Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, it's going to be very brief tonight, very, very brief.

And here we are at the 13th of November in the 1st Melbourne ACC. And everybody's doing pretty good.

I actually haven't got very much to do here.

Well, the upshot of the situation is, with regard to clearing, regard to OT, a few dozen other things, is you got to know how to audit.

Well, let me ask you a few questions. How about your needle work? You having — having it pretty easy now — batten tone arms down? Audience: Yes. No.

If you go flipping into a weak valence every time you face a pc; you go — you take the E-Meter, you know, and you go ... Drop it, you know and ... That's just a weak valence.

Have you still got some high tone arms in this place?

Some pc all of a sudden says, rrrrrowwww. Up to that time you're just doing fine, you know, and he said, rrrrrowwww! And you go pop! See, weak valence.

Audience: Yes, got a few of those.

Now, just don't let me catch you doing that. You boot these things out. The way you got into one was pure laziness. It was so easy to communicate to something which pulled your line in. Got that?

You've got some high tone arms?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Yes.

That was so easy. And the next thing you know, you just kept communi­cating in that direction, and you just — you went in, too.

Aw, I don't believe it. I don't believe it. Where are some of these high tone arms?

Now, there is a pleasure, which I am told that is akin to sexual pleasure and it's very much the same thing, that you probably haven't experienced lately. It's called "the joy of being eaten." You haven't experienced that in this lifetime. But it's a fact. It's a fact. It's an actual pleasure. The joy of being eaten.

Come on, whose tone arm is high?

And there's recompense to sliding down that line. And of course — probably the main disappointment is, is when you've got at the totally weak, pull-in, effect-point, of the cause-distance-effect line — when you got at the totally weak effect-point, it probably didn't have enough energy to eat you. You see this?

Male voice: My pc's.

The difficulties of communication are totally involved with you main­taining you. Now how do you suppose I have communicated in the past — well, very, very heavily in the past twelve or thirteen years to all kinds of pcs, and mind you now, I've audited one awful lot of psychos and — and stuff like this, audited a tremendous number of experimental processes, audited pcs with just total failures in all directions, you know, because I was bound and deter-mined to make a process work out or not work out regardless of what hap­pened to the pc, you know. Overt act, just overt acts by the ton!

Yeah, where's that? Right there, huh? Who else's tone arm is high? Yeah? What did yours do? Go back up to 4.0? Or no, your pc's? Your tone arm or your pc's tone arm?

Well, you say, sooner or later Ronnie will slide down that line, you know.

Female voice: My tone arm went back to 4.0.

I'm still hitting at cause-point. And the basic reason for that is, is I don't have a pitch on auditing, you see.

Well, it just shows you the life of crime doesn't pay.

And today an HGC pc wrote a note through with some franticness and said, "Why are you making op ..." — this is a paraphrase but, "Why are you making Operating Thetans? You're making Operating Thetans for some basic political purpose?" you see? And two, "Are you making them to get back at the people in the implant areas?" Naw, I'm not making Operating Thetans to do anything.

You run a process on somebody, naturally it's going to go back up. Let me tell you something about this.

The answer of course, I'm making Operating Thetans for their own sake and so they can be free. See? There's no pitch. There's no curve. And I don't always tell the truth, that I assure you. I learned a long time ago that there were two brands of lies, and after that I could become a fiction writer. There were the lies that hurt people, you see, and then there were the lies told to involve them, and twist them up and plow them in. Get the idea?

Process a pc in not too rugged a shape, something like that, you can bat the tone arm down to somewhere around the Clear reading or to the obses­sive valence reading. See? It either comes down to the Clear reading or the obsessive valence reading.

Now it's indicative of something in this society today that they say that all imaginative utterances are lies. See? So we have to pull back out of that and realize that you're perfectly — one is perfectly free to create the past, present or future. See? One's perfectly free to do this. Unless he creates it with a pitch to injure, enslave or upset. See? You got a big curve on the line.

There have been very few people with an obsessive high valence in my experience. I just haven't found that in my experience.

And an overt act very definitely is an overt act, basically in the pc's own consideration, but in the area of relative truth — relative truth you see, not the absolute truths of the first axioms, but in the area of relative truth. An overt act is an overt act to the degree that it violates the optimum solution; greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. See? And when an action is taken which suppresses several dynamics and maybe benefits only one or two, that's an overt act. Got the idea?

High valences are ordinarily overts, pure and simple. Just overts. They have been mean, bad people! Or, they had a Christian upbringing! And that last one is probably true of every arm that is remaining consistently high here right now. God's mixed up in it someplace or some foolishness; yours, and yours, and yours — something about that. You don't have to agree with that.

Audience: Mm-hm.

But remember it's high on some dynamic. Well, that isn't just the audi­tor, the public or the third dynamic. And those you're having trouble with getting down is because you as the auditor are insisting, probably, that an arm can only be high on the third dynamic! That's not so! There are eight dynamics and an arm can be high on any part of them.

But it's the optimum solution is the degree of overtness of an overt act.

But, of course, when an arm is high on self, it is actually high on a valence. If it's a first dynamic high arm, the person thinks of himself as another valence against which he has overts.

Now, in view of the fact that there are only such a tiny handful of abso­lute truths — there is a thetan, you see, and he creates things, you know. That's about it. In view of the fact that there's so few absolute truths, and that everything after that fact is created — you have been involved for many, many eons in the creation of an existence. And you had truth or telling the truth, you see, substituted for and identified with, doing the most good. Get the idea? You've got these two things crossed. See? Telling the truth isn't doing the most good.

And when you're sorting a case out, always ask for the first dynamic to find out — if it's a valence case, you see — always ask for the first dynamic to find out what the needle characteristic will be on the upper dynamic when you hit it. Got that?

I could go out here and walk up and down the street and tell the truth for a half an hour, and there would be about twenty suicides. You realize that?

Female voice: Yes.

Matter of fact it — we don't have any of this swami stuff in Scientology and Dianetics. Mostly because it's a super effort, you see, to hypnotize, over­whelm and bring about worship. See? That — it's just — it's just nonsense. It's the creation of slavery. It is a real big overt act, see? A real big one.

If it freezes on the first dynamic — why this isn't a hard and fast rule but it's a good — it's a good observation — if it freezes on the first dynamic, let us say, why, it will be something else — it was something else the moment he started the session, you see? It was doing a "flip-flop" or something, you know? You ask him about the first dynamic, you get a freeze.

You know, tell everybody that you're in communication with Yahweh or Cheese Wits or some god, and he's just given you the Word and — and use some perfectly obvious thing like reading the obvious symptoms on some-body's face or reactions or something like that. Or looking at his facsimiles if you please. Reading his mind and so forth to — not to tell the truth about it but to give him a big curve, see? Overwhump him so he believes the lie in some fashion. This is big twisty stuff, you know? The effort not to create an effect but the effort to make a slave. See? That's a different thing.

All right, then as you go on up and ask about the remaining dynamics, it will return to the "flip-flop" until you get the dynamic you want or the dynamics you want, at which moment it'll freeze again. Well, that's what he thinks of himself as. Which, of course, gives you the instant valence.

So that truth is a word actually; it doesn't even belong in the perimeter. There are facts. But the vast — you can't even say "the vast majority" because it's — practically all facts are simply created facts which, agreed upon, have become truths. Now this is a very queasy world to walk into when you realize that!

It's too easy to find these valences, I mean, there's no trick at all to it. Do you understand? No trick at all.

And when you're busy laying out these vast facts, these absolute truths — well, as a professor of physics you're pretty safe. See, you're pretty safe. You can get away with teaching physics without totally plowing in so long as you don't teach it as absolute and irrevocable facts that will never be altered, changed, shifted in any way, shape or form. Because here we come along, and we can upset physics.

Now, when a person has a theta bop when you ask him about the first dynamic, you go on up the line to some other dynamic and you'll find another theta bop. One or more dynamics up the line will have a theta bop. Well, they think of themselves as being that dynamic. You've found an identification between the first and that other dynamic.

Now, it's all right to teach something as "absolute fact," (quote) (unquote), if you say, "This absolute fact is apparently agreed to and held by most people, and those that don't hold it aren't here. But to that degree it's an absolute fact."

This is just a rule of thumb, you understand. It's just a good way to — to handle it. It's a good way to look.

But beyond the first little handful of axioms, you see, there are no unal­terable facts. All facts are alterable beyond the first few axioms.

That's for looking for valences. Somewhere on the remaining seven dynamics you'll get a similar reading to the reading you got on the first dynamic in enough cases to warrant this as a statement, you see.

I know it kind of stretches your imagination to think that something like Boyle's law or laws of fulcrum and balances and so forth could be altered, and apparently that, but they're — they're simply part of the agree­ments of the creation of this universe. And as one agrees to this universe and agrees to its various laws and so forth, why, after all, these things are true but they're true by agreement.

Now, you know what you're looking at. Now, if you find that same reading on two upper dynamics, well, fmd out which one of those clears and which one doesn't.

So, don't be too surprised someday if you take fulcrums and balances and set them up and put a hundred-pound weight, one foot away from the knife edge and a two-pound weight, one foot away from the knife edge and stand back and watch them balance. Because if you haven't subscribed or if you've cancelled your subscription on any of these agreements they tend to cease to be true.

Let's say you had one on the third and one on the seventh. Well, just keep asking about the third and about the seventh, and about the third and about the seventh. Well, the third or the seventh are going to remain the first as — the same as the first, and the other one probably fall out.

Well now, codes of conduct are efforts to delineate what are overt acts. You'll find most moral codes are simply a list of overt acts and they're an attempt to get everybody to agree that these overt acts are overt acts.

Well, if the other one doesn't fall out, just find out which one: third or sev­enth, is least like the first! And it will be some slight difference. Take that one.

You know, they keep talking about the Ten Commandments. The only reason I talk about Christianity rather than another religion is you happen to know more about the tenets of Christianity than some other religion. It doesn't mean that Christianity is the worst or the best amongst religions or actually the funniest.

If you still can't sort it out, take both of them. Use one, then use the other one; flatten them both. But that would merely be a lack of observation on your part.

But it is true that this is the case that they give out Ten Commandments and everybody says these Ten Commandments are the Ten Commandments and that's swell and so on.

Because he's always in — in a valence more than in some other valence. See? Always. All right.

But you go back and read some of the earlier translations of the Bible, which weren't monkeyed with to put a new pitch on the line, and you find out that there aren't Ten Commandments. That's one of the first facts about the Ten Commandments that aren't true; there aren't Ten Commandments, that's it.

Sorting out cases leaves us with a high arm because of overts on some dynamic. Not just the third.

They just go on and on and on and on and on. I mean I don't know how many there are. I got tired counting or I could tell you right now. I think I stopped at about a hundred and sixty-two.

You know, "What have you done to your fellow man? What have you done to your fellow man? What have you done to me? What have you done to me?"

There's such things as, "When you have killed a pig and found that its flesh was tainted, do not sell it to your neighbor, sell it to the wayfarer and traveler as he comes along." That's in there.

Arm stays high, stays high, stays high, stays high. Well, that morning they poisoned the cat! It certainly isn't going to come down — "What have you done to your fellow man? What have you done to me?" You know?

Now, these super, absolute, moral codes have liabilities basically because they're not true! Now, once in a blue moon in this lifetime and others, why, some fellow has — take, "Thou shalt not kill," you know. Some fellow has jumped up big as life and knives in his teeth and all that sort of thing and is going to hack down the — the kids or the family or sink the ship or do some-thing of the sort, you know. Well, just look at the dynamic balance here. See, you've got — one fragment of the third dynamic is represented by this bird with a knife in his teeth, see, and the whole ruddy lot of the rest of them are under your protection, and at this moment you are not going to kill, huh? Ha! Ha! "Thou shalt not kill" just falls by the wayside as an absolute code. See? It does. Boom! It's gone.

It's liable to fall out on "What wouldn't you tell me?" or "What question mustn't I ask you?" There's some possibility that you'd get a read there.

And as I say, in this lifetime or earlier ones or that sort of thing — come up against this particular situation — why, as far as I was concerned some-body bit the dust and I never considered it much of an overt act. It isn't.

But that is not an absolute. And you also get misses on that one.

Got the idea?

And if you don't get an arm reading the way it should read, why you just better sort it out.

Audience: Yes.

The rule of the thumb is — or just the rule is in auditing, that if you can't — if you can't talk a person Clear in ten minutes, you have to process them. Got that?

For instance, we've just been through a war and the conduct of the Japa­nese in their original capture of Nanking demonstrated that they were not very pleasant people, in the military form at least, to have around, no matter how pleasant they are in their houses at home, see? And they raped and slaughtered and burned around Nanking until there was practically nothing left of the thing, and when I looked that over, it wasn't — it wasn't an atrocity story, it was just a fact. They had a ball. And most of the Japanese troops misconducted themselves and so did white troops and so on. People get going on war and they don't know when to stop.

Well, if you — if you are going to process them, well, you'd better have to — you have to assess them. Don't go processing them blind, process them on assessment.

I remember one sergeant going around with a — during an amphibious landing toward the end of the war, with a carbine butt, knocking out the gold teeth out of the mouths of the wounded. He had a nice collection of gold when he finished up, but I thought it was a little extreme.

If you're going to assess them, the most meticulous assessment we know anything about at all- is a Dynamic Assessment. I guess if you wrote down a dress parade, super colossal Dynamic Assessment, it would probably have about five or six hundred questions in it. You see? That would be a small one compared to the number of things there are on the dynamics, you know, the dynamics are big.

Now, overt acts tend to breed overt acts. And you enter in logic along this line someplace and you can begin to speciously logicate out of existence all overt acts. You can explain how they're all logical.

The earliest dynamic, the first dynamic, of course, we assume that's one — is going to read some other way, so that leaves seven dynamics to choose from. And you're going to find him somewhere on these remaining seven dynamics. And that's in a general category and you can nail that cate­gory down better and better once you've got it.

And there's fellows down here in the local jail right this minute, that you talk to them, they could explain it's perfectly logical, absolutely perfectly log­ical how all dynamics, having been violated except some fragment of a valence of the first — they're totally correct. See, it was totally correct to vio­late all dynamics, all their life. It was so logical.

For instance, he's stuck on third, and you just, tis-tis-tis. It's third all right. Assessment says it's third. Well, come off of it. How many types, kinds of groups are there? How many types of groups are there?

So, you see, that it — it somehow or another takes a — it takes judgment to experience in a society, free conduct. You can't have a bunch of slaves and not have super moral codes and laws. You see that?

Well, you could start just sorting out groups if you wanted to be arduous about it. Rather than to run him on a general terminal like groups, let's sort out groups, and you'll probably find it's an old lady's sewing circle or some-thing of the sort that he's jammed in. It would be something weak and unlikely. That you can always count on. That's the dynamic you're going to find him in. You're not going to find him in — in an elephant. You seldom find him in a lion.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Look at how hard the Zulu and the Masai have to work to get into a lion's valence, you know. Golly, those natives used to work from boyhood, you know? A little fellow crawling around and so on, they're trying to get him up to be something as tough as they knew anything about which was simba. That was a reverse valence then. When they finally got up to that valence, why, they knew they'd survive. See? So the tribe would survive and so forth.

In the absence of judgment you have to have all kinds of laws. And you can just put it down in your book that the more laws there are, the less judg­ment there is.

The truth of the general situation is that lions are upper valences.

In the development of Dianetics and Scientology, as practitioners and pcs were found to have less and less judgment, then more and more laws were developed. Got the idea?

Now, an OT could go downstairs into the valence of a lion and find him-self in a very weak valence. You got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Audience: Mm-hm.

See? Auditor couldn't exercise judgment on the processing of a preclear, we — we'd have — he couldn't see it himself, you see, and it was — wasn't obvi­ous to him — we invented a law. I invented a law to point this fact out. Got the idea?

See? So it is a matter of relative strength.

Audience: Mm-hm.

I know one day I was pawing around with a lion and moving him around, and so forth, and he wasn't very tough. He wasn't very tough for the excellent reason that he was simply a stimulus-response machine.

Well, if you notice I am very chary of adding more laws because we're going in the more optimum direction of adding more judgment to the people. Got the idea?

Now, similarly cats — that's a big cat, you see? I actually can't resist domestic cats. I mean I got something on it, you know. If it wasn't so much fun I'd process it out. I'm always watching cats. You know, London, ever since they had the plague, you know, has been cat happy.

Audience: Mm-hm.

And somebody imported plenty of cats into India, too. You never hearmuch about cats in India but you know they're crawling all over everything.But anyway, walking down the street and see a cat, why, I'm still tryingto develop the exact effect necessary to guide a cat. And because they're practically nothing but bone structure, you know, and a thetan, you know, and a bone structure. Boy, anything you put in there just rattles around like a pea in one of these rumba band gourds. I'm always knocking them into a dead faint, you know or scaring them half to death and they go flying over 10-foot walls. I'll get it someday; lions, same way.

Entirely different look.

Actually his basic temperament is really no different than any other kind of cat's. But we have a idea that a lion is powerful, and the Masai and the Zulu had an idea that he's terrifically powerful, and — and power, strength, force, that sort of thing.

Now, it isn't those — that those laws don't help, they do. In fact we wouldn't be where we are if we hadn't gotten some people over the rough points of them and so on.

And of course, I never saw a lion yet that could bite the tracks off a Panzer tank. See, they just couldn't do it. Relative force, relative power, but it would be an awful dumb man that couldn't drive a tank. You got the idea?

But that's why I say, every once in a while I say, "Never under any cir­cumstances do this, that, or the other thing with the pc." And then, certainly within a day or so, if not within the hour, you will also hear me say, "Judg­ment is necessary to auditing." And one of the ways of expressing that is, "Auditing is what you can get away with," which is an old saw, but a very true one.

Actually, it's a pretty stupid thetan that can't steer a lion around.

All the laws notwithstanding, auditing is what you can get away with. And if you didn't get away with it, it's not auditing. It's Code breaks and everything else, you see?

The tiger, by the way, is the chief symbol of Tammany Hall, which was the principal political machine of New York City.

In living a free life, there's one thing that you give up: you give up to some degree a security against getting hanged because if a slave follows down an exact grooved course of conduct and always minds and obeys all the laws, every single law, he never gets hanged or punished, does he? Usually he makes it. It's good, safe, stupid and weak. Yeah, but it's safe; never moves a hair out of line.

I was down writing an article one time in a big zoo, and a great big car came up, it was from California, a great big car drove up, one of these limou­sines, you know, that's three times as big as life, portable bar and blondes, you know? It says, "New York 1" on its license plate, you know? Guess who, you know? And pulls up naturally, in front of the tiger's cage. Going to show these politicians, their favorite animal, you know, a tiger.

But there's a security connected with that. In a loose way it's analogous to the fellow who holds down a job and gets a regular paycheck, and it's a fairly safe job, and he isn't liable to be fired off of it. He — he never drives any Mercedes-Benz but he always eats. See? Life doesn't have any peaks but doesn't have any abysses, either. See, it's security! An unchanging monotony.

Well, as a matter of fact, the tiger, he crawled down in the moat and was not visible from the immediate show, you know. I was standing there minding my own business, and this fellow and — turned around to me, you know, to find — and he says, "Where's the tiger?" and I said, "Well, he's out to lunch."

Nothing really wrong with it. It's a method of living. One obeys certain laws, and subscribes to certain codes, and after that he's okay!

Well, they told each other, he was out to lunch and they were all satis­fied with the whole thing.

Well now, this starts to go up the spout the moment you start introduc­ing freedom — what the great empire, which Great Britain, under the socialist regime, gave up. The socialist bragged that at the beginning of the rule of the socialists there were some four hundred million people in the British Empire, and when they'd finished up, they only had thirty million people in it. Pretty good. And they've had nothing but riot, tumult and revolution in a lot of those areas ever since. They gave out a lot of freedom but they didn't give out any wisdom. A very serious error.

And the part of the story I've never told because I always felt queer, peculiar doing things like this, is I decided — well, they'd be too disappointed, you know — and fished the tiger up out of the moat, see, and got him to turn around and look at them, you know, and sit down. It was all fine just that far. You see? And I slipped. And the tiger goes, "Rawwwwwwwooor!" You see, you know, and then looks scared as the devil and runs into his hut. I'll get it someday.

The only way that they could have accomplished any proper end goal would have been to have either restored the original native law in some of these areas or to have brought the people up to where they understood and could abide by English law, but not leave them halfway between and then just skip it.

But the handling and control of bodies is something you are not too bad at. You actually are not too bad at it. You can make a body walk and talk and so forth.

Judgment is the factor which has to be substituted for law. And a man can be as free as his judgment is rehabilitated. And that's as free as he'll ever get, because oddly enough, he himself will discover himself making a mistake and then put laws on himself. If you don't do it for him, he'll do it for himself.

You've got the idea that you make it walk and talk and so forth through neurons and synapses and muscles and by eating food and you know, vias, vias, vias, vias, vias.

He'll say, "Well, I must never do that again" as he watches the bashed-in head of the baby. See? He just says, "I must never do that again."

Unfortunately true, they don't assist you at all. They merely assist your consideration as to whether or not you can run a body. Simple as that. You see? They assist your consideration.

He has said, in essence, without putting Article 4, Section 8, Code Penal: "Infanticide: The slaughtering of babies shall be accompanied by punishment." You see? That isn't the way he phrases it. He just says, "Well that's a bad act. A bad, stupid, senseless act, and I am guilty of having accomplished one, and therefore after this, I shall not do this."

And you say, "Well, I'm well fed. I am healthy. And therefore, you know, I can have at it."

He makes up his own law and he says, "I shalt not kill babies." Bang! Get the idea?

You know, "I make the body walk and climb and do sprints and hand-springs" and so forth. That's merely your consideration.

Men — they live within their own area. He almost never says to himself another thought: he says, "Well, if I'm going to be around babies, I've got to raise my judgment with regard to them." He doesn't do that. He usually puts on the emergency brakes and makes up a law. He doesn't really make an effort to further understand what he is having difficulty with and he's liable to make laws about.

But part of your consideration is the body has to be well fed, has to be healthy, has to have been exercised, has to have been this, has to have been that, supposed to, supposed to, supposed to, laws, laws, laws, laws, laws. See?

So, you see, there were two choices he could make as he bashed the baby's head in. One of them was to make up a law "Infanticide: I shalt not commit infanticide hereinafter, as aforestated, me." See, that was one direction.

If all those laws are true then your consideration is okay. See how it is?

And he had an entirely different choice, which was: "Hereinafter, as aforestated, if I can commit actions of this character with the consequences appertaining thereto, then I'd better not be so damned stupid about it. I'd better find out something about this. And I had better increase my judgment on the subject of babies."

Well, you have an idea that you can run the body you've got right this minute. You're not worried much about that. You can make it walk and talk and move it around and so forth.

Now that doesn't appear to be to you a very strange new thought. Because you're you and you're here, so you have already made that decision long ago. You have decided that the proper way to handle a given, moral, legal, dynamic situation, was by increased judgment. Long ago you decided that, or you wouldn't be here, or you wouldn't be interested in Dianetics and Scientology.

But you've got ideas of separateness, obsessive separateness with regard to the body, and identification with the body probably, to some slight degree, so that you think that running the body sitting next to you, see, that would be difficult.

And the reason it's so hard to interest the police department in Dianetics and Scientology is most of these fellows have taken the entire oppo­site course. They bash in the head of a baby, and they say, "Huh! There ought to be a law. I'll go out and make a law to make sure that I don't break it. I mustn't be so familiar with babies." Get the idea?

Well, why don't you just dream up a bunch of characteristics; if the body has gray pants on and — and polishes its shoes regularly and can whistle "God Save the Queen," if it can do all those things then you can run it, you know? Just add enough rules and laws onto it, and so forth, and waitresses will come over and wait on you and all sorts of things will happen that are not usually in the cards.

There's almost two routes, you might say, two main routes toward decency or rightness, or being able to walk in the sun with your head held up. There are two routes and one is to be very lawful; and the other is to have excellent judgment.

You can run another body than your own but it just falls outside your immediate consideration. You think of yourself as separate from these other bodies. And when it comes to you handling or running an animal body, well, that's just jumping a dynamic, you see? Well, that seems to be more incredi­ble and you get a lot of basic considerations. "Well, I would have to be three feet back of its head and if I was so-and-so, and if I could exteriorize and so forth — if these masses and energies and facsimiles didn't hit me in the puss every time I thought about cats, why, I — then, you know, consideration, con­sideration, considerations — then I could run a cat. You see this? I mean it's just a bunch of more considerations.

And if you don't have excellent judgment, you've got to have lots of laws. And if you don't have lots of laws, you've got to have excellent judgment, and that's the way it works.

So, that — what you're actually seeking for is a pure consideration. That's all you want. In getting Clear, all you want is the ability to have an unalloyed consideration. You want to be able to make a pure consideration, which is to say, you want to have confidence in your own intentions. That's about what it amounts to.

And therefore, particularly at this stage of the game, it behooves you to realize that you won't let yourself have more freedom than you feel you have judgment to cope with it.

Now, if Aunt Grace ran the whole family, and was very weak and easy to cave in on, you got a sure-fire valence! And it's liable to read most anyplace on the meter. But this person was a very weak valence but somehow ran the whole family. Got the idea? You're liable to find something silly with the tone arm reading if you get one of these weird valences.

You're not going to let yourself — I don't care who — who runs what on you. I can blow you out of your head and turn you upside down, and make you put out 100,000 kilowatts, see, p000. And you take a look at that, and if you don't think you're ready for it — you'll be very agreeable and you'll go out and throw 100,000 kilowatts around for me if I ask you to, I know. Next day, why, you just tell your friends, "Well, that was an interesting experience." And you're not going to throw 100,000 kilowatts around anymore. No, sir.

Somebody who was an horrible tyrant, but apparently totally weak. See? If you could imagine such a character, why, then you've got some kind of a valence that won't read according to prescription.

You've apparently gotten well off and then spun in, you know, gotten worse again. That wasn't what happened at all. Your capabilities were increased without the increase — consequent increase of judgment. See? You increased your horsepower but you knew you hadn't increased your judg­ment, so you wouldn't use that much horsepower.

I see we've only got two or three of them here. See, we've only got three or four of them. They're offbeat valences.

There's an old mystic yip-yap about, "Thou shalt have the power from the mighty, all seeing, Yahweh or Snitzboo that you showeth the ability to be trustedeth with." It's an old mystic law.

Now, the consideration there is, "In order to run the family one would have to be Aunt Grace." See? "To run the body one would have to be well fed." You've got the idea? See? "Well exercised, healthy, no bacteria — and run the body in the street — it has to be clothed." See, the basic considerations.

Well, that's a nice other-determined lot of bunk! The facts of the case are, is you will permit yourself to have as much power as you think you've got judgment for and you won't let yourself have any more power than that.

See, and then you say, "Well, I can run that body."

Now, judgment therefore is a subject which we have played with for many years. I won't tell you the subject of judgment's totally wrapped up. But I can tell you what judgment consists of.

Now, if you don't — if you don't add all of these considerations and if you just say, "Well, I can run that body," you know, regardless of whether it's this way or that way or the other way, and all these conditions and ramifications, and have a license from the government to run bodies. You know? Anything like that, you can just go ahead and run a body.

Judgment consists of familiarity and the ability to evaluate relative importances. Relative importances.

But Aunt Grace is simply part of those considerations, you see?

A guy jumps on deck with a knife in his teeth, you don't want any stimulus-response machine which just shoots him, because he might be a friend of yours who is simply skin diving, see?

"If I were Aunt Grace, and that irresponsible, or that sick, and this-that, and fed this, and ran the family that way, and so forth, and et cetera, yap-yap, then I could run a body in a family." Phew! Good thing we got that solved, you know? See, Aunt Grace was an invalid. Figure that one out. Yet, Aunt Grace ran the family. See?

Audience: Mmmm.

Well, that's just another package; that's the number of panel switches that have to be appended to the pure consideration that you can run a body in a family. See? Get the idea?

You don't want a stimulus-response machine that simply polishes him off.

Now, these aren't "now-I'm-supposed-to," these are the "necessary condi­tions of." Now, we express these things mechanically all the time so we fall for them ourselves. They actually aren't necessary at all but we fall for them.

And you want judgment enough. Well, the judgment consists of the impor­tance of the fact with relationship to its surroundings. There he is, what are you going to do? Well, you're going to do, to the degree that you recognize and observe and evaluate. You know why he's there and what is he, and what he's doing and so forth. That all depends on fairly quick observation.

We say, "If the motor is in good repair, if the tires are all inflated, if the gas tank is full of gas, petrol — known as gas now; they even call it gas in England — I won.

The more laws you have the less you observe. You settle into the security of just following the law and one day the law goes out of style, and there you are still following the law. All of your aberrations are just laws that have gone out of style. You're still obeying laws that applied to the Minoan civiliza­tion. Laws which apply to the conduct of officers of spaceships of the Imperial Empire.

I've even walked into — driven into a service station and said, well, "Fill it up full of petrol, will you, old boy." You know, that sort of thing, and the fellow says, "You want some gas?"

Oh, I could dig some up, right out of you right now, see. Article 62: Royal Code: 13th Galaxy Confederacy, "Restriction of punishment of lower ratings" — something of this sort, you know? It's total nonsense. You find you have been applying it.

And, "If its battery is charged up, and if there's a road there, and if you have a license, and if the car is licensed, and if the licenses are in force at that time," get the idea? "Then the car will run." Got it? "Then you can drive a car!" Got that?

You find that, as a man, why, you knew exactly how hard to hit some-body, and see, if you had to hit them at all, you hit them just to this degree, and so forth. Possibly he even made sure that they weren't near any gratings so that you knocked them down any ladders, you know. There are certain ways and means, there was a definite amount of injury which was all right to deliver and that was in the Royal Code of God knows where. You see? Mil-lions and millions and billions of years ago. It's still part of the script.

Well, that's the conditions "appertaining to," the conditions which make it possible; these are the conditions, considerations which are necessary, in your opinion, to be added to the other.

One day you become a boxer, still following the exact amount of punish­ment that you can mete. And naturally, all codes have something to do with the regulation and handling of force and its direction and that sort of thing. Well, that depends on judgment.

Now, it's quite amazing, in the absence of machinery, many old-time civi­lizations have done some of the most fantastic road building jobs, some of the most fantastic pieces of castle and engineering building. And of course they were rather heroic.

And the exact amount of force to use is the exact amount of force that will accomplish the exact effect that you consider should be accomplished. And the only places where you considered your judgment very bad is when you've applied too much or too little. And you didn't do the job. And you might say judgment, then, is valid as far as you have been able to follow Axiom 10. See. That's what judgment is basically, to you. See? Production of an effect.

You take Christophe in building his citadel down in Haiti, which is an enormous, imposing structure. It makes European fortresses look pale; a Frenchman designed it for him. These tremendous, big, blocks of stone were hauled up almost vertical cliffs. I don't know how many people he killed off — old Emperor Christophe — killed off building that thing. I saw it when — first when I was a kid; it staggered me. I think it's something on the order of 3,500 lives were lost in the building of that one citadel.

Well, the production of the correct effect desired. In other words, the expression of an intention. The expression of an intention is what that is. You wanted to make a certain effect. Well, believe it or not, not all effects are bad.

But he had a method of changing considerations which is worthy of note, and that method of changing considerations went like this: be a crew of ten men and a great big block of stone, and they'd be struggling along and they couldn't get the stone ... You see, they had very little engineering, no machinery, and so on, they were just hauling these tremendous blocks of stone practically up a vertical cliff. And they were having difficulty moving this block of stone up the cliff and constructing this citadel. Christophe would ride along there and he'd see that they weren't going — they weren't moving. He would turn around to the guard and he'd say, "Shoot every third man." The guard would. He'd tell the remaining men, "Move the block of stone." They would.

And that simply consisted of expressing an intention. Well, that inten­tion required that you make a certain postulate, and not too much and not too little. You see? Probably its usual force, not too much, not too little force.

Now that's a rather heroic way of changing considerations. That was adding the consideration, "If you want to continue in the ownership and hab­itation of your body, you will change your considerations about moving the block of stone!" See? "Rent on your body is — been upped to the price of mov­ing stone blocks by changed considerations."

You see? Probably that you utilized, altered or changed some mass, but not too much and not too little, see that? And if you came right there in the groove and you produced that exact effect, then you had confidence in being able to follow out Axiom 10. See, Axiom 10, the production of an effect, you had confidence that you could produce an effect.

But this was quite remarkable; I was very struck with this when I was a kid because it — I had studied for a long time, "necessity level" and what people will do during necessities.

And I'll show you the exact way to reach judgment. The exact way to reach judgment is to just rehabilitate confidence of the production of a proper effect. That's all. Because one of the fundamental laws that is above all other laws is Axiom 10! It's just a law like everything else, you know.

Well, all necessity level is the dropping of some of the considerations. That's all. You drop some of the considerations, and bang, there you go.

You say, "What's this game all about in this universe?" Well, the game in this universe is production of an effect.

Well, it isn't necessary to have an emergency to drop some of the consid­erations when these considerations are getting so complicated. "If you hold your mouth right, and if you've got a license from Yahweh, and so forth, why, you're permitted to like tea" or something.

Well, the production of the intended effect would be an obedience to that law. See? You intend an effect and you produce it! And that obeys it. Got the idea?

"If you want to change your body's structure or something, you have to go through some ritual hocus-pocus that has to do with diets, prescriptions, doctors' advices and so forth and ..."

Audience: Mm-hm.

I'm sure — I'm sure that if you set yourself up impressively enough as a "dietary agency" and if you set yourself up impressively enough, and adver­tised enough, and then put a lot of conditions "appertaining to" body struc­ture without actually really doing anything, people could walk in and have a body structure change, you see, and walk out. But that is under the basis of being overwhumped. They're made irresponsible for the body status, you see, and you were being — taking over the responsibility for them.

So, if you are going to have that law at all, why, the production of an effect would be the production of the intended effect, not some other effect. And you will become free to the degree that you have confidence in producing the effect you intended to produce. Right?

Well, that — that blinks them out just that much more. Highly unwork­able sort of a consideration and actually very dangerous to embark on because it's so very far from an optimum solution. See? It's a solution at the expense of Lord knows how many dynamics, which of course makes it an overt act. You know instinctively it's an overt act. You don't analyze it and say, "Well, it's this many dynamics, it violates ..." You see?

Audience: Yes.

Now, how many bodies you can run and what you can do depends basi­cally on how few considerations you have appended to what you can do. See?

So, therefore in Dianetics when you intended, and in Scientology, when you intended to produce a certain effect on the pc and you didn't produce it your judgment worsened. Right? But when you intended to produce a certain effect and produced it, you figured you were a pretty good auditor. Right?

Well, this again is another Axiom 10 situation. You said, "I can produce an effect if ..." And then you draw a map which crawls all over the wall and goes around to the back of the building and up through the drainpipes and across the roof and through the police station and then gets back over and lands at its target. You see?

Audience: Yes.

Well, every new consideration is added because of an anxiety of not being able to produce an effect. The more anxious you are about being able to produce an effect, the more considerations you have to add on the line.

All right. Therefore I invite you to follow through any such line as this with caution and simply walk yourself up scale to a number of wins!

And of course, you get reductio ad absurdum on this — is the old story about thinking of the word "hippopotamus" and the alchemist that gives the formula for making lead into gold.

Now, I'm telling you that this, that and the other thing will do this, that and the other thing for pcs. And as you have noticed, my summer without a Central Organization hanging around my neck at Saint Hill, has not been without certain results. There have been certain techniques and know-hows produced here, which you're getting the full benefit of. Now those techniques and know-how actually are adequate at this time simply to pull the floor out from underneath any pc.

And he said, "All you have to do is in the dark of the moon, go under­neath that big tree up there on the crest of the hill in the graveyard and knock off this certain incantation and pour it from one crucible to the other crucible and do this and that and you'll have pure gold — providing you don't think of the word "hippopotamus"! Well, now that — that is some kind of a slave master effort, don't you see, to add considerations into what effect you can pro-duce. See? He forbids it to go across one tiny corner; if you know darn well it's so easy to go across that corner, well, that's going to trip the whole thing up.

Now you want to hurt somebody's aberrations, well you don't hurt the pc. You mess up his aberrations. To mess them up then, you'd better use — this sounds horrible — but you had better use a technique which you know will produce that effect. Well, of course that requires experience, which is to say familiarity.

And you get the whole genus in that sort of thing of superstition. You know? "Everybody will enjoy dinner unless I drop a fork." You know. "If I drop a fork, why nobody will enjoy dinner."

Now, possibly all right for me to tell you to sit here in this class and produce a lot of OTs, but as far as an auditor is concerned, I would rather tell you to produce a lot of effects that you intend to produce. You'll go out of here with better judgment, don't you see?

People get so loopy after a while in the production of an effect, you see, that they start adding all sorts of specious, silly, goofy considerations into the line and then they begin to appear asinine.

Now, I've gotten so cocky of recent years, particularly during the last year, on healing up somebody's sciatica or straightening out somebody's left auricle, this is just, pffft! Not necessarily intending to straighten it out from here till the end of the time track, you understand, but getting a good, stable release of the situation right then, stabilizing them up, knocking them out so they don't have that particular illness and so forth. I've gotten so cocky in this particular direction that I would say offhand, medicine — ha! What you want it for, see?

And you go around some of the savage tribes and so forth I was conver­sant with earlier in my life, and it's utterly incredible, I mean some of the ...

There are certain biochemical products, endocrinological effects, possibly certain surgical or obstetrical effects that could be produced in the field of medicine.

You got one amongst the Aborigines here, one of the wildest ones I think I ever walked into was — when I first heard of this one, I blinked about three times, and after I obtained more knowledge of Scientology and so forth I didn't blink about it anymore.

Very possibly if some guy's arm is hurting him you cut it off, it doesn't hurt him anymore.

"Women mustn't walk under trees that have long limbs."

But, I've begun to believe that the answer isn't in physical manipulation in any illness! The answer isn't in physical manipulation.

I don't know if you know that here about Australia but the Aborigine woman mustn't walk under a tree that has a long limb unless she wants a baby because that's how she conceives. Because thetans hang by their heels from these long limbs and wait for a woman to walk by and after that they haunt her until she bears a child, you see. Did you know about this?

I see somebody's infection cured up very nicely, somebody's infection is all cured up and so forth, and he's okay now, isn't he? And then five years goes by and the thing finishes out the rest of the cycle of action. Yeah! Yeah, you cure up this fellow's suppurating ear, and he's all straight, and his ear's all cured up, and so forth — and this is in the absence of any other processing, you see, than just putting medication and squirting him, and killing off bugs and doing this and that, and then he goes up the track a ways and all of a sudden he has this strange illness that nobody can quite diagnose. Well, the strange illness that he has that nobody can quite diagnose is of course the remainder of the cycle of action of the illness that was started and cured earlier! And that's it. And it appears in many peculiar versions.

Audience: No.

No, the answer lies not in cure at all. The answer lies in resolving a person's desire to be ill.

I always love to tell a country about itself.

And everybody, even the medicos would tell you, why, they'd say, "Hubbard is correct about this. Known this for years! Years! Preventive medicine is much better than curative medicine. Known it for years!" Well, they've known it for years, why the hell didn't they do something about it?

Actually the superstition and witchcraft and shamanism and that sort of thing of the Aborigines in Australia furnish some wonderful examples of how wild you can get to the production of an intended effect. See? Ah, it just goes wilder and wilder.

Because you can't prevent illness, physical illness with other physical means. Get the idea? You can't prevent physical illness.

Most healings done amongst the Aborigines the — with the magic healing crystal and so on. And they've got various incantations and "now-I'm-supposed-to's" and so forth.

Because illness is basically a creative function. A person has mocked himself up an illness. Now, you're going to cure somebody's mock-ups, by shooting him — excuse me ladies — shooting him in the butt with a ten-inch needle. You're not going to cure any mock-ups that way, I can absolutely assure you! You're going to give him another mock-up. You get the idea?

If you think this is totally Aboriginal — if you think this is totally Aborigi­nal, I ran an engram out of a pc one time, a prenatal, an attempted abortion, and mama was reading the directions on the medicine she was supposed to take to abort the child, you know? There was evidently an incantation involved with the medicine because she read this over two or three times, and she says, "You know, I — I don't think it's the — it's the words, it's probably the medicine that does the work."

Oh, don't be so shocked.

And actually, the guy was stuck in this thing, see, an old — old Dianetic processing — it was just, "Oh, wow!" and you start running out the semantics, you know, and realizing what grip these semantics have actually had on the person's life. And that one, that one, he was always going around, not think­ing quite that the words did it. There must be something else to do with it, you know. And he had just had that as a standard, routine reaction. And he was the most semantically spun-in general semanticist I ever met. He had just spun right in on the subject.

That's not the way to cure mock-ups.

And we cleared that phrase out of the bank, and — and this whole inci­dent and so forth, and he responded entirely differently to words. But here's the creation of an effect by vias.

Actually you can do some weird things with mock-ups by physiological reaction. Just rapidly I can tell you, you can — you can make somebody's mock-ups eight times as big as life with physical manipulation.

Now, a mechanical society begins to create and produce effect by vias. More and more vias, less and less man, and more and more via. You got the idea? And eventually it has all the vias, sunk in concrete and no men left.

You can take oxygen, for instance, pure oxygen; slap it on somebody's nose and let him breathe nothing else for quite a little while, keep the ciga­rettes away from him, because if he explodes of course, he'll blow up like a punctured balloon. If he's got a couple of steel teeth and clicks them together he's had it, you know.

Oh, it's going that way now. You look at some of the fellows that are — move around in the cities. The so-called beatnik generation, and so forth. These guys, wow! You know? The fashion, you know, is to be no meat, totally weak, you know, and always talk circuitously about nothing. You know, total purposelessness, you know, just spin-spin.

But you would be fascinated at how many pictures he sees. See, oxygen does something to pictures. Well, that's fine, that's fine.

We were discussing just a little while ago the new generation that's going to follow in after that because we might as well invent the new genera­tion. Consider the beatnik generation passé right now, you see, and just con­sider it's old fashioned.

CO2 does something to pictures. And you take an awful lot of CO2, don't take it in the ice version, and stuff it into somebody's lungs, he's going to see a lot of pictures! Something's going to happen to the pictures of the case. That's for sure.

And the new generation actually is, you go out and have experiences so that you can then sit down, all by yourself and contemplate them. I think they'd buy this on a dwindling spiral.

And you take a lot of cyanide gas and push it into his lungs, he's going to see a lot of pictures. In fact, you can make people see a lot of pictures.

The next point would not even be able to talk pointlessly, you see, but just contemplation of self, no third dynamic left.

Now, you can give somebody old-time Dianazene, which consists of enor­mous quantities of calcium, enormous quantities of ascorbic acid and vitamin B1, maybe a few little other things to put edges on it. You can give him a lot of these, just cram him full. You can actually move him through some rather fantastically chronic engrams. He just moves to a different place in the engram. Does something to cancer. I don't know what. I don't say it cures cancer. It just does something to it. Skin cancer and things like that, I've seen it turn on on a pc, just giving them doses of this stuff, and then it runs out. Fellow has had kind of a poor skin before, he winds up with a fairly good skin.

But you might trick them, you see, into going out and having experi­ences that they could contemplate and bust the whole thing sky-wide and handsome.

If you don't carry it on through to a full course — of course the other factor involved is nicotinic acid, is the main thing that does this.

You're not particularly afflicted with that in Australia, but boy, it's — it's really getting somewhere in the United States today. I mean, it's the push-button world.

If you don't carry it through to a full course of it, you leave him hung up in something. And a full course is — nicotinic acid turns on so many hot flashes and all kinds of other things with them and it's so damned uncom­fortable, if you'll excuse me, that finishing up a course is highly unlikely. You got the idea?

In England they're terrified of automation, even yet, and they can well be. The supplantation of the man by the machine; that's probably the only place where Labor Party and the Socialist and so forth have really got a point; he ought to make his point stick.

Well, you talk about physical manipulation. I talked to you a few min­utes ago about swami work. Well, man, there's nothing — nothing to it, if you want to — somebody to see pictures or change physical form, or — or something like that, all you do is utilize the other-determinism on the case, considering it's stronger than the pc, and bring about a result through hypnotism. All you've got to do is lower the responsibility of somebody to zero, and you've got him hypnotized, that's the total action of hypnotism. Just explain to some-body carefully and over a long period of time how he's not responsible for anything and he'll eventually go flutter, bang! That's the exact mechanism of hypnotism, and of course you can change the physical form of the body one way or the other. There's nothing much to this.

Of course, I've got my nerve talking about the Laborites and Socialists and so forth in England because two or three of their highest members are Scientologists. And the only reason I never put on the pressure in this par­ticular direction or I don't talk about them particularly, is, we're just trying to get them in for a little more processing. And, they're doing all right. In fact, I don't think one of them wanted to win the last election. I think he just figured out that it would be a bad thing to win the election. I do. I think he threw in the chips. Not to lose, I just think he thought it'd be bad for the country.

You could hypnotize him, it doesn't even take any time to hypnotize somebody. And the reason they don't hypnotize everybody is because hypno­tists are just chicken. That's right. They're scared. They're cowards. You don't realize how far you've got to go sometimes. And it's of no real value, of no value at all. It improves the forces and masses of the body maybe but totally at the expense of the pc. There's nothing there if you haven't got a pc there, so why bother to shift the mass around, you know. You can make a girl look twice as good in some fashion, physically. Make this thetan's body look nicer physically. The thetan however, after that, is going around in a total fog. What good's a body, see?

Now, the number of vias, then, the number of magic incantations and the number of this and the number of that, added to the line, actually reduce the actual effect that the person can produce. See?

Oh, if you want to decorate the universe learn to be a sculptor and just sculpt up some bodies. You don't have to pick on thetans.

But you've got pure cause-distance-effect, when we're discussing that. Now, in a situation where you are getting a co-effect, as in auditing, what we're trying to do is get the maximum result from a minimum of vias. We're trying to go straight to the exact thing that has to be hit in a case. And then move the person from being obsessive effect-point, over to being cause-point over that exact thing; and then strip the vias off, which are his comm lags; strip the vias off and his familiarity with that; move that up to a point where he doesn't have to be that to produce an effect.

The point I'm making here is the physiological shift about, and the hocus-pocus and the monkey business, and the overwhelming and — and all of that sort of stuff. Oh, I could have told you this years ago, and it mostly would have been opinion, or you would have assigned it to my own penchants or something of this sort. But today — today I've — I've had to face this whole question all over again.

Now, the odd part of it is, he'll drop it if you simply rehabilitate his abil­ity to produce an effect.

And I find out that sure, if somebody has got a broken leg, for God sakes put a splint on it. If he's bleeding to death, why put a tourniquet on him, patch him up, hook him together, and then for God's sakes process it out if you want him to get anyplace. Because he's the one that had the broken leg, he's the one that got the broken leg, and it's very unpalatable — and you needn't go telling the public this — that each fellow is carrying with him his own self-germinated germ of destruction. See?

Now auditing — auditing is a highly specialized case because it's not pure Axiom 10 proposition at all.

It's an awful thing to saddle people with. You just take somebody that's not a Scientologist, and hasn't ever come up two inches and has got no reality on nowhere, and say, "Well, you know that operation you had there in 1949?"

Axiom 10 occurs so that the pc can then move to cause without having to put the auditor at effect. Because remember, there doesn't have to be cause-distance-effect at all.

And he says, "Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's there all right."

In fact the Buddhist is so terrified of cause-distance-effect that he tells you, quite foolishly, that "You must not think of cause, and you must not think of effect. You must not have anything to do with cause. Not have any-thing to do with effect." Well, somebody had an idea someplace or another, but that's about the wildest rendition anybody ever heard of. You're not sup-posed to think of cause. You're not supposed to think of effect. In other words, you're always supposed to be talked to from nowhere! And, you're always sup-posed to receive at noplace. And, you're not supposed to be anywhere when you talk to anybody. And, you're not supposed to talk to anybody that's there. That sounds totally insane, doesn't it? Or awfully Asian!

You say, "Well! You mocked the whole thing up. Did it yourself exclu­sively. Totally! That was just you. That was nobody else."

Now, one of the things you're trying to do is not trying to make people — one of the things you're not trying to do — you're not trying to make people slice in hard, harder and harder and harder and to further and further and further confirmation — belief in Axiom 10! Don't you see?

You know, he won't buy it.

You're not supposed to bring about further and further, and harder and harder belief in — in the cycle of action! See? These things are ... You're not trying to enforce these laws, you're trying to establish fluidity over these laws.

And yet actually the only way out of it is for him to process it from that viewpoint.

And there's a lot of ways you could do it. But a person finds out that Axiom 10 is safe, cycle of action is safe, and the communication formula is safe and they make a sort of a security, and a hold-together of the universe.

Old Dianetics worked because, covertly, the person was taking responsi­bility for having done it.

Now, if your pc is going to wind up with these three things: the commu­nication formula, the cycle of action and Axiom 10 — if he's going to wind up with these three things, for God sakes, at least, let him have them separate. Not identified. Establish some cause over these things!

And quite incidentally in erasing the engram you erased his overts in the engram itself, somehow or another, and it worked itself out and came on up the line. Well, that's rather clumsy compared to what we do now.

Now, he doesn't have to pitch them out the window because the second he pitched them out the window, why, he'd lose one of the operating mecha­nisms by which he has concourse with his fellow man! See?

You could simply sit a fellow down, and say, "Think of an overt against a woman. Thank you." "Think of an overt against a woman. Thank you." "Think of an overt against a woman." You know, or "Think of something you've done to a woman." "Think of something you might have done to a woman." Or anything like that. You know, any overt, any way you want to phrase it, just call it over and over and over and the bank will just start stripping off one way or the other, you know. There it goes.

But it doesn't mean that these are necessary to his concourse with his fellow man. They are not totally necessary. They are at this stage of the game necessary for his fellow man! And if you start soaring above these laws, and start communicating, why, let's not get too surprised. Don't be too surprised if you find yourself somewhere outside the perimeter of these laws, somewhere along the next few weeks or few months or few years. You understand? Don't let this panic you.

The fellow says, "I've got a nice, great big, juicy engram here. And they're killing me. And they're hanging me. And ..."

First you'd move outside and you'd say, "Wait a minute, I'm communicat­ing without being cause-point. How could I be doing that?"

Killing him and hanging him, be damned. He had to cooperate across the board to get killed and hanged.

Well, you're doing that in the first place by not being obsessively located on a pinhead. See, you don't have to be anywhere if you don't want to be.

And he says, "They're killing me and hanging me. And, and ..."

And you're not communicating by means of having a particle cross a dis­tance because communication doesn't occur that way anyhow. That's just an apparency. Communication occurs right where you are or it doesn't occur at all.

And you say, "All right. Now, just let's ..." The Scientologist would sim­ply say, "Well, let's get your overts off of this." Mm, he'd strip them down and all of a sudden the picture goes!

And furthermore, you're communicating with something or somebody by having your intention occur where he is. But if he isn't anywhere particu­larly, it's occurring as he is, not where he is. And if you're communicating as you are, not where you are, without distance, to as he is, and if you're doing it simultaneously so there is no time factor involved in it, of any kind whatso­ever, you've just thrown the communication formula out the window. Got the idea?

Now, he doesn't have to experience the whole picture and be hanged all over again, the way he did in Dianetics, see?

Audience: Yes.

Now, the difference between taking responsibility for being the cause of it and not, is that you keep on going through the same incident if you don't take the cause-point on it. You have to relive it and reexperience it and re-this-a-that, and re-so and so on.

But all of your communication depended, all the time you were communi­cating, on what I have just gone over. It didn't depend on cause-distance-effect at all. That's one to think about, see.

Well, you can just kiss this one goodbye the second that you can get a pc to take cause.

So, when you drop off these obsessive laws, don't be so surprised to find out the phenomenon can still exist.

As soon as he starts taking the cause, you find out that he's plotting all the way through this hanging, you see. Plotting at this and plotting at that and plotting at the other thing and so on.

Now, when you get up to an actress producing a tremendous effect on an audience without even going to the theater, well that's certainly a high action of the highest purpose.

It's easier to do if you say, "Where'd the hanging take place?"

There's worse than that. Supposing she were known everywhere as a wonderful actress and yet she had never produced any effect on anybody that anybody could find out about. Well, she is probably producing an effect on people to be thought of as a "wonderful actress." And she could probably have that without producing the effect, don't you see.

"Ah, you, I don't know and so on, this planet — this planet! Yeah, it was this planet."

And there's Axiom 10 out the window.

"Well, what country was it?"

And if you ever get born again and decide your family thinks you're awful stupid, so you get to be an old man at very — an old man with gray hair at ten years of age because you're tired of school or something, you know, and tell them all about it and then young, down to the degree that they get used to having you around and then remain at seventeen ... Let's not get too upset about it. Got the idea?

"Well, that doesn't matter much. This planet. This planet. It was on this planet."

You're not violating laws to do this sort of thing. This isn't done by viola­tion of laws. It's done by the realization of laws. Anytime you want to have a freedom of a law, why, just realize the law totally. It'll as-is; cease to be a via on conduct.

And you say, "Good. Well now, think of an overt against this planet." Just as stupidly simple as that, you see. And his track with regard to this planet frees up. His memory restores and he snaps back into power again. You see?

This is why people superstitiously, only, believe that without processing or assistance or anything else, you can suddenly spring full armed from the brain of Jove, you know, that sort of thing. And just "think a certain thought" and you're an OT overnight, you know, bang, you know.

Now, you're erasing overts, however, I call to your attention. You're eras­ing overts, you're not necessarily rehabilitating a person's judgment. Got the idea?

Oh, yeah? Well you can strip off that many considerations, that much experience, that much distrust, and that much lack of confidence in one split instant? Uhhh! You can just dive overboard into this horrible black pool called the unknown and you're going to swim very, very happily and then suddenly emerge from it pure and lily white ... No. No, it's something that's not necessarily approached slowly either.

"So, what effect could you or would you be willing to produce on this planet that you think you could produce on this planet?"

But it's certainly approached through a realization of what it isn't, as well as a realization of what it is.

That's a very long, clumsy auditing command. There are much better ones but I'm just trying to give you the full, horrible substance of exactly what an Axiom 10 command would be.

And a high operating state, as a person, is not a state of operation "via." See, you use what vias you consider necessary. Don't necessarily economize on vias. Although I've seen — I've seen old-timers in the Old West base all of their pride and manliness upon the lack of vias.

What effect — you know, he's got this hanging and he said it's this planet.

I've seen some old guy with a canteen and a frying pan and one blanket, you know, perfectly willing to walk two hundred miles through a roaring bliz­zard, you know? And he comes out the other side and points to the fact that he didn't have two blankets. You know? He was proud! Very proud.

"What effect would you be willing to produce on this planet that you could produce on this planet?"

You arrive in his midst and — I've actually had this experience — mosquitoes were swarming around, as only they do in the north woods, one time and they were ... well, actually if you fired a pistol ball straight in front of your face occasionally you could see where you were going; it would clear the mosquitoes out for a moment.

That's not an auditing command, that's just the substance of what you'd have to ask him.

And an old-timer was trudging along back of me, part of a survey crew, and he was trudging along, you know, and pretty soon I stopped, and we were carrying a canoe, and I stopped, and we put this — made him put the canoe down, and I reached into my pocket, and I got a little, tiny vial of citronella out, you know, a little, tiny one. I unscrewed the top and put citronella on my face — put it on my face, put the vial back.

And after a while, he says, "What effect could I ... Oh, man. Oh, wow! Oh, no! Well, let's see, if I was down at a beach, and there was a footprint in the beach, I could probably blow a grain of sand a quarter of an inch across the footprint. Yeah, I could produce that effect. I guess."

The old man looked at me, you know, there were mosquitoes layered about that thick on his own face. He looked at me and he says, "Tenderfoot." It took me a hell of a long time to get his respect back.

Now, with that process he comes up with judgment as the final product. Get the idea? You give him exercise in judgment and so forth, and he starts letting go of all the laws that restrain him.

I'd added one item, you see, of assistance in standing up to the environ­ment, more than he considered the absolute minimum. That's a matter of vias.

The restoration of judgment is a necessary ingredient to the making of OTs. And, practice in reestimating effects will attain this. And those things are pretty necessary to what you're doing. Somebody's got to get back to that.

Oh, there's also nothing wrong with having inflating beds, and pump-up camp stoves, and hot and cold running butlers! There's actually nothing wrong with it at all, until you fall for it as a necessity.

The odd part of it is he won't erase the laws until he thinks he's got judgment. He's got to have some judgment. Nothing I'm telling you here is upsetting anything you're doing. I'm just telling you that there's a further ingredient.

And basically what occurs in a game like this is — is you've got to explain to everybody why you've got all this junk, and eventually buy your own argu­ment. You tell them, "It's absolutely necessary." That's basically what occurs.

This answers the age-old puzzle of "How does the pc become aberrated?"

But before you start throwing junk away, I'm afraid you will have to see rather clearly through your own actions, efforts, processing, realizations, cog­nitions and so forth, that you can get someplace without it. You see?

Well, he becomes aberrated by plotting it up himself to restrain himself from breaking his own ideas of proper moral conduct. In the absence of moral codes, why, he substitutes them for himself. And although he'll live whole lives of being lawless, he sooner or later returns himself to being a monk. Got the idea? And he runs various miscompensations for this sort of thing, and eventually winds up in a fairly aberrated condition.

As soon as you can see that, why, you'll start pitching the little hand-knitted sewing kit that Mama gave you just before you moved out on the Indian campaign or something of the sort, and you'll be willing to pitch this thing into the ditch, you know it's ...

But judgment, not trustworthiness so much, but just judgment of being able to create effects which match up to an optimum solution, is in itself an adequate rehabilitation for a thetan, and would of itself bring him back up to OT, no matter what process, type or route did it.

And then the other way to, you'll get to a point where you're perfectly willing to carry two hundred of them. You say, "Look, this is a hand-knitted sewing kit. It sews baby clothes. That's what we need up here on the frontier." Of course that's a production of an effect in itself. You do something like that very often, it utterly dazzles people! See?

Okay?

I have, once in a blue moon, pulled something out of the kit at sea or something like that, which is totally unlikely, utterly incredible, such as a beach umbrella on a war vessel. I've had whole crews almost terrified of me because things like this kept happening, you know.

Audience: Mm-hm.

But basically it isn't how much you have or how much you don't have. It's just basically how much you absolutely have to have. You see? As composed [opposed] to how much can you acquire, you see?

Thank you.

And if you can get the have to have and the must off of the vias, and that's the way it is, you still have a game. I'm afraid you don't have a case. Thank you.