Perhaps a word about the source of this data would not be amiss. This data might be said to be a combination and a reevaluation of Eastern and Western culture. And as much as anything else, that marriage, which hitherto has been a misalliance, is responsible for Dianetics and Scientology, making it a little more compatible.

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.

I was very young when I first went out to the East, extremely impressionable as a child would be. I struggled along in north China, India and was back in the States and then back out there again.

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.

And while in the States on a very early visit, a stay, I met Commander Thompson of the United States Navy who was just returned from having studied with Sigmund Freud in Vienna, Commander Thompson was a very sound man, a very solid friend of mine, He had no boy of his own and was quite interested in me, mostly as a personality.

"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."

It's very odd to realize, as I did one day, that in subsequent years I have approximated to a very remarkable degree the career of Commander Thompson - to show you what an impressed - impressionable boy can have handed to him suddenly.

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,

I have followed that, however, fragmentarily. It just sort of dubs in to the career that I have been following to this degree that - I didn't realize this until one day I looked at a map, and in the field of expeditions, explorations, I always favored certain quarters of the world, always went there and, when there, did certain things. It fits Commander Thompson's record. Amusing.

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.

[R&D Note: Commander Thompson: Joseph Thompson (1874-1943), a commander in the US Navy Medical Corps who studied with Sigmund Freud in Vienna and was a friend of L. Ron Hubbard when Ron was a boy.]

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."

It just suddenly struck me one day, I hadn't ever realized it. Nothing would do at a certain place I went but what I would dig up one of the old, ancient tribal burial grounds. Never realized the significance of this until one day - I hadn't known this, you see - I was standing in the Bishop Museum in Hawaii and saw there the exhibit of Commander Thompson on some of the men he had dug up in a tribal burying grounds. All right. He directed my attention toward many things and perhaps imparted to me, fragmentarily or otherwise, the basic tenets of Sigmund Freud and also imparted to me the fact that Freud didn't think he'd solved it.

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.

That's an interesting datum we append right on to there; it should be more than appended. Freud wasn't at war with those other lines of thought to amount to anything: He was trying to find out, 1920 or something like that. He even wrote a paper and said he hadn't, It's called "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable." And it's rather heart broken sort of a paper.

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.

[R&D Note: "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable": reference to Volume V of the collected papers of Sigmund Freud, entitled Analysis, Terminable and Interminable.]

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!

Right at that time when he was writing that, I was taking a look at Hindu snake charmers, wondering why the audience believed there was a snake there.

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.

Well now, it would be handing myself bouquets (which one should never do) to say that one would pick up where somebody else left off, but one was going forward there. There are many things in Dianetics and Scientology which are directly Sigmund Freud's - directly. They're reevaluated. They've been fitted in at the right places for Dianetics and Scientology and have been evaluated against workability. For instance, association. There aren't as many things as you would think, by the way, but there's the whole business of associative thought, all kinds of things here and there.

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.

In the first place, he put his stamp on this culture. He put his stamp on there with a great big stamp. And you don't realize to what degree you have been influenced by Sigmund Freud. You would have to read the literature of 1880 and then the literature of 1950 sequitur (one right after the other) to realize that something happened: the evaluation and characterization of story characters in 1880 and 1950 - quite different.

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.

The whole literary world bought psychoanalysis, and they use it as their modus operandi for plotting. And as a result, the whole society has been salted with this as a background. It's interesting, isn't 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.

And today, we find this man who began on his course of investigation into the teeth of the medical profession, was practically thrown out of everything, was hammered at and beaten at and thrown away and chewed up in general. We find that his work opened a door, and it opened a door in this fashion. It said, "Something can be done about the human mind." That doesn't sound very startling to you, but believe me, that was a startling statement to make when he was first working.

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

In 1894, when he released his libido theory after his work with Breuer, he was basing it on results he had had. Unfortunately, to a large extent, Freud was the sort of an auditor - let's get that straight - I said Freud was a sort of an auditor who added in a lot of extra personality factors. And every time he added one of these things into a session, he didn't know what he was doing, he never said what he was doing, he never knew what he was doing and he left all kinds of xs all over - unknowns, unknowns, unknowns, unknowns.

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.

How can one auditor take Book One and produce miracles and another auditor not? That's because there are unknowns in the personal address of the auditor to the preclear. Just as in Group Auditing - and this becomes very pertinent to you - in Group Auditing there are unknowns from auditor to auditor before the children. They will be unknown to the Group Auditor; they are not unknown to the professional auditor. He'd know how to get rid of these unknowns. But one is confronting the group with a personality. And the tone of voice and the general personality and the stage presence of the Group Auditor will make Group Auditing different in its results from one group to the next, one Group Auditor to the next.

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.

One of the easy ways to get around this, and to minimize it and also to save oneself, is to make somebody else do it under supervision and then change the auditor to the group, change the auditor to the group. Then you've minimized that, you see? You make - in a group of adults, you make them consecutively change. You just take group members and make them audit the group, group members and audit the group, group members and audit the group. And that's all. You just coach them up and make sure it's done right.

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.

And in children, this becomes rather difficult until you have spread across various classes. If you're just dealing with one or two classes, it's very difficult. They're all in one age level. But you could reach into your upper-age levels, and you would be surprised at the capability and competence of children toward children. It's fascinating how well children can sometimes handle children. So you can even minimize it there if you don't feel you're getting along too well with them - you wouldn't have this feeling about it.

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

But you're going to get a difference of factor. Sigmund Freud was getting results better than anybody has ever gotten since with psychoanalysis. His clinic got better results than anybody has ever gotten since. And the reputation of his clinic today carries psychoanalysis on in the world into the teeth of every one of his disciples who says that, "Sigmund Freud? Well, we don't believe that anymore and that's all been modified by Zilch." The heck it has! That's very interesting about Sigmund Freud.

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.

So his clinical work had a great deal to do with his personal ability and the character of that clinic itself, which throws the results out. And down along the line, his data is integrated by an undisciplined mind. That's a hell of a thing to say about Freud, but it's true. It's not a mathematically disciplined mind. He scatters around, he gets hopeful, he isn't critical of himself sufficiently. But all these are minor things. Think of what the man did do! He all of a sudden opened the doors wide and said, "The human mind is susceptible to a solution." Now, that all by itself was one of the greatest contributions, and was probably THE greatest contribution of the nineteenth century, which came just as it ends.

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.

Sounds like it wouldn't be very much, because in that century you saw Thomas A. Edison, you saw Maxwell, you saw all sorts of people around. Today, we've got nice electric lights and we've got an atom bomb, we've got a lot of other things. And we've got three times the number of institutions.

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?

But somebody did say this. All right, he was a wildcat. That is to say, he was off the field, he was not in the field. He was a pariah. He was frowned upon by all of the conservative thought of the day. And yet, today, this work and that basic postulate is more or less accepted.

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.

Picked up really from that, from scratch; at one time I thought there had been some interim work. I'm sorry to have to say that I don't think there has been. There had been interim work in mathematics and electronics, but not in the field of the mind.

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

Well, all of a sudden, as a young kid, I see the East - mysticism, occultism, spiritualism. Oh, I knew officers - meeting people; they talked about these things, very interested. I became more and more alert to them, and said, "You know that somewhere around here there's an answer to something. It would be very nice if you could do some of these things, but I'm not sure that these people know what they're doing, And the reason they don't know what they're doing is because the more they work in that field, the loonier they get." This doesn't question the truth of that field, but it just says there's something wrong with it! There's a lot right with it and there's something wrong with it.

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.

Western culture I took up, and was forced into engineering, mathematics, majoring in nuclear physics - very antipathetic to me, but there was order and there was discipline. But all through the university, I wrote and supported myself by writing. And I became interested in people by being interested in what people were interested in, and eventually became interested enough that I began to look into man's mind to find out: what might possibly make him tick. And all of this data started to integrate.

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.

What data had I inspected? The data of the West in its most - its purest, most severe, naked fashion, which is the severity of science as practiced in the field of physics and nuclear physics. And if you don't think that's a discipline, that is the discipline of today. If there ever will be one, that's it.

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.

And the East: "Well, we don't know, and we'll all bow down to the great god Whumpbug. And the thing to be is to negate everything and deny everything and run away from everything, and then we'll arrive there. And our greatest goal is to become part of a cloud and float somewhere and to be completely unfeeling and to do this and to do that, and anything but live.” And the Western culture says, "Above all things, whatever else you do, live!" Two directly opposed vectors - out of all of them, we got sense. It's - possibly this material would have been drummed up by anybody. Would have been drummed up by anyone who had taken a look at these two spheres and recognized their differences, and then integrated them and taken them apart again with a highly questioning attitude. Because when you say what I believe - I don't believe there are very many people who even - who knew me very well, who knows what I believe.

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.

I have the same level of belief in a datum as it's workable. I have absolutely no affection for any single datum in Dianetics or Scientology, There isn't any "Well, there's that old datum; that's real good."

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.

There's one difference about this. There are two axioms which are very amusing to me because they were the first two axioms. They were way back in the middle of the thirties. "The cell has as its goal survival and only survival" and "The body is a colonial aggregation of cells, so therefore the goal of the body is survival." QED.

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.

All right, those two sit in the list of axioms and if there's - if there's anything that has any affection for me, it would be that two. Because I remember the tremendous amazement and surprise one morning that I felt when I was climbing half out of bed; I just stuck right there. And I said, "An anthropoid ape is trying to live. Hm. And a clam is trying to live. An algae is trying to live. A man is trying to live. Living is duration through time, and the proper word to describe that is survive. And, my god, I've done it!" And I went straight over to my typewriter and took down all of the data which boiled this down and turned it into theory. That's the beginning, actually, the real entrance wedge. So there are two points on this time track that I can point to from my viewpoint which were the opening wedges. One is some fellow - a very bright man indeed - saying at the end of the nineteenth century, "The human mind is susceptible to survival in computation and so forth, and it will survive and can go on, and it doesn't die all by itself." You see, something can be patched up about it; it can go on, it isn't a finite thing. Furthermore, it can be understood. "Something can be done about the human mind," somebody said there. He didn't say anything about survival - that was left. And in the middle of the thirties, suddenly realizes survival was the pin on which you could hang the rest of this with adequate and ample proof.

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

And where did mysticism fit in? Well, I didn't know that until relatively recent days. It all fits. It's the easiest problem anybody ever looked at. It's a very simple problem, idiotically simple. That's why it never got it solved. Nobody had ever looked at anything being that simple to do that much.

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?

So what do we find as the simplicities of solution? The simplicities of solution lie in this: That life, all life is trying to survive. And life is composed of two things: the material universe and an x factor. And this x factor is something that can evidently organize, mobilize the material universe. This x factor.

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."

What is this x factor? Well, it just drifted along for a longest time as an x factor until, all of a sudden, one day I got a description of it. I figured out a description of this x factor. What is it?

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

Well, it obviously had - and I won't go into that derivation too long - it obviously had no wavelength. It didn't have any energy in it, and therefore it couldn't have any space or time. It was zero! Well, that's fascinating! But how could it be zero? You mean zero lives? Ah! Zero for this universe.

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

And the second we tried to equate it on the basis of it had time in it, it had energy, it had wavelength, it had finite position, we went way wrong - oh, but wrong. So the material universe is an artificiality bent out - built out of that instead of the reverse.

"Oh, no, they're not."

So we're dealing with these big ideas of space and time and energy and matter, and we have to readjust.

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.

This is all real. Why is it real? It's real because we agree it's real; not for any other reason. And we look it all over very carefully, and we find out that matter, energy, space and time are evidently a product of this universal mind. And then we have the concept of the Supreme Being and so forth, but unfortunately, we have the concept of you.

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.

And do you know that in the subsequent months and years, since that theta-MEST theory was advanced, that every datum which comes forth won't go anyplace else but into that theory.

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.

You know, I'd be just as happy about this theory if it would just suddenly disappear or go away or die or get lost in the wastebasket. Because it's very easy to come by theories. Anybody can come by theories. It's easy If you don't believe it, read the books of the philosophers. There are theories by the billion. You can make them up any day of the week.

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 used to have an organization with a little bunch of engineers. And we had a club; we called it the Green Cheese Club. And it was called Green Cheese Club just for one reason: Its members, any one of them, was perfectly willing to believe the Moon was made of the green cheese - of green cheese if it could be proven adequately. So that made it a pretty wild club, you see?

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.

Do you know that most people working in this field, they get an affection for their data. Whoa, they just got to hold on to that theory because theories are terribly scarce, you see? And we've just got to hold on to that theory and nurse it and pat it and go around and sell everybody on this theory and talk about this theory.

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.

It works the same way with techniques, You see auditors doing this sometimes. (I wouldn't mention names.) But they get a new idea, you see? And instead of practicing on a preclear and being willing to throw it in the first wastebasket that he'd see if it doesn't work, they say, "Gosh, that must be awfully valuable! I get so few of them." So they go around and explain to everybody how this works. Well, the dickens with explaining how it works. Let's work it? Does it work? Well, if it works, okay, we don't - but there's no scarcity of ideas. We can dream up all kinds of therapies.

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.

A new therapy is the "druggest" drug on the market we can get, but we don't need any. That's really abundance right now in Scientology. But this isn't an abundance: the idea that one can have enough ideas to throw away ideas. That little sentence right there explains a lot of differences that you will see.

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."

We got lots of them - throw them away. Do they work? Oh, they don't work? Dickens with them; get another one tomorrow morning. Maybe wake up at midnight with one.

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.

So there have just been thousands of things, and there's no reason why we should be holding on to this theta-MEST theory. No reason at all, except it works.

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.

So, if you will - if you will see a gradient scale, whereby at one end of it we have nothing and at the other end of it we have solid matter, we'll call that - we will call that the Tone Scale. And up the top, we have nothing but capability, and at the bottom we have nothing but object. Now that's the scale.

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.

And we find out that a person is as sane as he is capable and as insane as he is an object. Simple, isn't it? And that's the gradient scale which we call the Tone Scale, Now, we put some arbitrary numbers on it. We've said the top is 40.0 and the middle is 20.0 and the bottom is 0,0. And what's at 0.0? Well, you're dead at 0,0, you're MEST. You're matter, energy, space and time with no life-animating factor. You're dead, in other words.

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?

And at the top? You don't even vaguely have a body or energy. All you've got is the capability of making a lot of space because you can make space. That's the gradient scale and that's the Tone Scale.

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

Now, man seems to exist on this scale, arbitrarily, between 4.0 and 0.0; 4.0 is enthusiasm, 0.0 is dead, 0.1 is apathy, 3.5 is conservatism. In other words, we just - we come down - we come downscale from 4.0 toward death. And a person is as alive as he has life in him. Sounds obvious, doesn't it? But when we turn it around the other way and say he's as dead as he's got object, makes more sense.

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.

You ever know a capitalist? They're really interesting people in terms of how much life they've got left in them, and the more matter they get, the longer they'll survive. Mm-hm. But what survives? An object survives. The pyramids are still there, but they certainly don't talk or have a good time, Now, what, then, is our goal? And why do we have this Tone Scale?

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."

Well, you will find down at the bottom, you - neurotic, psychotic people consider words as objects. The words are objects to them. And time is an object. I've had people walk up to me and say, "Well, I'd gladly come out and see you, but have you got a radio?" "Well, what do you want a radio for?"

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."

"Well, we've got to have a radio, so we can turn it on and get the time signal." "Why do you want a time signal?" "So I can keep track of the time."

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.

They keep themselves tuned up with time, all right. There it goes, tickety-tick, tickety-tick.

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.

Once in a while you will ask one of these people for a circuit or a phrase or something of the sort, and he'll reach in his pockets to find it for you, That's right. Words and thoughts are objects at that level of the scale. You'll have to observe this to really understand how this can be. But you'll find in processing a group, there'll be somebody in that group who's going to be literal-minded.

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.

And they will say, "Did you say that? Well now, that couldn't be because ... That couldn't be. No. You really meant ..." And he'll be talking about some tiny, little fraction of a phrase. "Did you say 'of the walk' or 'on the walk'? Or did you say ... ?" And he'll be so puzzled.

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.

And one day you'll be quoting something or something of the sort, and he'll say, "Ab-duh-uhem-bzzzt." He's just lost this idea. You're trying to get an idea across, you see? And he's lost the idea that you're trying to get an idea across, and say, "On the second line of that" - this is just like fingernails over the blackboard" to him, you see - "on the second line of that, it's THE not AND."

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.

Words are objects. And this person is just getting solid. His thinking is solid, too. He's doing this stream of consciousness I've talked to you about. On and on and on, he does his stream of consciousness. Horrible? He thinks he thinks. All right.

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.

The energy of the mind, then, is actually making a postulate, and the object and matter around it go into action. You tell something to go work and it works, because the human mind - I mean, the theta level way up at the top, 40.0 of the Tone Scale - actually, all he has to do to move an object is make a postulate to move it. And it works as well as it doesn't have any energy in it. and One can make postulates and have them work as well as he doesn't have any energy. But people think they've got a past, present and future in terms of energy. You ask somebody, "Where's the past? By the way, do you know where the past is in relationship to your face? Do you know where the future is in relationship to your face? Do you know where present time is in relationship to your face?"

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.

That immediately should appear to you as rather dull because most everybody has this. He thinks the future is over there to the right, and the past is over here to the left and slightly behind him, and present time is right out in front.

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.

And that's just he's spent energy in thinking. And it's finally become a deposit. And when it becomes enough of a deposit, he's right there, he is. He gets an object, finally, as a time track.

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.

Actually, time consists of nothing else but the position of particles. There's no energy mixed up in thinking and so on.

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.

You can - there's another little technique that proves this. You can just suddenly decide that you're going to let go of some particles. You find some - there's - you always notice a slight pressure on the front of your face, so you decide one day that you don't like the pressure on the front of your face, so you decide to let go of the particles that are holding the particles that are pressing in. In other words, there's - just because there's pressure from outside, there must be some resistance toward that to make the pressure possible. All right, just let go of the particles that are holding that motion.

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.

You can let go; the motion collapses. Now, you can do that consecutively. You just keep letting go of pressure areas - one side or the other - what's keeping the pressure from coming in and what's making the pressure come in, You can just keep letting go. It's a technique all by itself. You just sit there and you just find out what you're holding on to and let go, that's all.

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.)

Darnedest things happen. You get terrible pains and all sorts of things. You're just backing off, in other words, from particles. And the more particles you let go of, the better you feel. Isn't that odd?

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.

This doesn't mean that you have to desert the universe in order to be healthy in it. No, you can eat up the whole universe if your digestion is zero enough.

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.

Now, energy on a thought level and energy on a - that's the strange one, you know, that energy on a thought level was always thought to be something else. They kept telling you, "Well, this didn't - this energy is kind of an energy, but it's not like" - you find this in more books - "it's not like that stuff up there in the electric light. The energy of thought is something else." The dickens it is.

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."

That electric light got there because somebody thought, not the reverse. Why every man wanted to go into the bottom of the scale and try to work up to the top, I don't know.

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."

But you see, they say, "Well now, that stuff is crude and that's no good, and we don't want anything to do with it! That's material. And a materialist would be a person who would do something about that." Nobody ever thought of "It might be a product of some universal mind of some sort or another which can produce, by postulate, particles." That would be the other way to, wouldn't it? That sounds wild, but it unfortunately works out that way, that this mind produces - theta-MEST produces these terminals and flows.

"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.

Now, let's look at this another way. They missed something on the design of the electric motor. Every time they write up the electric The motor, they write it up wrong. You can go and get your best textbooks on this subject, and a nuclear physicist looking this over, if he ever went back and looked them over, would immediately catch this blunder. I just happened to catch it in passing one day and I was very struck by it because they say - they give you everything necessary to make current with an electric generator. They tell you all about this and give you all the data you need, only if you'd never seen one, you'd never get any current out of one, because they neglect to describe the most important thing there: the base of the motor.

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.

Of course, you know, huh - you think I mean some kind of a strange base like a logarithmic base. But I'm talking about that metal thing the motor is sitting on. It's just wonderful how they could neglect this one. But they don't give it any description. It's just not described, that's all.

[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.]

It's what holds the terminals in time and space? And you get an electrical current just as long as you've got a base sitting there holding the terminals, the two terminals of the motor, in position.

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."

And when you don't have a base sitting there to hold the two terminals of the motor in position, the two terminals snap together and you get no current. Kind of obvious. If you look in an electric motor, you'll find there's a positive side of it and there's a negative side of it, and those are terminals. And the wheel goes round and round and goes around inside of magnets, and mechanical effort makes it go around inside of magnets, that makes positive-negative, positive-negative, and you get a flow. It's a very simple thing, a motor.

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?"

If you didn't have any base there holding those positive and negative terminals apart, you wouldn't have any current because the positive and negative current - terminals would be right together. It takes a base to hold those two things apart, and that base is fastened to a table - or a platform, and that platform is generally fastened into the earth.

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

And the earth, by gravity and centrifugal and centripetal force, is fastened to the Moon - Sun just as the Moon is fastened to Earth. Earth is fixed in relationship to the Sun. And Earth is fixed in relationship to the Sun; and the Sun is fixed by gravity in relationship to the other galaxy, planets and that's - planets and the solar system, isn't it? And the solar system, well, that's fixed in relationship by gravity and so forth into - hm. Well, wait a minute, that's just fixed into the other systems and they composite into a galaxy, and the galaxy is held there as an island universe which is in position with an island of galaxies and that pass into a ... Oh, no? All we're doing all the way up is locating two terminals in space. Oh, no? No, no, this shouldn't happen to us. You mean God is the base of a motor? (audience laughter) No, fortunately that isn't true. He would be what is saying, "Stay apart" to the first two terminals that begins this endless chain, Anybody - time anybody said "Create," he must have said then "two terminals." And sure enough, by dymaxion geometry and many other proofs, the basic unit of the material universe happens to be two, not one.

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

So it's location and fixation in time and space which makes it possible for energy to be developed and used and transferred and handled, And you don't get location, fixed location, you're in bad shape.

"Well, I just said it?"

Well now, we know about facsimiles and pictures in the mind, and we know all about these various things, and we know there are electronic things that go on with relationship to the body and we can measure these on an E-Meter; and we know that a person is as sane as he can hold them in time and space. And when he can't locate them and hold them fixed in time and space, he's very, very aberrated. And you patch him up by fixing it so that he can locate some of his memories and his beingness in time and space.

"What did you just say?"

All you got to do is tell a psychotic, "Look at the wall," and he says, "What wall?"

"Two times two is four,"

And you say, "Well, go over and feel it and find out if there's a wall there."

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

He's liable to find out there's a wall there and get sane on you. He's located himself in time and space. Now, isn't this interesting?

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

We have a husband and wife. Husband is very unhappy, he's very upset, the wife is very unhappy. They're going in all directions and so forth. Well, the trouble is there, there are two terminals and they don't have a smooth flow between them. There's no interchange of flow, that's all. And so the both of them have a down-energy level. You spring them apart and team them up otherwise and they just work fine. It's almost as mechanical - they're just bodies, so they're almost as mechanical to handle as terminals on an electric motor, Oh, there's all sorts of manifestations occur on this basis. But at that moment, the second we realize this, that theta creates space and time and it also fixes or locates things in space and time, and the second we realize it does that, this problem falls apart. It's just like so much - just is poof. There isn't any problem to it. You could do anything with this, then, from there on.

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."

Why? That's because when it gets down into the Levels of energy, you simply follow the parallel rules of energy and you're on safe ground, safe ground all the way down.

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.

But isn't it interesting that I said that as more a mind got into energy and the more it handled energy, the less sane it was. Uh-oh. So this material universe and the solid object of insanity consists of more and more energy and thinking, and more and more energy and more and more energy, and then the guy is out the bottom.

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."

Therefore, the more energy he had in terms of energy that he was using and the more he used these terminals and the more he got upset this way and that way by this, the worse off he'd get. Does it work out in the real universe? Believe me, it does.

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.

You find the fellows who have agreed solidly with these terminals and energies and used terminals and energies - are they aberrated. They're in bad shape. Look at engineers. (audience laughter) And you go right down the line with this. So what's the solution, what's the solution? To follow these terminals? To locate new terminals? Well, by empirical testing taking place over a period of many years, it is discovered that this is not the route. It's a good route, but it's interminable. A guy gets better but he doesn't go out through the roof.

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.

So what do you do? Well, you back him off from doing this, obviously, if that one didn't work. But that's right all the way, then let's put him up Tone Scale, which is all we've been trying to do anyway, and let's get him out to a basis where he's again operating in postulates and is not using terminals, where he is creating particles, not using particles he already finds lying around. Let's get him into a level of creation where he is able to command what he wants, not have to beg for it. And we find he's in good shape. So, we've got Creative Processing, and that's why Creative Processing produces such a fantastic result. It's very rapid.

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.

Now, when you address a person, then, and start giving him mock-ups, you're calling upon him to create. You're calling upon him to create energy, to create new terminals. And you're calling upon him to perform the highest function of theta. And so he gets better and better and better and better, and then he can go right on up the Tone Scale.

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.

But if you turned around and you said, "Now look, you're not supposed to create any of these things. You use the electrodes which we provide, and you use the MEST universe only," you get sick.

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 ...

And does this work out in practice? Yes, and believe me it does, And so Creative Processing - we have that right as the heart of Creative Processing.

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.

Huh, if a guy got very sick by using all the terminals he finds lying around that he didn't create here in the MEST universe, then he should get well by creating his own terminals. You rehabilitate his ability to create terminals, and the stress, strain, importance of energy in this universe becomes less and less important.

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.

Does this mean he backs out of this universe and leaves it forever? No. He becomes quite capable of handling it.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Continuing this third lecture, we find out, as we'll hear later, that from zero, one can create a particle. And I mean zero time, space.

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.

I mean 40.0 on this Tone Scale. But when one is holding a lot of particles, he can't create particles. This is all quite interesting, and you will much more readily suppose it to be terribly technical and out of the reach of your grasp the more you try to think about it. And if you try to think hard enough about it and if you ponder it enough, I can convince you without any trouble that you'll be having an awful time with it.

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.

It's actually a terrible simplicity, and you sort of have to let go of an awful lot of particles to grasp it. We don't need a lot of theories. It's strange, now that we have this, how all of this data, and what tremendous data, comes tumbling into our hands.

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.

For instance, not too long ago - solved sex. You know, this would be very interesting, if you solved sex in terms - in such terms that you could solve all this fellow's sexual problems and all the children's sexual problems and all this sort of thing - I mean, that should be first-line news. Why? Because the libido theory in 1894, it said sex was the root of everything. It doesn't happen to be; it's quite important though. And if you could solve that, why, gee, you ought to rush out here on the street and throw up banners and say, "Hurray, hurray, hurray. We've solved this big riddle, or we've solved this big problem and Sigmund Freud was so puzzled with it and now we've solved psychoanalysis and we got the basis of psychoanalysis and we can make psychoanalysis work everyday."

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.

You'd think you'd do that. It's not that important. And yet it's solved. It's not important.

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.

The reason it's not important is because what is important here is a terrible simplicity. That is to say, you're operating, The best of a man is that which has no substance in it, and the worst of a man is that which has lots of substance in it in terms of materialism. And there's where your big argument came in between the materialist and the fellow who figured he should be soulful or something of the sort.

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.

And there's your Hindu trying to desert MEST; he's trying to deny himself everything and so forth. Well, he does all that except one thing: he didn't know how to get out of his body.

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.

There's just nothing to these tricks they pull on you. It's the essence of simplicity. They denied themselves everything except living - I mean, except dying (going on reverse flow here). Anyway ...

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.

Now, a particle would be any object whether as so minute as to be minute beyond minute beyond minute, submicroscopic, or the Empire State Building. It wouldn't matter. In other words, you could have a particle that you couldn't see in a microscope, or a particle the size - a complex particle the size of this galaxy. They would still be a particle, you see? We could say one particle.

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.

Well, we deal a lot with particles. We have to know quite a little bit about particles; we know this subject well But we don't have to know anything like you'd think we'd have to know. We just have to know there's such a thing as a particle. A particle is a particle. A particle only does three things; a particle starts, stops, changes. Those are the laws of motion: start, stop, change. All right.

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.

So particles start, particles stop and particles change. And if you've ever had a lot of children - I mean, you know that they sure can start, stop and change at the darnedest times.

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 therefore, a person - he gets so that he can only start and he can't stop or he can keep going. He can persist, in other words, without changing. See, no change is the trouble with him. He can't change - inability.

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.

And your child is very stupid, let's say. All right, the trouble with that child is he's very stupid, and there's something that doesn't permit him to change. No matter how hard you try, he stays on being stupid. So much so that it was officially released and is accepted as a scientific datum that IQ cannot be altered! That is nothing like nailing everybody to the cross and saying, "Oh, let's all give up and die." IQ certainly is one of the most alterable things. As a matter of fact, an auditor simply by starting to audit out an engram can shift IQ as much as fifteen points. One session, he just starts and, say, ten minutes of auditing - shift, I'm not saying bad or good. You can drive them down and drive them up and make them level off. IQs are very easy to alter. Well, we evidently were dramatizing a no-change there, you see?

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.

And particles of motion: As one continues through time, then, one has these three things that can happen. Of course, the reverse of them can happen. There's the person who can't start, there's the person who can't stop, and there's the person who can't change, as well as the person who starts and the person who stops and the person who changes. He's got those various characteristics.

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, the three parts of behavior are thought, emotion and effort. You think about something, that's pretty high on the scale. A little bit lower than that, you feel some emotion about it - sensation of emotion. Much lower on the scale, you get in there and put some strength to it. You think about opening the door, there's possibly some emotion about opening doors, and then you put the effort to the doorknob and open the door. Human activity is divisible into these three parts,

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.

We have, then, three more important data that you should run into in this subject and know, and that's affinity, reality, communication.

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.

What is affinity? Affinity is what they've been calling love and a lot of other things. In the material universe it's known as cohesiveness and adhesiveness; in human behavior, call it affinity. There's affinity or no affinity. All the emotions come under that heading. And the emotions are all graphed on this Tone Scale as you can see in a copy of Self Analysis.

Reality. Reality is that on which we're agreed. Any philosopher writing down through the ages has come to that as an agreement, by the way. "We don't know what we sense, we just know that we know that we sense; we don't know that the perception is there, we simply know that we know a perception is there." And they've talked about this for a long time. And you work this around and stir it around and so forth, and there's one positive thing that you can come up against. You can be fairly sure that reality and agreement have something a great deal in common; more than that, they're interchangeable.

There's reality - really consists of agreement and disagreement. In electric-terminal flow there is merely agreement and disagreement: one way, and then they go the other way. And you find out that as people agree, they have a flow somewhere around them. And as they disagree, there's a flow. If you get the feeling of agreeing with something, you're liable to pick up a flow. Sometimes you get the feeling of disagreeing with something, you're liable to feel like you've had your head knocked off or something by a flow. And it's very interesting that agreement and disagreement are in terms of flows and that these do composite what most people say is reality. They say, "It isn't real." "Well, why isn't it real?" They won't be able to answer that unless you sort it out in terms of agreement.

"Well, did somebody tell you it wasn't real?"

"Yeah."

"Did you agree with that person?"

"Yeah."

"It's not real, then, is it?"

"No."

"Well, why isn't it real?"

"Well, it's just not real."

I mean, they'll come back to that one and sag every time, because they think there's something real about the word real. It's an object, you see? And it has no meaning at all!

What's real? You go down to the tribe of the Wongabullas and you'll find out that anything that we consider reality up here probably is unreality down there in terms of customs and behavior or anything else. And you go over to Ireland and you go around in some of the back roads of Ireland, you're going to find that there's a great deal of reality as to leprechauns and other things over there; there are all kinds of things over there. You don't agree they're there; you're not going to see them either.

Now therefore, just by that route and because it works - no other reason really than that one; this happens to work - there is reality in terms of agreement. We agree heavily enough on reality.

There are various tests one can enter on in this. You can make anything real to a person who's hypnotized. You say, if everybody got just sufficiently and thoroughly enough hypnotized, he would see a MEST universe. You don't believe this, sometimes get a hypnotist to hypnotize somebody who is a good subject and get him to paint up a whole universe and have that whole universe be real to that person. It'll work, it'll work. Of course, I'm not inferring that everybody is hypnotized into believing there's a universe here. (audience laughter) Now, a one-word description of what we are trying to do to people, though, it fits right in right there. We're trying not to force people around; we're trying to unhypnotize them. We're trying to wake them up, not put them to sleep. We're trying to make them more alert, not more dull.

And then there's a third member of that triangle - and that's a triangle, by the way. It's an interesting triangle, because at any level of this Tone Scale I talk to you about, you'll get the same levels of that triangle.

The communication, the reality and the affinity at that level will be the same for that level. You don't have communication sitting one place on that Tone Scale and reality sitting another place and affinity sitting someplace else, You'll find them all at the same level.

So, they are the three behavior characteristics of life "energy": affinity, reality and communication.

What's life composed of? It's composed of affinity, reality, communication. When a communication is low, affinity and reality are low; when reality is low, affinity and communication are low; when affinity is low - get that one, when affinity is low; because boy, does this - this theory of ARC has been just sitting around just for ages; just backed up because it was so workable, no other reason.

And all of a sudden, as I'm going to show you here in tonight's lecture, that we ran into it just head-on, on the subject of ARC. And it all comes back to ARC. You can't agree with somebody you're not in communication with. It's very hard to love somebody who doesn't exist for you. In other words, ARC: You've got to have communication to have affinity to have reality. You've got to have three of those three things, You can't have two of them.

And you'll realize this sometime. You take a little child and he comes to school and he's going uuss-phll-uuss-phll. And he's snuffling and crying and he ... You could sit him down in a chair and let him come over it. But if you'll just lead him out by making him ... I don't care what he says to you. He says, "One, two, three, four, five," or anything of the sort. If you just make him communicate, (snap) he'll snap out of it.

Why? Well, he'll realize somebody does love him. Why does he realize that? That's because he's communicating with somebody. That's all. I mean, it's just as simple - terribly mechanical like that. ARC: affinity, reality, communication. Now, there's a lot to know about those, but that's good enough.

Now, actually, the Tone Scale was originally plotted out by behavior, from observation of the behavior of a preclear as he came up Tone Scale, plotted where the emotions belonged on that Tone Scale.

The next thing that happened was to find out that ARC plotted on that Tone Scale from 0.0 at the bottom to 40.0 at the top. And it was all worked out from the basis of ARC theoretically, and then came back into the MEST universe and took a look around to find out if that still agreed. And it still agreed and it still held good and is as good today as it was years ago. So we have - we have that as a good stability to work with. And when all other problems of human relationship, all problems of human relationship seem to be bogged down, when you can't get anywhere, when there's something that can't be done, remember there's ARC. What's happening with regard to ARC? And you can solve it.

This person is making you unhappy. You say, “This person is making me unhappy. Always makes me unhappy. Never blah-de-blah-de-blah making me unhappy. Nnaa-dduuhh-dduuhh, I blah don't see anybody - makes me unhappy." And so on. What's your solution? Cut the communication line? What happens then? Well, you don't have an agreement or a parity level of affinity. That's simple, isn't it? That's all there is to that - person makes you unhappy. That says - well, that says that you'd have to advise some husband to leave home. Yeah, that's right. All right, we'll go on to the next one. (audience laughter) The full Tone Scale, then, interplays and interweaves thought, emotion and effort; start, stop and change; affinity, reality and communication. Because at the top of the Tone Scale things start, the middle of the Tone Scale they are holding in a consistency or changing it, and at the bottom of the Tone Scale, they're stopped, How stopped can you get? Dead!

When you're dealing with children, you will realize that the - you will sometimes believe that the child is very badly off who is in a lot of motion all the time. No, the one who is very badly off is the kid who just sits there. He just sits there. That's really bad off. He's bottom scale. So we get on the full Tone Scale an interweave, then, of these factors. And a cycle of action of life starts in at 40.0 - just thought, no energy, nothing there but space - and progresses on through its cycle of action to middle age where we have everything very conservative, to old age where you have death. And that would be the cycle of one lifetime or - get this - the cycle of any action. It starts, it persists and it stops. Then it has to change violently before it can start again, doesn't it? And so you have death intervene.

Well, we won't go into that too deeply. We know that you can plot any person in your group or plot the level of your group by using these factors, and you don't have to know too much about this.

What's the level of their communication? You have a graph in Self Analysis that tells you what their level of communication would be. That is to say, you know they don't communicate with you. There's a cut line, Well, it says in that graph in Self Analysis where a cut line is. And you can expect what the affinity and what the reality will be of that.

Now, you'll know, then, whether this group is getting better or getting worse by whether or not they change on the Tone Scale. If they don't change on the Tone Scale, they're not changing. So you want to watch - a Group Auditor wants to watch a group in terms of that Tone Scale.

And watch this, the person who sits silently, motionless, communicates nothing and so forth is down there close to death. And when this person starts to get well, this person is going to do all sorts of things. He's going to go into grief; he's got to get up to afraid of things; up above that, they get angry - and that's the worst because what you're liable to find out as a Group Auditor is all of a sudden this group is very antagonistic towards you. You know what you're doing. But don't think you've failed; you're making them well. Let them roar. You know what's wrong with them.

The next level up from that, they're all bored with it. "Do we have to do that anymore? Why do we have to do that some more? We don't have to do that anymore, do we? Ah, let's do something else. We're bored. We're bored." Keep at it because above the next level of boredom is being very conservative about how they're doing it, and right above that level they get very enthusiastic.

What do you know, so if you've stopped at boredom, you have lost the game, just as if you would have stopped at antagonism.

This group hates your guts, that's 1,5, Gee, if you haul a group up to 1,5, you've really done something? You say, "Rarr-rarr-rarr-ruff." (audience laughter)

It's interesting to watch, but if your group doesn't change its manifestation, nothing's happening, so watch that.

And you should know this Tone Scale pretty well and you have a good picture of it there in Self Analysis. As a matter of fact, it's the only published edition of it right at the moment and should give you quite a bit of material to deal with.

These are the mechanics, then, of what you're dealing ... You're trying to get a no-zero - I mean, a no-energy thing, really a no-zero thing because there is something there; no wavelength. In other words, it isn't describable in terms of the MEST universe, it's all you're saying when you say it's - hasn't any wavelength, no location. You're trying to get this capability as high and as workable and as operable as possible, And as long as that capability increases, you're all right. But when a person starts losing those capabilities of organization and so forth, alignment that are top Tone Scale, and it starts drifting down, down, down into matter, they think slower and slower, they think worse and worse, they're less and less rational and they finally go on out the bottom; or they just hang fire someplace very low on the scale and they're not much use or benefit to anyone. Their interest Level dwindles down, down, down as that scale is descended.

The people you'll be processing lie normally well below 4.0 and most commonly lie between 2.5 and 0.1.