Man can be said to be not quite optimum. Man very often stops and scratches his head when he should be running and very often runs when he should stop and scratch his head.

When you see somebody eating by pouring porridge into his shoes, you would know he was aberrated. Isn't that so! It is a little less obvious that a man is aberrated when he simply says, "Now, let me think." Oh boy, is he nuts.

There's nothing like obtaining extremes. An Aristotelian mean of speed of rendition here doesn't happen to be part of the goals.

"Let me think." He thinks that thinking has something to do with time, and he thinks the more you think, well, the better the solution is going to be. That's evidently what he's operating on. "The longer it takes me to think of the solution, why, the better the solution is going to be." He operates on that. "It must be a good book. It took him eight years to write it."

Want to tell you, just in a few brief words, about the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, its functions. The organization is a continuation of organizations which have, with greater or lesser success, carried on this work.

And you know, the big joke on that last one is very, very - is a very big joke. You go through the famous books that man considers today to be classics and find out how long it took that author to write that book in each case. You will be stunned,

It has taken more than two years to stabilize the organizational picture in Dianetics and Scientology. The reason for this was - I'm afraid I'm cause - the reason for this was my own attention was being given rather exclusively to investigation, processing, writing, not to business management.

You had a fellow by the name of Dickens. Dickens is an interesting fellow. He's what we'd call a fast-action writer. He's a high-speed word mechanic, high speed. Do you know that there isn't a penny-a-liner or a newspaperman or a magazine writer working in the world today who comes up to the production speed of Charles Dickens? And he did it all by hand. It was all "writ by hand," so to speak.

And when you leave organizations alone and do very little for them or about them, they have a tendency to, let us say, occasionally get a wheel over the edge of the road and pile into brick walls, and other things happen to them.

That's interesting, isn't it? His stuff is still around. He was slapping that stuff out at five thousand words a day. I'd like to see one of these huh! - I would like to see Charles Atwood Inkslinger writing at five thousand worlds [words] a day. "It took him - must be a great book; it took him twelve years to produce it."

But my adjudication was made actually first in the very early part of 1950 - I gave over to some people that I thought, "Well, maybe I can trust these people," the organization of the first Foundation in this line. And it carried forward for a good long while; it went on for about a year before it fell on its face.

No, it's just not sensible. When you're dealing with thought, the better thinking is done in the less times. Because thinking which is done in terms of energy is bad because it's very reactive, very reactive, Heavy energy thinking is very bad. A nation tries to work out its problems by going to war with tanks and guns. That is what's known as heavy thinking. And it's slow and it doesn't solve much.

But it was certain that it would sooner or later, because in 1950 I even stopped corresponding on the subject of that organization because I found out I was working eighteen hours a day. Now, any time you want to work eighteen hours a day, you let me know, and I know where there's a job for you. Got a pair of shoes here you can have.

The more one gets into energy, the less applicable, generally, the solutions will be. That's just a little truism; happens to work out that way.

And I found out that I had not written the second book and that much material which should have been in public hands, not just in the Foundation's hands, should have been put into book form. And so, in October of 1950, I decided that what little contact I had maintained with the central organization had to be itself broken. And I went down to Palm Springs, and I took an auditor and a secretary and got to work and simply started backing off each successive spot of impact in order to conclude the investigation.

So that what a man is really saying when he says, "Let me think," he's saying, "Let me look for data." Well, there's nothing wrong with finding data with which to think. Well then, the man would be the smartest who could find the data fastest. Isn't that so!

I had learned to a large degree what I had to know: is how much did we have to know about the mind to permit an auditor to get results uniformly.

Now, someone who says, "Let me think," he probably means "Maybe" Or "I don't want to do it." He's using some sort of a stall there.

I knew what I could do about the mind; I knew what people I immediately trained could do about the mind, but I have seen what people broadly could or could not do about the mind.

But here he actually believes it takes him a long time to think of something, and he's considered it carefully. Well, if he considered it carefully, if he just went and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought - oh, no. Oh, no, he isn't considering it carefully at all. He's lust being totally reactive and sort of walking around in small circles and so on.

And so, the codification of material had to continue. And believe me, the codification of what you know is as important or more important as an operation, as a thinking process, than what you know.

If he went and he got this problem and "Let me thin," and he got the problem and then he said, "Let's see. Now, the data associated with this problem are so-and-so and so-and-so, and I'll have to go look that up and I'll have to think of this and I'll have to ask so-and-so and so on. And I'I1 get this data together, and then I'll know the answer and it's obvious. Yeah. And there's the answer," That would be time in thinking. Yes, it takes a certain amount of time to go through the motions of acquiring data, and it sometimes takes a certain amount of time to recall data. But the accumulation of data to the solution of a problem is not length of time spent in considering. And yet, man uniformly has this level.

Now, there's something very strange about this, but you can know something and not have it all fitted into the English language, and so you had better find out that there are two steps here: one, to know something and the other to be able to simplify and communicate it.

Now, there are other fellows that go around and they think out loud, and they talk to themselves, or they think vocally in their heads. This is wonderful. Fellow says, "Now, let me see, I don't know quite where I should ... I guess I better go down; I better take the tube. Yes. No. I better not take the tube. It's only two or three blocks, I'll walk. No, I'I1 take the tube. No, I just decided to carry this bundle here. This bundle is very heavy. And I wonder what...?" Actually? Actually. The modern writer has gotten so daffy, Boy, is he a reactive character. He puts down "stream of consciousness" for all of his characters. And the world has really become convinced that this is the way people think. Well, it's the way crazy people think. (audience laughter) You take Gene O'Neill's Strange Interlude, for one play. There's several other plays and so on, where the characters - the characters say, "I hate you." And then sort of turn aside - Shakespeare, other modern playwrights do this - turn aside and say, "The reason I hate him is so-and-so and so-and-so and then so on," And they vocalize a stream of consciousness known as - early in theater - as an aside, and later and very, very modern in theater, the stream of consciousness.

Now, in my own opinion, I think I've done quite well hitting this on a level of three years, because today auditors get very, very excellent results, and they continue to get them. And what we know about the mind and about this universe and about other things is codified. It isn't just known.

The only consciousness of a stream of consciousness would be the passing and shuffling of energy. Energy doesn't think, man thinks.

Now, there are process after process after process. There's technique after technique after technique, any one of which, if you just took this one technique and you kept on drumming with this technique in Dianetics or Scientology, either one, you would get there with a case. That's quite important, do you see!

So this would be a real daffy one. And yet, you find practically anybody doing this. So what's human aberration? Well, I'm afraid it's being human, That sounds a little extreme. Only thing I'm trying to deliver to you there is a datum: is that insanity is not an absolute, neurosis is not an absolute, aberration is not an absolute and sanity is not an absolute, None of these are absolute data. All data is relative to data. A man is crazier than others, A man is saner than others. A man is more susceptible to correct solutions than another man. You get the relativity here we're dealing in.

But now we have the techniques which stand over the top of all these various scattered techniques and that we can point to and say, "You do it this way. You take two eggs, you take a bowl, you break the eggs in the bowl - you make sure they're fresh eggs - and you break them in the bowl and then you take a fork and you beat them up. And then you take a pint of milk - and the first thing you know, you have a preclear who is cleared." Now, therefore, you could actually start out, and with the purest mechanical line, just follow this material just mechanically, just sort of dumbly, mechanically follow this material and you'd get there, and you wouldn't quite know where you were when you got there, maybe, but you'd be there. Or you could know the background of the techniques, or you could know the background of the theory and the techniques and the cake recipe. You see, there's these various stages.

Now, it is true that there is a state where everyone agrees somebody is crazy. There is that level. There is a state. And so we're dealing with what the society or the group thinks is or agrees is aberrated, as our term of aberration.

So the HAS is now in the United States about, oh, very well over a year old - a half a year old here - and getting older all the time as time happens to have a habit of doing, of increasing havingness or doing something about it. And we are operating on a stability because we aren't trying to do more than we can do.

Now, we've gone a little bit further than that in Dianetics and Scientology, and we can actually graph a state of ability to estimate correct behavior to solve problems and so on. We can graph this with great ease and we can demonstrate it in various ways. So we have an arbitrary numerical value which could be assigned to this. But we agree on that.

Now, I know how much you can start to do that you can't do organizationally in this world of ours in the twentieth century And I know organizations can't do a lot of things that you might think offhand, just at a glance, they could do. And the main problem throughout has been personnel.

And so again the public at large simply agrees what's psychotic, what's neurotic, what's aberrated and what's sane.

We have a type of organizational setup now which is devoted to performing certain functions and stressing those functions above every other function, One is to - and that's first and foremost - to make a darned good auditor. It's the first function of the HAS. And the next function to that is to try as well as possible to take care of his problems, particularly in relationship to new techniques, retraining and that sort of thing.

It's very amusing that the one they haven't agreed on most is what's sane. You'll find practically nobody getting together and discussing how sane anybody is. And if they do, the subject of the conversation is found to be some intolerable sourpuss who is merely terribly, practically stubborn. They're very sane and very practical. That's right.

And another one is procurement of preclears. That's something else, but that line has not been hit well, going solidly, and is just now being hit well and solidly. And actually, the lectures which I'm giving you right here are an advancement of that line.

Did you ever run into one of these practical people? The definition of being practical is not doing anything, I guess, or that you can find them doing very little.

Now, the continuing functions, then, as we go down the line, is to guarantee some sort of good public representation for the subjects and to provide contacts and literature for the public. Now, that is done on what we call "V" staff, so that the organization is divided into two halves.

Now, in short, we don't have a basic definition here which is susceptible to an unquestioned or absolute value, but we do have definitions. And you could say sanity is the ability to resolve problems. You could say a person is sane when he can resolve problems with a predominance of correctness, Person would be sane who solved problems. Will solve problems in what way? Solve problems in the direction of survival for himself or the upper dynamics. You see?

One is there is the central staff, which is the main organization. It takes care of training, it takes care of servicing, and it takes care of the public on a very stable level. That is to say, people who want training, people who need advice, people who want information, and providing those people with publications. Now, that's all done by the central staff.

So, the relative ability to resolve problems relating to survival would make a gradient scale of how sane a person was. And that would - it requires a definition of right and wrong which is an acceptable definition. This definition of right and wrong is sufficiently acceptable to have caused the committee on evidence of the New York Bar Association to meet, and they are still in the progress of considering changes in the rules of evidence, because these new data have thrown out old data on evidence. We have actually spearheaded in the field of jurisprudence with this.

And then we have another organization which is part of the same organization, and that's voluntaire staff. The voluntary staff evolved from this basis, It's very interesting that the central staff functions cannot exist and continue in a good stable condition in the absence of a volunteer staff.

Sanity is the ability to tell right from wrong. That is the definition under law. That's sanity, the definition - tell right from wrong.

Why! Because everybody wants to volunteer into the central organization. And the central organization has a certain function. You come along, you say, "Got a brand-new idea. And this will really put the show on the road and this will get Scientology accepted here and there," and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. And you hit the central organization with this. And everybody starts wearing that hat or everybody just throws up his hands and says, "We're just doing too much now."

It's a pretty good definition, by the way. The fellow who thought that up was very good. Because you get a little kid, and you ask him what's right and what's wrong. And he can tell you pretty well. He knows what's right and what's wrong.

Well, we just move that out of the central staff and move it over in the voluntary staff. And voluntary staff, then, takes care of the public advance, the advancement of Dianetics and Scientology into various fields and does have itself a small permanent staff, but it counts on the volunteer worker in order to carry things forward.

But if you find a real bad one that is completely - just seems to be utterly uncontrollable, you ask him what's right and what's wrong: one, he doesn't care or he doesn't know.

Now, by keeping those things separate, oddly enough, it isn't that we just have a better organization, it's that we have an organization. Big difference there.

Now, that's fascinating! Some children I have worked with have told me bluntly, "I think my father and mother must be crazy, because they say that it's possible to tell right from wrong." Put that down. So it's a wonderful little definition, actually, but it was completely useless as long as we did not have a definition for what rightness is and what wrongness is. It just put it - moved it over one category. We had this definition that sanity was the ability to tell right from wrong, and insanity or criminality were the inabilities to tell right from wrong. And then we never said what right - what was right and what was wrong.

Now, the HAS tries to engage in public service wherever possible. How much public service it can engage in has a great deal to do with its finance, has a great deal to do with a lot of other things.

Wrong according to who? A man goes out and shoots a duck. That's right according to the man; it's awfully wrong according to the duck. All right.

We are trying to pull a hill here without asking for - without needing large quantities of MEST. You won't see too much MEST around the HAS from now till doomsday. There's too much MEST comes around, there's too many station wagons start sitting around out front and there are too many uniformed chauffeurs running around. If it ever gets to that level - and too many ivory columns - I can tell the central staff to beware, because some night there will be a loud boom. And believe me, I will be the first one that is surprised to hear about it.

So right and wrong is the crux of the matter. So we have to define right and wrong. And we have a workable definition for rightness and wrongness: That thing is right which contributes to the survival of the entities or beings on the greatest number of the dynamics. In other words, an optimum solution, the rightness of that optimum solution, or its degree that it is optimum, depends upon the amount that it benefits the survival of the most dynamics. And a problem is wrong in the degree that it inhibits the survival along the dynamics, So maximal benefit to the survival of all those things concerned with the problem would be right. Minimal destruction to those things concerned with the problems would be right. Maximal destruction to those things concerned in the problem would be wrong, and minimal constructiveness or benefit would be wrong.

That is the surest way in the world to stop, the surest way in the world. There's an old axiom about this: "When the troops start to accumulate too much baggage, they stop accumulating empire." Now, we've got a subject to put forward, and our goal is not the accumulation of ivory towers. We'll carry forward this function as best we can. This organization is very far from perfect, believe me. It's as perfect as can be made in this year, this century, within the reality of what Home sapiens is doing and what Home sapiens wants and tries to do. Now, it'll continue to be as perfect within that reality as possible, but you see, that reality is a long way from perfect.

So you see, rightness, then, is that which assists survival; wrongness is that which inhibits survival. And we get these two principles and we find an astonishing number of problems will solve themselves.

And the organization is trying along every line to be as helpful as possible and to get Scientology and Dianetics as far as possible. Now, we're taking care of the third dynamic here very, very interestingly.

For instance, is it right for you to live? Well, that's a nice question, but.,. All right.

And there's a fourth dynamic, you know. And there are atom bombs and there's all sorts of things. Well, let's get this third dynamic pretty well straightened out.

Now that you are living, is it right for you to take any benefit from others? Is it right for you to think about yourself at all?

Now, we have the techniques which can straighten out the first dynamic, and it's when we had those techniques that we could jump off and be adventurous on the subject of a third dynamic. And we're operating from a security that would make the Rock of Gibraltar look like a piece of paper in a storm as far as technique is concerned, You show me a psychosomatic illness that can't be cured, and I will (1) hang you with a technique to cure it and (2) show you that it can go away.

Now, that's an interesting question, because most people will hedge and because of political this-and-that, social something or other, they will say, "Well, hm, well, humh-urn, huh."

The reason why these things don't fold up are several. Occasionally they don't fold up in the hands of an auditor. That's a little bit different than not folding up in my hands or not folding up in an instructor's hands. You get that?

You can almost ruin a man by simply demonstrating to him that he is receiving some benefits from others.

It's how much work are we willing to do! Well, fortunately, we've even shortened down the techniques to a point where that can be done on the very rough case, too, For instance, next week I'll be over here talking to the professional students again about this horrible Case Level V, so forth. Now, we're doing, then - we're operating from a security and we're trying to do a job to that degree.

You say, "Look, somebody's doing something for you."

It isn't so much that someone who is trying to help on this is helping us. He's helping man and he's helping himself. Man needs some help, you know! This is sort of the last station on the line. That's the truth for the line.

"Oh, no, they're not."

And when a lot of boys, unfortunately some of them my classmates, get slap-happy and say, "Well now, you know, it's an odd thing, but if you put too much plutonium in too close a proximity to too much plutonium, you get a complete absence of Great Britain. And this is a wonderful fact." And they seem to be able to go right along - right along the line and say, "This is a wonderful fact."

You find some people charming. Do you know that people exist in the society and depend for their total ability to live on this: They let people do things for them. It's the truth! I mean, the blind man down on the comer serves a very, very excellent purpose in the society; he stands there and lets people give him something.

If somebody had come to me in 1938 and said, "Would you now engage your knowledge and so forth in the construction of a bomb to end all bombs!" why, I would have said, "Aren't you an interesting fellow. Aren't you cute."

Never thought about it this way, did you? But you can think back across your own past, and the most trying person you knew was the person you couldn't help. And that person you could help the least is bound to be that person who is the most aberrative to you.

They had a cartoon at the California Institute of Technology: is a scientist standing on a platform before an enormous room full of scientists. And he said, "Gentlemen, I have here the last product, the ne plus ultra, the final goal of our scientific age. In this small capsule is enough explosive to destroy the universe."

You take a man down here in an asylum and he is - terrible condition. You go straight across the boards with him trying to find out what you can do to help him. You get no attention whatsoever from him. You're trying to make him sane. You're getting nothing in return until you will give him - perhaps you will be able to do this, perhaps not - you will be able to establish something he can still help. That's interesting, isn't it? There's something he can still help. Well now, you wouldn't think that would make a man sane, but it will.

Now, nevertheless, the boys went ahead and built an atom bomb. I guess it was wonderful to them to wake up with a shock, by the way, in 1945 and to find out they'd built an atom bomb. I suppose before that they didn't know it, because they were all so shocked.

If you were to take an E-Meter and put an insane person on the E-Meter and just go over the things in the various dynamics: "Can you help children?" "Can you help cats?" "Can you help this?" "Can you help that?" You all of a sudden might find out that he's able to help horses. Send him to a horse farm? He'll be the sanest guy on it! Just like that. (snap)

I talked to many of my friends at the Los Alamogordo group and so on, and they were all so surprised. They had been told by the governments, by the way, that they would one day explode this atom bomb before the spectators of Germany and Japan and say, "Now look what we've got. And if you don't stop fighting, we're going to use it against you." And these dopes fell for that. These so-called great brains fell for that story.

Doctors say, "Well, you can't tell about insanity because you're liable to get an instantaneous remission at any time." They've never looked into these so-called instantaneous remissions. Once in a while they happen on this basis: A patient faints and there's another patient present. And they say to the second patient, "Help me lift this person up," and the second patient does so and is sane after that! Ha-ha, you're not dealing with something light and tiny here; you're dealing with something that's very powerful.

And they said, "What do you know The government is so nice. All these governments are very nice, and they're going to - they're going to bring Hitler and Hirohito over here to New Mexico. And they're going to build a grandstand there, and Hitler and Hirohito are going to sit there in a grandstand. And then they're going to press a button, they're going to have an atom bomb go off and they're going to say, 'See what we're going to do to you.'"

What can a person help? What can he still help in life? That's not the highest level of establishment, but it's an interesting one. And a person, when he believes he can no longer help anything in life, believes he might as well be dead. You can convince him then that he might as well be dead because he can't help anything. He can no longer assist anything in the world.

One morning the atomic scientists read in the newspapers that seventy thousand live, breathing human beings had ceased to breathe. Why? Because he was so handy with his slipstick.

He's as healthy as he can assist things in the world. So don't for a moment think that there isn't some end to all this, because here in the field of sanity and insanity, you're not just working for nothing, you're not working unappreciatedly. You sometimes sit down and feel very sad about the fact that you are, but you're not; you appreciate you. And quite in addition to that, many people do. Many, many people do. And it's only by convincing somebody he can't help that you ruin somebody.

Well now it puts a little time factor on what we have to do, and that's unfortunate, because we ought to have about fifty years to do this job. And we don't have fifty years now. I don't know how many years we have. It all depends on how goofy central governments get.

Let's take a little kid. There's little Johnny and he runs his legs off. Every day he runs his legs off for his family. He just works for his mother until you just know that he just couldn't ... And his mother is kind of mean to him. And everybody is sort of... And you say, "That kid is a setup. That's the one that will fold up."

You see the atom bomb isn't a weapon. It's just insanity. It's an unlimited weapon against which there is no defense. The second one of those weapons appears in the society, you get chaos and the end of central government. It doesn't even have to be used to end central government. Central government suddenly says, "You know, something's happening to us." And it starts to pull everything up in a big pile and control everything and get into everything quick so as to make sure it's all nailed down, and then it sort of all fritters away. And they say, "Well" - because the definition of a sovereign state, you see, is an interesting definition, It's the ability to protect a people from a foreign aggressor. And when you can't do that, you've - this definition of a sovereign state gets interesting.

Because here's little Oscar over here - Oswald - and you could look at this child and he's got everything and he doesn't have to do anything, and he's strictly a fruitcake.

When an atom bomb can come in - somebody was telling me down here the other day, when they'd come in at three thousand miles an hour . . . They don't happen to know the newest guided-missile material. And the newest guided-missile material tells us that they'll come in at thirty thousand miles an hour.

Well now, this doesn't follow. Here's the child, everybody is mean to him and he works all the time, and he's sane and happy and cheerful, And here's this other child over here who nothing - he doesn't have to do anything and everybody is good to him and they give him everything, and he's crazy.

Somebody is going to get a radar beam on that and get a shell up and an interceptor in time to stop that thing as it comes in? Oh no. Boom. No Chicago. Boom. No New York. Boom. No Washington. Boom. No London.

Why? The difference between the two children is the ability to help: One is permitted to help and the other one is not permitted to help. And the one who's not permitted to assist knows he's no good; he just knows that. Why? Nobody will let him help, so of course he can't be any good.

Meantime, United States and Great Britain says, "Look what Russia is doing to us!" So they go out and they pull a bunch of levers, and boom, boom, boom. No Stalingrad, no Leningrad, no Moscow. And, of course, the only people who are really around by this time are pilots and people operating atom bombs. And what do you know, what do you know! It was Yugoslavia, or it was the Argentine. You don't need much to build an atom bomb. It's completely overrated.

Now, you want to know why people drive these omnibuses out here and why people - why people sit at government desks and why people teach school and all sorts of things?

So nobody knows who's going to declare war on whom, and if we don't know this fact, then we can't retaliate, can we! And yet we're told that the greatest defense is the ability to retaliate.

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

Well, let's make sure we have the ability to know against whom to retaliate before we make this defense. Nervous sort of a thing, isn't it!

Continuing this second lecture. The idea of assistance to others goes hand in glove with the idea of value of self; one is as valuable as he can assist.

Well now, my only hope is with these techniques we can get out into the third dynamic right away, you know! We have the techniques there. We don't have to run pilots on this to any great extent. The only reason we have to run pilots on this and keep records is just to convince more people. We know what this will do. And we have it right there. And we can go out along the third dynamic level, and by the time we get well out along the third dynamic level, maybe I will have think up something or you will have think up something on the fourth dynamic level. That is a very easy way of doing it.

And because people throughout life evidently feel there's a big scarcity of things they can help, they will prevent others from helping. You can talk all you want to about, "Let's all get in there together and help," but the point is that when you go along this line too much, you get - people will try to cut other people out. Somebody will come up to you and say, "You really aren't helping your class, but I can."

But the route lies through what we're talking about this afternoon. And the route to putting a muzzle on Mr. A-bomb is what we're talking about this afternoon, really. And by the way, nothing I am saying derides or decries the principles or activities of any of these central governments. They are unfortunately going down the only road they think they can follow. And they would be as happy as anybody else to have that road interrupted. And they don't want it, and you don't want it, interrupted by destruction and revolt. You want a gradual evolution into sanity.

You know, they say this in various ways. They say, "Little Johnny that you thought was getting along so well - you know, you thought he was getting along so well. Well, he died yesterday."

If you were to just start processing children today in this society and pick up juvenile delinquency as one of these levels of the processing of children, you would automatically arrive at this goal in fifteen years. You'd have all the educated children in the Western culture solidly on our side, you see! We'd be old friends. So we could do it in fifteen years. But we don't have fifteen years, so we'll just sort of have to strain at the bit and hope for the best.

They're just trying to convince you that you can't help people that way, and that's sort of - they kind of figure out dully that that permits them to. All right.

Now, there are many things that you could do and there's much that you can know in order to accomplish these goals. And just to finish up this first lecture, I'll give you a very brief resume of the ways and means of knowing for each level of process.

So, what's our ... You just work on that operational level - we find out that the mind is running along in terms of energy in most cases. It thinks it's thinking with energy. It doesn't think with energy, but it thinks it's thinking with energy. Therefore, only because it thinks it's thinking with energy, not because it does, it believes that it is a sort of a computing machine. Now, basically, as you sort out somebody's mind, you'll find this to be the case.

Now, we have here what we could call a technician. This person would be a Group Auditor. This person would not be any more formally trained than the prescribed Group Auditor's Course, the reading of some of the publications. He would be able to do Creative Processing, be able to get rid of psychosomatic ills. He'd be able to treat a group; he'd be able to adjust that group within itself. And out of experience and out of reports he will get, and out of reports he will make, his technology itself will build and he will become very knowing on this subject: groups, Creative Processing. It is not a slight thing to know, be or do. But he doesn't have to know all there is to know about everything in order to be this thing.

The mind is there to pose and resolve problems relating to survival. It thinks it solves these things with energy, so it works very mechanistically, And this isn't just from my viewpoint. I mean, this happens to be true.

The next level we have up from that is actually a pretty broad jump. It's the level of professional auditor. It takes eight weeks - usually on top of considerable knowledge of the subject already gained out of texts - eight weeks of formal training to make a professional auditor.

The mechanistic viewpoint of the calculating machine is not one which can be broadly used in terms of the human mind, because a calculating machine is neither very able nor very accurate. It's accurate within the realms of a mind directing it to be accurate, but it can't protect itself against bad data. So, therefore, it's not a very good computer.

Now, I won't say how much experience after that eight weeks it takes him. And we can only stand by, and by his practice and by our interest in him, keep him going ahead until we'll say, "He's a good professional auditor." And when we can say that, why, that's that. That's just between us guys, not for public consumption, but that's the truth of the matter about a professional auditor. It takes eight weeks of formal training, usually based on this other material, and then considerable practice on individuals.

Anybody can go up to the thing and say - instead of two million, it can write two-hundred million on the calculating-machine tape and punch it in, and it'll go on stupidly computing on two-hundred million instead of two million, and all of its answers will be wrong.

You'd be surprised how long some people have been at the study of this subject and where they've arrived. You'd be quite amazed, because, you see, you haven't got any limit on this. And at this time, some of the study which has gone in on this subject amounts to a couple of years at the university, really.

So, bad data, now, is very aberrative; bad information is very aberrative. The evaluation, then, of information is quite important. And one is as able to think as he can evaluate, not as he can memorize, Don't ever lose sight of that. He is as able to think as he can evaluate; he is not as able to think as he can memorize.

You notice the interesting child who can come in and recite the World Almanac from cover to cover, and yet who just can't seem to take care of any of the most primitive functions. You'd say, "Strange." Well, you're sort of talking to a recording tape, and it all goes in and it all comes out and so on. It's very interesting, but this child is not evaluating.

And way up above that, after he's made some original contributions to the subject and so forth, then we can talk about a Doctor of Scientology. I don't expect to see any of those around for a while. Now, those are the levels.

Some other child is apparently incapable, you'd think sometimes, of absorbing information, and all he does is evaluate information, and he doesn't record worth a nickel. And he's made the evaluation already. He's very hard on you sometimes as an instructor. You will make an evaluation... You instructors, you haven't got anything to teach him. And if he's made that evaluation at the beginning of his course or his school or his training, it's going to take you a long time to get anything into his head.

Now, what processes do these use! The professional auditor uses now what we call - he can use many techniques, he's given many techniques, but he's expected to use what we call now Standard Operating Procedure 5, Issue 5. He's expected to use that at minimum and he's expected to use Long Form of that as an advanced technique. All right.

Now, he could evaluate and he wouldn't remember, and the other child can remember but can't evaluate. And those would be the two extremes of human aberration you had to deal with in terms of education, in terms of righting things.

What would a Bachelor of Scientology be able to use? If we've got that, which is really a button-up of all the techniques along the line, what would a Bachelor of Scientology be able to use? Well, he ought to be able to use Book One, Science of Survival. He ought to be able to use Advanced Procedure and Axioms. He ought to be able to use the Handbook for Preclears in all of its ramifications. And he ought to know a little handy jim-dandy whizzer techniques of one sort or another of this kind and that, like - oh, they come up every once in a while. He runs into them, he dreams them up himself, various things. His virtuosity, you see, is quite large on the thing. And he can use Standard Operating Procedure, whatever number he's at, consummately well.

Now, let's take this idea of the adding machine again. Let's look at aberration in terms of an adding machine. And let's take an adding machine such as they had at Harvard and aberrate it. Well, this adding machine they had at Harvard - very interesting machine. Or maybe it was Yale or Princeton or someplace or Oxford, I don't know. It was one of these lesser-known schools. Anyway, they had this drop of solder - aberrated the machine.

But what does a technician really have to know? What does he really have to know? And this applies to you who are only taking just this course. What does he really have to know?

And this is what happened. One day they went in and they put a problem on this machine. And it was the kind of machine that calculated the square root of the length of time it took for a photon to travel a circumnavigation of the orbit exiture or something, you know - one of these things with lots of factors and summations and all that sort of thing, and the machine turned out the wrong answer. So they put the machine - put it on again, and the machine turned out the wrong answer.

He should know Self Analysis from cover to cover. You'd very slightly suspect that Self Analysis, about every third sentence in its text, is an axiom. You could look them up in Self Analysis and then you can go over and look at the list of Axioms in the Handbook for Preclears, and you will find that those Axioms had merely been strung out and listed, and that is the text of Self Analysis. Doesn't read that way, does it? It reads very simply, very smoothly.

So somebody put an elementary problem on the machine and he merely says ten times ten, and he got a hundred. And he says ten divided by ten, he got a hundred; five hundred times ten, and he got twenty-five thousand. (Those of you that aren't up on arithmetic, that should be five thousand.)

It was given to a number of people who were morons and some people who were psychotics to see if they could understand the text, and it was changed wherever they couldn't understand it. So it's really a simplified rundown to end all rundowns.

So then he put on two times five and got fifty. You know, this machine would be considered aberrated after a while, And he went on with this for quite a while, and then it finally turned out that the number five on the machine had a drop of solder shorted out on it, so that every problem had the - was factored - multiplied rather, by five. Every problem you put into the machine got multiplied by five. And every time it went across anything connected with five, it multiplied by another five. Little, tiny short circuit in the electronic circuits of a huge, big, giant electronic brain.

Well now, that in your hands makes it possible for you to explain what you're doing. But a technician ought to know that fact about Self Analysis - that it's not quite as simple as it looks.

And how did they repair it? Well, they just sawed off that little piece of solder and disconnected it, and after that the machine gave right answers.

You start looking over the thing. You should go, really, and get yourself a copy of the Axioms - they have them in the office (they should have them anyway) - get a copy of the Axioms and look over these Axioms and then look at the text of Self Analysis, and you will be much edified on it. In other words, you'd have a good background grip of the subject. And then you should know that process in there and you should know what I'm telling you now about that process very, very well. You should know it very well.

Now, let's take little Johnny there that isn't studying, isn't studying at all. How does this analogy fit with him? He's got a held-down five someplace, That machine is aberrated, that is to say, is giving wrong answers, incorrect solutions to existence because of a held-down five. What is this held-down five in the case of little Johnny? Well, it could be a number of very special things. You'd find those in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. You could call these - infinite number of combinations that could hold down five, but it's a cinch it's "hold-down five."

And you should know Creative Processing in general. And that's the simplicity itself, really, of these technologies. And you should then have the experience of addressing this type of processing to groups.

Let's say it's something simple like he made a postulate or he made an evaluation when he first came to school that he would never learn anything in that school. And he's convinced of this because he convinced himself of this. And everything that goes through that you're - expect him to learn is tearing right across the lines and his "I won't ever learn anything in school."

Now, you will be given other lists from time to time; other lists will be available from time to time, and every once in a while you'll strike out and make up your own list on this level: Really, this is all you need to know and it's not a tough technique. You just read this technique at a group. You just have to know how to read this technique at a group. All right.

"Columbus discovered America in 1492. I won't ever learn anything in this school," And you'll find all of the information you are trying to pour into his head over here in a big bin that says, "I won't learn anything in this school." It's there, but it's over there in the bin. Now, it's fascinating that one day you suddenly crowd at him with some processing and knock out that datum, and he remembers everything he learned in the school.

These are the various goals you could attain, then, on that. But the last that I mentioned there, I do hope that you will look this over from that viewpoint.

Now, that's - becomes very interesting, The mind works on a series, then, of bins and trunk systems and bullpens, to be technical - that's the technical terminology for electronic brains, by the way - and it has these large compartments. You're dealing with data. Therefore, the storage rather than the origin of data is of interest to you, and the use of data in computation of new answers is of interest to you.

Now, to anyone, including a professional auditor, in attempting to present the knowledge of Dianetics and Scientology to the general public, let me give you this small, undoubtedly priceless, piece of information.

[R&D Note: bullpen: (computers) an area in early electronic computers where material that didn't match up with anything else was held until new material that connected with it and made a complete solution was fed in. Used figuratively in this lecture.]

What do you give the public? What do you tell your friends? What do you tell your family? How do you explain all this to people? What is your public presence and utterance on this subject? Text: Self Analysis and nothing beyond it. And I mean nothing beyond it! The moment that you go beyond that text you're in hot water.

Well, therefore, if you start dealing with a machine which has consistently held-down data, every time you throw a datum into his head, he says, "My mother is sick."

You see, we don't even give a doggone if such a thing as space opera exists; it's just unfortunate fact that it happens to exist - for the processes that we run, it just happens to exist. It occupies in its center of interest, oh, I don't know, maybe a thousandth of a percent of the total body of knowledge. It's slight, it's tiny. You don't even have to know anything about space opera, by the way, to run a case.

Did you ever have a little kid who is having home trouble, family trouble at home, or a man at work, he's having trouble at home - and somebody walk - and you say, "Two times two equals four," On any kind of a problem that you - or solution that you'd give him, it would go through his mind like this: "Two times two is four, and my mother is sick at home. What did you say?"

And yet it's so interesting. It's so fascinating. And one of the reasons you'll find the preclear latched up in it so consistently is because it's so fascinating.

And you say, "Two times two is four."

Well, you go out and start to tell somebody, "Well, I was running this group and this little boy kept saying, 'I just came from Mars.' And, of course, you know, in Scientology we know that he did."

He's - "When did you say that?"

"Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

"Well, I just said it?"

No. No, keep that - you know, there are communication lines that have too much power on them to be opened. And if you don't believe that, open to any degree you want to the main communication line on Scientology to a person who hasn't even any vague idea what you're talking about.

"What did you just say?"

Just go up to a fellow offhandedly and say, "Be two feet back of your head." (audience laughter)

"Two times two is four,"

Huh-uh!

It registered "Two times two is four, my mother is sick."

But in your anxiety to do something about that, you are overlooking something. In Self Analysis you're so far over his head already that if you open the gun on him with it just blankly without any kind of leading it into him - "listen, we have something to tell you. Now, be calm about the whole thing" (and hold his hand carefully while you're telling him) - you'll drown him.

Now, you could ask him, "What is two times two?"

And yet that material is quite assimilable and it's quite easily understood. It is easy to communicate. People don't argue with it. They will sometimes say, "Oh, there are higher things than survival. There are higher ideals and that sort of thing. There's all these various other things. Survival is too crude."

And he would say, "Two times two" - he'd be perfectly good; span of attention is way off, you see - "Two times two equals my mother is sick at home," and "Two times two equals my wife is angry with me."

They're thinking in terms of the barest necessity when they think of terms of survival. They're giving survival a colloquial meaning, not its actual meaning, which merely is "duration of existence." That's all survival means. And you try to show me any duration of existence that can exist without aesthetics or ideals.

Yeah, that's right; that's how he's thinking, It's flagrant. If you want to plumb into this and to ask the questions which will spring it into view, you'll be shocked at what some people are thinking in offices. (audience laughter) Mail goes through their hands.

So, we're striking in there; we're not trying to cheapen or make their world sordid for them. We're simply trying to show them that there is an orientation of this horrible problem of what they're all about. And it's quite an adequate one in that Self Analysis text. So use that for your communication line and you won't get into trouble.

Of course, it isn't so bad on the other level. When they've had a good time, they can work. That's because the good time runs out all their worries. They're not liable to sit there, oddly enough, and say, "Here's a nice letter from James and Company with a thousand - a thousand new reams of paper has been ordered, and that's just fine. And let's see, now what do I have to do? My, did I have a good time last night. That's what I have to do now. Now, I had to have a good time last night. Yeah, that's good."

I give you that as advice. Don't take it for what it's worth; take it. Because it's the only place you will really start feeling bad. The only place where you will bog down is trying to go out here to Mr. Zilch and Mr. Blow and convince him of some of these things which are contained in Scientology. And he will give you no admiration like mad. He'll give you no admiration by the barrelful, hogsheads. And you'll find yourself under the gun of trying to prove, prove, prove, prove, prove.

No, they don't squirrel like that. Working with a different sort of a thing when you work with a worry or a problem or trouble because you're working with pain. Pleasure runs itself out. Pleasure is the enemy of pain. Pain sticks. And every time you have this abstraction, you get held-down data.

What are you trying to prove it to him for? Do you really care whether or not this fellow - he hasn't got any admiration to give you anyway. He's total blank on the subject. What do you want to prove it to him for?

Now, there might be some terrific sort of a data. There might be some little kid who is sitting there held in his bike accident two months ago, and he's been stupid in class ever since. And his grades have been kind of poor, and you haven't been able to do anything for him and get anything across to him.

Well, you just haven't asked yourself what you want to do with this man, And if you have asked yourself what you want to do with this man and make a statement to yourself of what you are trying to do, you will fall back on the simplest possible explanation - and you're trying to give him a professional course in one hour's conversation? Most people try that. (audience laughter)

You don't know where he is? You think he just isn't paying attention. Well, the thing to do, of course, is to punish him, to send him home and give a note to his parents and sspprruuhh.

No, you can acquaint him with the fact that, "Well, some scientists worked this out and they found out the basic principle of existence is survival."

No, he's - happens to be lying on the pavement three blocks from his house, and he's been lying there ever since he fell there three months ago.

And he'll say, "Is that so?" He won't say, "Aw, I don't believe it." He'll say, "Is that so? You know, I kind of suspected that all along." And you say, "And you know, it's a funny thing, but they found out the basic nature of man - well, he basically was good."

Well, you know he isn't lying there - he was taken inside and given a lot of sympathy and so on. And he's been sitting here in class and so forth. You know it, but does he know it? Well, that's a good thing to check up on, does he know he's ...

"Yeah? Well, it's kind of hard to believe. But you know, you'd kind of expect that, too."

Because you're interested in what he knows about himself, not what you know about him. You'll know a great deal more about him from an outside viewpoint than he'll probably ever know, so we better know what he knows about himself. And we're liable to find him now stuck on the pavement. All right.

And you'd say, "I'm doing some interesting work with this material and so on, and seems like the imagination and so forth has got quite a bit to do with it. You see, and the imagination - everybody talks down imagination. But the funny part of it is, you don't have imagination, you know, you can't solve future problems - funny. You know, if you can't solve future problems, you - then you haven't got any goals or anything else if you can't solve future problems. And you need your imagination to solve the future problems. Good practical stuff, imagination. If you can't imagine something, then you couldn't imagine the factors and the solution for something."

These are held-down fives. Just think of that as an analogy It's a crude one, it's relatively workable, it's a fast explanation. What is it, then, that keeps a child from paying attention, keeps an adult from being interested in life, keeps somebody in an insane asylum there? It's a problem of the held-down five. There's a datum which is held down in the computer.

The guy will say, "Yeah, it's kind of hard to swallow I guess you're right, but I hate to have all these people going around daydreaming all the time!"

Now, if you want to be very brilliant, you can go through this computer from one end to the other and you can look it over very carefully and you can find - this, by the way, in the first book was known as shooting circuits - you could find the datum which was coloring all other data and just go boom and shoot it out of the bank. You actually could do this with marked changes in personality. What art, what skill, Oh, oh!

Well, you say, "You don't ask them to do that. You just improve somebody's ability to conceive of factors, and he can then solve problems. Isn't that right?"

Now, later techniques, you could do it by shooting out an incident in which he was stuck. And with later techniques you could put him into a condition whereby he wouldn't get stuck that easily, and he would become unstuck somewhat from where he was. And by later techniques, you could do even more remarkable things with him.

Fellow would say, "Yeah. What do you know. That's true, If you didn't know that there was a 'one and one' in the problem 'one and one equals two'; if you didn't know there was a 'one and one' - couldn't conceive of 'one and one' - then you, of course, you could never get the answer. What do you know, that works out."

And then we wind up with a very interesting battery of techniques: one, we know what the held-down particle is that is the held-down five. We know what it is. It isn't seven other particles, it happens to be just one. And it's the one that you wouldn't quite suspect, but you know it after you've run into it. And what is this particle? And why does it hold down five? We'll talk about that later.

So you say, "Imagination. Well, you have to be able to conceive of 'one and one,' and you do that by improving a person's ability to conceive all kinds of things, and then they're able to conceive 'one and one,' and then they can say, 'One and one equals two.' And we get the show on the road."

But you want a technique that will just, no matter how long it takes, unsolder those fives. That's all you want. If you've got that, you've unsoldered the five and then you're in good shape, and that is the goal of processing.

"Yeow? Yeah, it makes sense. Sure. Sure. Why, I knew that all the time, Nothing to that."

A person with all of his fives unsoldered would be known as a Definition Clear. Why? That's an adding-machine term; that's a electronic-brain term. You clear a machine when you take out all of its former computations off the machine.

And you're over the hump. And he said, "Yes," Or he said, "You know, I'm kind of interested in that. Where do you find out about it?" Something of the sort.

In other words, a fellow can think straight if he could think without these colored evaluations before. He can evaluate present time in terms of itself, not so much in terms of its past.

If you have to go any further than that to interest him, he won't be interested. Now, I can give you forty problems for rendering him - rendering him non compos mentis. I can give you lots of solutions as to how to knock him out where he sits. Lots of ways to discombobulate him, to invalidate him, to wreck him. All kinds of things you can do to this fellow. Let's use the most efficient method. You don't want to ruin him, so just don't outflow against him with a whole bunch of incomprehensible data that he can't crack or put together. You want to help him out. So, want to help him out? Well, you give him what, within his frame of reference, he can assimilate,

Clear is a very relative state. Don't become confused by it. It is not an absolute state. It merely means he's in pretty good shape and he'll stay that way. That's all it means. There are various kinds of Clears and they mean things very specific.

And that data is in Self Analysis. It's not in Scientology 8-8008. You hand him Scientology 8-8008, and he - I mean, you start talking to him about it and he's just gone.

Well, a preclear, then, is somebody who still has a held-down five but is in the process of getting rid of it. That means a person who is undergoing processing either in groups or individuals, but it's most likely to apply to the individual rather than to the group.

Let him make the bid to find out more about it Do you understand on that? So on a communication level, it's quite important, So, what do you have to know on a technician level? Well, boy, you better know that information very, very well.

The auditor, the auditor is one who listens and computes, and that's what auditing means: to listen and compute. Well, we still use the term auditor, but he's not doing very much listening in group auditing. And the truth be told, today's technique, he does dam little listening. He just sits there and rolls the stuff out.

Now, I've given you a long, discursive, roundabout talk on this, and our knowledge of the subject may or may not be advanced. Maybe some of your questions have been answered and maybe they haven't. But regardless of that, because of time and so forth, we've got to plow on straight into the second lecture.

Well, every once in a while he's called on to listen and compute, and it's a bad auditor who doesn't listen and doesn't compute when he has to. There's many a case will come to some other auditor for patch-up, and they can't figure out why this other auditor didn't do it. Well, the guy didn't listen; somewhere he didn't listen. He wasn't willing to receive some information of one sort or another. That's the most usual fault in auditing.

Now, we have what you could call a Book Auditor, That is an untrained auditor who has gotten his information out of publications. Unheralded and unsung, the Book Auditor has been carrying along for a long time and has been accomplishing very remarkable things. He can accomplish and he does accomplish them.

I have seen Book Auditors as good as professionals and I've seen Book Auditors that you, with even a poor Level of judgment on the subject, would have shot! In other words, this meant merely somebody who had these techniques from reading only and without any contact immediately with professional training of any kind. It doesn't mean that a man is bad or good, under that circumstances. A man is as good as he is.

And there are people who are Book Auditors who are practicing outright hypnotism. There are people who are Book Auditors that are right up there with professional auditors. The Last, by the way, is very rare. As a matter of fact, it is so rare that I only know of it happening once in the US. Odd, but true.

Now, there's self-processing, and self-processing would be just reading over lists, such as those contained in Handbook for Preclears, which is now outmoded as a process; it's not outmoded as data. And the most modern available list is the Self Analysis in Dianetics. And that disc - that list and those lists are very, very useful to you because they're the lists you use. And these are addressed toward Creative Processing, and those lists are just a part of Creative Processing.

And Group Processing would be the application of read lists to the group in such a way as to permit the maximum number of members of the group to receive benefit. Those are the various types of processes by list here.

Now, the kinds of processing - these are the people who process and their goals - and the kinds of processing, I've already covered earlier. And I list them here.

There's just a complete knowledge of the subject all the way across the boards, of anything that's been written or lectured or anything that's been learned from other professionals who practice and so forth. That would be just anything.

There isn't a process anywhere along the line there in this group of materials that doesn't have degree of workability, by the way. It's which one is more workable than another. And this again is evaluation. There are some of the old ones which are - which an auditor will still use. I was using the other day - not the other day. I was using - not too long ago, I was using a Book One technique. The preclear wouldn't, just wouldn't go for anything else, he just wouldn't buy anything else. It was the easiest one to process him with, so I just simply reached back into 1949 really, and picked up this old, moldy, moth-eaten technique and swung him into present time with it and shook him on the hand - by the hand and kissed him goodbye.

Now, Standard Operating Procedure Number 5 is the subject of the Professional Course to a large degree - that and many other things. Then there's, as I say, Self Analysis; there's Creative Processing in general as a more advanced level; and then Group Processing - there's some slight difference between the way you process adults and the way you process children, All right.

I hope you have, now, a broad and vast understanding of human aberration. And so we'll close up the subject there and take a break.