it a very inviting idea to tell a story of Br'er Rabbit to a group of children with a series of mock-ups. Don't do it. No dice. You know why?

Let's take the Indian and his raising of children. He did a very interesting thing. He raised his children with enormous praise for all the things that were good. His theory of raising children - and this is a North American Indian - his theory of raising children was to praise all the things they did that were good.

There's differentiation, association, identification. And identification is at 0.0 and association is at 20.0, and differentiation, which is the essence of sanity itself, is at 40.0. And we want mock-ups which change the subject radically. And as long as we change the subject radically, the child doesn't suddenly get a story of his own turning on, or the adult doesn't get a story of his own turning on and start paralleling it.

Little boy - the whole tribe would gang up on some little boy. He'd be carrying some water or something of this sort, and they would - everybody that would see him going along they would say, "What a good boy." Or he'd be packing some game for Papa - "What a good boy." They went out of their road to admire what he was doing. And sure enough it cohesed the tribe. And on an analytical level - you must never forget there is an analytical level - he was quite proud of doing these sort of things, but they had - nonadmiration was playing in there on the subject of not being good. And you had an entire race with a thirst for torture and human bestiality which was unequaled anywhere else. Interesting, isn't it? In other words, they ran out of the kid all the human characteristics and left in all the inhuman characteristics. They did a big job of evaluation on him.

In other words, you give him Br'er Rabbit and you say, "All right, now mock up a carrot." "Now he's lippity-lopping to the store." "Now get him there with the storekeeper." "Now get the Big, Bad Wolf coming in the door." And this child, you would think, would be terribly absorbed with this story. No, no, He's now got - he's now got Grandma. And the more you give him Br'er Rabbit, the more Br'er Rabbit looks like Grandma. And you're just digging his grave, that's all. You're just plowing this kid right on in. Why? The MEST universe is logical. Stories are logical. If you really want something that works well, get it as widely apart as possible from mock-up to mock-up.

Evaluation is itself aberrative when it is on a conduct level. All angels have two faces. An angel has a good face and a bad face. It's traditional. Man has been saying this and using this data and building his idols this way since time immemorial. There's the good angel and the bad angel, but it's the same angel.

"Now mock up a fire engine." "Now mock up a beauty shop." "Now mock up the vinegar works." "Now mock up a bottle of ginger ale." "Now mock up a movie actor." "Now mock up a cow." We just get this jump, jump, jump, jump. And that's what a list, in essence, must do. Then we get the "associative level" of logic chopped into and broken up. It is that level of associative thinking which has led this person along this line, The reactive mind is not capable of differentiation; it's only capable of identification. And as long as we ask it to associate, we're bordering on identification. It'll very shortly start to identify.

"I am the God of Vengeance," says Yahweh; "I am the God of Love," says Yahweh. Sure. In order to be a complete unit - two terminals in one being - he'd have to be the God of good and the God of evil.

So let's go up the level where we're perfectly safe, which is differentiation, and give different mock-ups one right after the other, And that's why these lists are important. And that's why you should process from a list even if you're doing your own hand-out processing, because you have a tendency, when standing in front of people and giving them things, to connect them and associate them.

In other words, you'd have him two terminals in the same being. But do you know that that's not top scale by a long ways? It's about 8.0 on the Tone Scale. Up above that level - good, bad? No, no. We have practicality and alignment or misalignment without thought, really, to whether it's a survival or nonsurvival activity. We just have something being done because it, well, should be done. We don't have tremendous condemnation, we don't have tremendous evaluation upscale.

You know, you sort of feel the pressure and you give a - "All right, let's give a fire engine," "All right, now let's have a ladder." "Now let's have a fireman," "Now Let's have a wheel," "Now let's have a fire." "Now let's ..." See, you're all on the same subject. That's identification. And that's not a good list. So, if you want a list for a special group, you should sit down and then just figure out a lot of things, no matter how well associated they are, and then just rewrite them so they're all cluttered up and not in association anymore. See how that would be? Then, that's what's done.

It tells you that in terms of conduct and behavior one of the most aberrative activities in which man can engage would be to condemn and not admire a certain strata of action and to admire greatly another strata of action because it will run the second one out and leave the bad one in.

Now, the theory of Self Analysis and similar lists is the theory of terminals. And the theory is that you're putting up, by creative levels, new terminals, and you're keeping them divorced from the real universe. You're keeping them as unlike the real universe as you can. And you do this for several reasons. But one of the chief ones is it is one way of meeting a level of knowingness which is very high.

In other words, nothing will flow on these other terminals where you have something bad. And so you get more and more crime, more and more insanity, a world hitting a dwindling spiral, which is what you behold today.

A Level of knowingness is very important. How much does your preclear know he knows? You can pick up the rest of this information from books, you can pick up this material here and there, hearsay - figure it out.

Now, it's horrible, isn't it? The remedy for this, you say, is going around maybe and admire evil. No, no. No, because evil is evil, there's no doubt about that. What's bad for man is bad for man. But people on a nonadmiration basis will get so they go out of their road to evaluate. "Now, we must criticize. We know we must criticize to do this and to do that," We must nonadmire, in other words.

But get this one. Burn this in. Sort of so it'll scorch a little bit. You want to establish a level of certainty: certainty of location, certainty of knowledge, certainty of beingness. The child who is uncertain, the adult who is uncertain is a child or an adult that isn't well. You want a level of certainty.

A person goes out through the bottom quickly on this. If you nonadmire something high level like painting, why, the fellow will paint, paint. Paint. Paint! (gasp) And he's going to grrrrr-urr. And then he doesn't paint so much and he doesn't paint and then he doesn't paint. Oh, no. Then he's painting? Hm, You see, now he went right down through the Tone Scale from enthusiasm on a nonadmiration basis into finally apathy. And so it will drive somebody down into apathy.

How can you quickly reach a level of certainty. Have him mock up a scene; have him make it his scene, and he knows where it is. He's got a certainty! And that is a fast way of reaching a certainty. So when somebody is getting very little benefit from mock-ups, ask him these questions: "You know where it is? You know where this mock-up is?" The fellow will all of a sudden tell you "No!" You say, "Well, put it there on the windowsill," "Yeah, I can do that."

So the law in punishing crime on a nonadmiration basis, which is really nonadmiration, exclamation point, just wants to drive a bunch of people into apathy. And do you know there's nobody more dangerous than a person in apathy. That's not a good solution. A criminal in apathy is still a criminal. Only now he doesn't care who he kills. If he kills anybody, it might as well be you, his wife or so on. He's going to go that way. If he does that way, he's just lost his determination on the thing; he's just all mixed up, in other words.

It never occurred to him before. He's had these mock-ups all over the universe but he's never known where they are. Maybe they were in his space, maybe they weren't in his space. So he had no certainty of location. And the other one is "Is it yours?" Fellow says, "No." "Well, make it yours." "Well, uh ... Yeah, I can change it a little bit."

So evaluation is tied in with this rather well. And high level on the scale, you don't start noticing anything wrong with this because a person has a tendency to be in present time in the future all the time. And he doesn't have any past hanging up to amount to anything, but as he goes downscale, he'll start to get the past hanging up. Why? That's because why he keeps carrying along with him all the things which he thinks should be admired which haven't been admired. He starts insisting on his right to do these things, all kinds of aberrated things here.

"Well, change it. Now change it some more. Now do you know whose it is?"

Your little kid being bad or being stupid is running on a course of action which is a nonadmired course. The therapy is not to admire the bad course, because that hits him on an analytical level, and we're after all just addressing an illusion when we're addressing it. So we'll just not worry about that. You don't misinterpret this. We're not saying that a person - the way of existence is, in living in present time, is simply to admire everything. No, no. No, we're just trying to get a fellow unstuck out of his past and make him evaluate in terms of future very easily.

"Yeah. Yeah, it's mine." He'll brighten right up. Level of certainty. And that's what you're trying to achieve. You're getting a certainty of a terminal.

Now, if he can go around and sneer at everything he pleases, that's his right, nothing wrong with that. So, when it catches up with him, he ought to know enough to run it out.

And he's - can get inner flows from these terminals. Now, you can do two mock-ups for each one if you want to, and you'll get some interesting results. You can have him make his last mock-up last on the right, and put his new mock-up on the left, just for variation.

You don't have to tolerate, drive yourself into apathy, everything bad because nonadmiration of it will hang it up on the track. Use it sometimes. Be mean, qualify the thing. You'll find out there are many ways where you could just delete the particle and you get a persistence.

Make him do two mock-ups out there at the same time. Let his old mock-up persist and then put a new mock-up alongside of it. But that's not important, not near as important as establishing a level of certainty. Does he know it's his?

Now, a child who studies well gets praise, praise, praise. Fine, that runs it out. And there you go, see, it's gone. And the child who in - but he doesn't know algebra; that's because he doesn't know arithmetic. Well, nobody - you'll find out that he hit a nonadmiration for error. He made a mistake in arithmetic. And he made several other mistakes in arithmetic, and the next thing you know these were not admired, not admired, and he goes right on making more and more mistakes in mathematics. And you catch him at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three, and he adds six and six and gets fifteen every time.

If anybody is having real trouble with mock-ups, it's because he doesn't know they're his and he doesn't know where they are. Of course, "doesn't know where they are" also means he doesn't know when they are. When is that mock-up? And that becomes very important to him.

Well now, what do you do? You just have him admire arithmetic; the lock will turn up. That's all. Just get him admiring arithmetic. And he'll suddenly say, "I don't know whether I admire this or not, here's a time I got caned for... " so on.

Now, in conclusion, the function of the Group Auditor is seen to be a very important one from the level of Dianetics and Scientology. And it's important from the level of groups. I'll give you a little bit of an idea of a preliminary test on this, and this is from an actual record of a test which is going on at the present moment.

You say, "Well, admire the stick, admire the cane. Now let's make a mock-up and admire it a great deal of somebody being caned." Next thing you know, he gets six and six and gets twelve, Why? The held-down five. How do you hold a held-down five? How do you hold one down? It's a missing thing that prevents the flow. There isn't a flow through five rather than a held-down five. And when there is no flow to flow through five, five keeps adding itself onto the equation time after time after time after time.

Self Analysis was given for a relatively short space of time to a group of children that varied in number - same children, but the influenza epidemic, you know, was going on, so the group was varying between twenty and thirty. And the previous gain of this same group in reading age before Self Analysis was between .9 and .5 months per month, according to the ability of the teacher. That's the previous gain - .9 to .5 months per month.

When you take all possible admiration out of five, you'd think nobody would do five anymore. Mm-hm, no. Five just then goes down and stays there. This comes because of evaluation, you understand. Somebody has - but you have to have made this adjudication: "I will be admired," the individual says, "if I study arithmetic." He studies arithmetic and he gets his throat cut. So it leaves him stuck with a necessity for admiration on the subject of arithmetic, but mostly with failure, And he just keeps putting forward the errors of arithmetic. And he says, "Someday, somewhere, sometime, somebody is going to give me the admiration that requires - to knock this out!" That's a horrible joke. The only person that can give him any admiration that will register on his bank is himself. And that's horrible, isn't it?

Now, the gain in reading age after three-and-a-half weeks of Self Analysis on the average for those students was 4.0 months! By actual tests, just by standard school tests, LCP tests.

Now, all the admiration that you will get, it wouldn't matter if you were the key star of the cinema; it wouldn't matter if you were the most admired king, god or beast that existed; it would not matter at all. That admiration is not going to run out your bank! You just think it is, which keeps you plowing forward, plowing forward, working for admiration.

The average gain was from .9 to .5, and the gain after three-and-a-half weeks of Self Analysis was 4.0 months. That happens to be a gain somewhat in the neighborhood there, oh, somewhere between 5 and - 5 and 8 per - 800 percent.

You notice that people work and then get paid? They don't get paid and then work. All right, there's why. They worked and then somebody didn't pay them. So they worked some more and then they didn't get paid; and then they worked some more and didn't get paid. And the next thing you know, there they are on the LCC staff. Well, anyway ... (audience laughter)

Now, some of these made no gain because they were absent during the influenza epidemic. And that's included in that average of 4.0. They're included there. And there were many gains of 6, 7 and 8 months of reading age.

We have - you see, the effort won't run itself out. The only person that can pay them is themselves in terms of admiration. It doesn't matter much how much admiration.

And there was one of 11 months and one of 13 months with three-and-a-half weeks of Self Analysis given for about twenty minutes per day to this group. So you're not dealing with anything light. And because you don't see something terrifically dramatic happening right off the bat, don't worry about that.

Once in a while somebody will walk up to a person and say something to them and then they will realize that they should turn on some admiration from themselves, so they dub-in some admiration from this person over to themselves. They say, "He is admiring me." They put the admiration there and feel it. And then they say, "Tsk. Ha. Guess I'll have to work harder," something of the sort, You get the idea? He puts - "See, I got to find some way to get some more of that admiration."

This is a group of very backward children who should be in an institution, but are in class and in school because there aren't enough institutions.

This is nonsense, you see, to think that a current is actually going to set up, because it won't, and it doesn't. But you could cause a man to turn it on himself, And when you cause him to turn it on for himself, it will run him out and bring him up to present time because he's stuck in all the times in the past when he thought he should get admiration and didn't. And he just hit that, bong, hit that, bong. So he's bogged down and he's stuck. You want this man in present time and the future. You don't want him in the past.

It was the more intelligent ones of the class who made this terrific gain of 9, 11 and 13 months. They made this terrific gain. They were the more intelligent ones. What this does in a higher level class is subject to further testing, but this is a low-level class. So that your benefits and gains are the benefits, by test, of putting the child in a frame of mind where he can be instructed. And that's what you're trying to do.

A psychotic is living in the past. A neurotic is only in present time and a very sane person is in the future. He's living against the future. All right.

And in terms of an adult, you're trying to put him in the frame of mind where he can be interested in life. And after that, you can instruct them and interest them. But unless you have done that first step there you have a missing bridge, which is going to hold down the third dynamic wherever it is missing.

This adds up then. And you will know that two things are wrong with a child or an adult, A child has got a nonadmiration for badness, and it's that very badness which you see him dramatizing. And that's not admired, not admired, not admired, not admired, and he's making it stick, making it stick, making it stick. Now, you can drive him into apathy so he won't act at all in any field on anything - some people have this as the definition of a good child - or you can simply get him to run it out.

Now, how do you get him to run it out as a member of a group without addressing this problem at all? Well, instead of reading sight and sound and other perceptics at the bottom of the page on Self Analysis, you just make the kids admire their mock-ups. Doesn't matter what the mock-up is. Get them to admire the mock-up and so on. Once in a while have the mock-up admire them.

It doesn't matter what you do. Every once in a while you have a somatic turn on in one of these kids. They'll say, "Yah-yah-yah-yahyah-yah-yah." You say, "Well, the next somatic you get - on the next mock-up you get, put it where you got the somatic," And that will run it out. Because their mock-ups are terminals, terminals. A man is as sane as and has as much energy as he believes he has terminals. See, he's fixed on this two-terminal idea. It's not true, but he uses it all the time.

And so he puts these mock-ups up around him and he knows he's got terminals. And his confidence - his confidence in getting an energy flow is his confidence in getting terminals. That's all. And so, if he can put up terminals, he knows that he can get all the admiration in the future he wants. Why, sure, he can put up terminals into the future. Nothing to that. That's all. It's quite simple.

Now, as far as actual terminals are concerned, you will find that child is in the most serious trouble who has lost a terminal suddenly or gradually. Had a father and a mother. There were two terminals. He didn't live in himself at all, he lived on those two terminals. He sort of had a body and he ran around and everything, but he's Father and Mother. And he had a terminal and they had an interchange. And a father and mother admire each other, boy, that's a good, smooth, flowing terminal. Nothing goes wrong, everything is fine.

Papa and Mama don't like each other Nuh-uh-uh-uh. Nuh-uh. Or if there's just one there, or one of them is very mean, you'll get a terminal proposition of the child using himself as one terminal and using the other parent. And you get this "You did this," and Olympus [Oedipus] and other things happening.

Now, therefore, you as - in a school can become a terminal and a child can be very fixed on you. And then one day you get transferred to another class. Don't go back and look at the mental stability of some of the kids of the class you just left. You just robbed them of a terminal. You're quite sensible of this, by the way; you can sort of feel this with the kids. You're a terminal.

And whether they think you're a good terminal or a bad terminal, you're still a terminal. And those children that were missing a terminal at home, or those veterans or adults who don't have any terminals, they're using you as a terminal. Well, it behooves you to keep your nose pretty clean, because you're the only terminal they've got. And when you stand up in front of a group as a Group Auditor you are, whether you like it or not, becoming an integral terminal in this person's existence. Therefore, it's very good to swap around the auditors a bit so that you don't get too fixed on this. All right, all right.

I hope you can understand this very easily. It isn't terribly complicated. It's what is not admired persists. And this is horrible, by the way, just is horrible, because it works out - it works out such ghastly computations.

Now, a fellow who is living in the past is living in the past because he's sure he had a terminal in the past and he knows he hasn't got one in the present or he knows he couldn't possibly ever get one in the future, So he can't have an interchange, he can't flow. There is no flow there. Nonadmiration. He gets into the past, this nonadmiration will persist, persist, persist, because he's still got a fixed terminal. It's still sitting there, it's still a terminal. It's - obviously can be used, but it doesn't work. And you get the bafflement of the psychotic. He's using these terminals in the past, and he knows they're terminals and he knows they should work, and they don't work, and he doesn't know why they don't work. And he'll haul those right up into present time and try to use them as terminals. Because he's sure he hasn't got a terminal in present time much less have one in the future.

Now you take a neurotic, he's holding on desperately to terminals in present time. Terminals plot against time, you see? It's time change that makes an electric flow. You got to change the time and the terminal at the same time, so you have a past-future, past-future, past-future in any electronic circuit. All right.

He hangs onto these terminals in present time and plots them against something a little bit in the past, or he hangs on to terminals in present time and plots them against something in the future. That last is a very healthy thing. That is the child who is holding on to the toy gun. He's holding on to that toy gun because one of these days he's going to be a cowboy. And he's got a mock-up out here in the future. See, there's a cowboy. That's his terminal. He's going to be this fellow. And he's running on that as energy, he thinks. All right, that's his energy line. Zing, zing, zing. That will be terrifically admired. And one day you see him and he just looks like he'd trip over his chin, it's so low.

And you say, "What's the matter with you?" If you plowed into it, you would find that he had some kind of a mock-up of him that he had mocked up for the future. He said this is a future mock-up. You see him mock up into the future very easily because you're not in the future anyway, there isn't any time.

Anyway, here's this future mock-up and it's a cowboy. And somebody has come along and taken his mock-up away from him. How did they do it? They have simply convinced him that cowboys are no good. And he hits bottom. How does he hit bottom? He just stops getting a flow. He has no more flow. That's the end. It's just like you turn off an electric light, The kid will look like that. You've destroyed a mock-up. You say, "Cowboys are no good." You've convinced this kid they're no good and he doesn't want to be a cowboy, and so on. I almost got killed one time, actually, in a little Spanish village way back up in the mountains down in the West Indies by simply telling a bunch of natives that that was a bad Western picture and the cowboys in it weren't actual. It was one of these little two-bit movie houses, you know - the silent film, filmed lord knows how long ago. And I just explained this, that there were better cowboy pictures than this - I was trying to say that. And I just said these characters weren't real. And I had taken their mock-ups away from them, and believe me, the fellows I was with almost killed me! Didn't realize what I was doing.

Well, you will find, then, that life goes most smoothly which goes on a high level of admired illusion. Sure, the kid will change his mind, he'll change his mind about wanting to be a cowboy. But as long as he wants to be a cowboy, you better not change his mind, because he's got a terminal there and it may be the only other one he's got. Maybe you're one, and it's the other. And if you were to tell him that cowboys were really no good, you'd probably send him home and he'd have a case of measles or something. It's as sudden and as explicable as that; these childhood illnesses and upsets.

Now, you take a veteran and he starts coming up out of apathy and you - something tells him this is all no good. He'll just sink back into apathy again. Well, your job is to get him up above that level so that this sort of thing doesn't happen to them. And it's relatively easy to do with the processes we're using. Because if they become confident of their mock-ups, then they're indestructible. Nothing can destroy them.

You see, an illusory terminal, that is to say, a created terminal by imagination is more valuable to the individual than a real terminal. It's on his wavelength. And the real terminal doesn't flow at him anyway. He just thinks it does.

Okay, let's take a very short break here.