[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Okay. We have some discussion concerning the rudiments, control and ARC.

Going to talk to you about Creative Processes.

But first, before we go into that, I have a joke on you good people. I have a joke. The entire last lecture was devoted to the fact of nonrelatedness and nonsignificance of putting it there and perceiving it. Got this now? I merely talked about there was thereness and perception, and these were nonrelated factors. Then you could go ahead and add to them, if you wanted to, but the isness of that is the isness of that, and that is all the isness of that there is. See?

Cycle of action is create, create-create-create, no create.

And I've had, since, a half a dozen questions which wanted to know the moreness! So I want to tell you, first and foremost, that the relatedness, and so on, of a mock-up is zero. It is! See? And you perceive it. And if you can get a preclear simply to put it there and perceive it and just knock off any additives — see, this is not particularly workable; it's just a fact — why, if you can do this without any additives whatsoever, you got it made. Got that?

Now, you say, „What happens? Where's it go?“

Now, the only thing that gets difficult about processing is the degree of complexity which is required. And yesterday, after the lecture and so forth, I got a considerable number of additives to this fact. Because since the lecture was about, directly, the isness of a mock-up and there are no additives — see, it just is.

Well, if there's no postulate in the creation for its continuance, if there's no time connected with it, it doesn't go anywhere. There is no place for it to go. Now, basically, the reason why is there was nothing there in the first place, except your consideration.

And after its isness, why, then you could put on additives and cross-relations and associations and so forth. But a mock-up simply is, and the perception of it is simply the perception of it. And that is all there is to it. Now, we add: Is it good or bad, artistic, perfect or imperfect or... You can add things, you see? „What is the significance of what we have just done?“ Well, the significance of what we have just done, which is the deadliest and most important significance, is that a mock-up is. You see, it just is.

Therefore, if it does evolve that an individual creates over a long time, he actually has to continue the creation. He has to continue the creation. In other words, he has to create it, create it, create it, create it, create it. All the time he has his attention on it, regardless of how many vias, he's having to put it there, put it there, put it there, put it there. And what is that but a re-creation?

It is not an illusion. One does not think he sees it. You get the idea? One does not suppose, in some peculiar way, that he is deluding himself, that it's a hallucination, that energy then isn't. You know? These are all additives. It simply is.

He can say by consideration — if he has the former consideration that he can do this — he can say, „That mock-up will now stay there.“ But remember, he had to have the former consideration „When I say a mock-up is going to stay there, it continues to be created.“

You look around, you see the universe. There's the universe and it is. Now, the significances of how it is and where it goes and what it does after that, that is quite interesting, that is very fascinating. But these are all significances. Basically, the universe is.

Now, that's what survival amounts to in almost everybody's bank. It says when it lives it lives; when it goes on living it goes on living, and that's the postulate and that's it.

Now, the only joke I had was that obviously I didn't make my point. I didn't make my point, because my point simply was, there is the mock-up and now we have to cross-associate and add significance to have anything more than simply the isness of a mock-up.

Well, create, then, is a common denominator of many things. Why does one have to create again? He has to create again because of the postulate time. And that is the fact that we have a different universe every given instant. So we have to create something in this new universe at any given instant in order to have anything there in this new universe.

And to get a preclear to just abruptly put a mock-up there and say that it is and that he perceives it and just get him to do that without any postulates or anything else — you know, just no additives of any kind — well, it'd practically be the end of his case. See that? But it, again, is too complicated. I mean, it's too complicatedly simple, you see? The joke was that I was immediately handed some additives.

In any given instant, then, we mean that we have a disappearance. Well, we don't have a disappearance. We have a nonexistence. People ask the question, where did the mock-up go? It didn't go anywhere. And that is what is so puzzling. See, it didn't go anywhere. What happened to yesterday's universe? Well, it didn't go anywhere. It is not waiting anywhere at all. It was put there to last for a certain period of time and this, then, didn't require it to go anywhere. It's only going to last as a consideration for a certain period of time. Therefore, it no longer lasts. It just isn't there. It doesn't go anywhere. To go somewhere infers that it's continuing to last elsewhere. And every case you'll ever process has a louse-up right on that point. Where did yesterday go? Well, it didn't have any place to go to. Yesterday quit.

All right. Now, let's look at this. Let's look at this. This is an evaluation of importance. Now, it comes under this heading: What is the most important datum about a mock-up? The mock-up! Got it? What is the most important datum about perception? Perceiving, of course! Just that.

„Where am I going to store all these mock-ups I made yesterday?“ Well now, a fellow can start doing that. And therefore, every time he creates today he has to create yesterday too.

Now actually, it is not on a logical chain. There is no logical chain connected with it. But a logical chain can be connected with it, and you can pretty this thing up in the most wild and peculiar ways that you ever wanted to see.

I spoke to you yesterday about the time track. In every given instant the time track has to be re-created all over again. Because yesterday didn't go anyplace, we have this interesting mechanism, then, of storing it. Storing yesterday via a time track. When you look at it again you have to create it.

For instance, the most powerful motor I ever saw was a Fiat. Way back when. I don't know what year that Fiat was. There's undoubtedly people around here that are experts on this so I wouldn't — authorities — so I wouldn't venture. But this Fiat had been made sometime shortly after World War I — this motor — and it merely consisted of four huge barrels. And I don't know how they got as simple as they did, but all it was for, all it was supposed to do was supposed to take in some gasoline and explode it and turn a crankshaft. See? And there just wasn't anything beyond that. It was an internal-combustion engine that did just that.

Anything you are looking at was created in that instant. Got that? Anything you are looking at was created in that instant that you are looking at it. The illusion occurs this way: We create by vias so that we think we are looking at something that was, that became a now. But we have vias that mock this up.

The way it fed its gasoline in was ghastly as far as economy is concerned, but it was certainly simple. When the thing went down it pulled almost whole gasoline into the chambers from small pipes. This is a very fascinating engine. And that thing was the doggonedest, goingest engine I ever cared to look at in my life.

Now, we speak a lot about the destruction of engrams. All that an engram is, is a re-creation of an extant situation by a certain pattern. But the pattern is just by a series of vias which exist in now. It's the most fantastic testimony to what a thetan knows and doesn't know that he knows, that he can create things he knows nothing about all over again and then find out things from them that amaze him.

Some boys got some railroad rails and they put them on some axles, and they decided that wasn't heavy enough so they got a whole bunch more railroad rails and put them along there too, you see, in order to get enough ballast to hold this thing down, and put some wheels on it and mounted them.

So this thing called a time track is to a marked degree a trick. That which you perceive was made at the instant you perceived it, to this degree: One's perception is more limited than the creative sphere. And that's another little law that has to go down there. Perception is usually less than the created sphere and is never more. Got it? It's usually less than the created sphere.

Well, they did an interesting job of putting this thing together. They had a nice heavy chassis, and it was sitting there and everything. And it just never would do anything else but run them into any handy ditch because it went too fast, too suddenly. The gas was fed quite directly into cylinders. The vaporization in it, I suppose, was noticeable, but you could burn almost any kind of gas in it, I suppose. It ran best on aviation gas. The oiling system on it was very, very peculiar; it had big cups, and you put oil in the cups and the cups dropped oil onto everything else. Here was simplicity. Here was simplicity. It had tremendous horsepower.

In other words, because you can see Keokuk does not mean that you also didn't create Los Angeles and New York. Just because you're only looking at Keokuk doesn't mean that you left Los Angeles and New York out of your creative action. You created Los Angeles, New York and Keokuk and only looked at Keokuk. People think of that happy day when they were children and only thought that the home front yard, they say, was there; and there was nothing beyond that front yard at all. But you tell them where Germany is, and they say it's over that little range of hills. Why do they think it's so close? Well, that's because in failing to create it properly, they create it in the wrong place. It's quite interesting though, if you took them to Germany they would see Germany. See, that becomes fascinating. That's the bug. How come they can see Germany?

Now, an even simpler engine than that was an old Frisco Standard. They were a two-cycle engine; they ran around 1912. And you see them occasionally still in fish boats. These things have never worn out. They consist of one cylinder, one gasoline-injection device, one crankshaft, you know, one bearing, and they fire every time. You see, they come up and they go down and they fire. Not four-stroke but a two-stroke engine. Those things are powerful. They're huge. You could throw a Great Dane through one of those cylinders, you know? It's just one cylinder sitting there. But, of course, they had to have an enormous flywheel to keep that thing turning over through its dead spots and so on; and it has one. But hardly anybody can make one of those things stop. If they get started it then becomes a contest of wit to stop one because there's so little that you can regulate.

Therefore, a thetan tells you one thing while he's doing something else. This is obvious.

Now, compare that to a modern Alfa Romeo or something. I don't know, eight blowers on a side or... These complicated modern engines are turning up enormous horsepower for their weight; that is for sure. But you try to follow the lines and so on, that lead here and there and do this and that — I imagine mechanics today just look at one of those things that comes in and call up the local watchmaker. It must be a very difficult job to keep one in repair and running.

Now, what — what do we find as a common denominator of processing, then? Creativeness. Creativeness. Creativeness has a scale which begins with lies. Lies are the lowest level of creativeness.

I had a mediumly complicated engine, a two-and-a-half liter Jaguar, and that was a very peculiar engine. It ran beautifully, it ran splendidly, if it was set just right. Very delicate. Very high compression, so on. Just right, it just ran wonderfully if you ran it exactly at 95 degrees centigrade. I don't know what 95 degrees centigrade is. I imagine it's about 199 degrees Fahrenheit. It's up there close. If it ran too cold it didn't run. And if it ran too hot it spat out its con-rods. But if you could adjust it just right it ran wonderfully. Got the idea?

The next scale above lies is, of course, the creation of a thought. Just plain creation of a thought, independent of other thoughts.

As you go into complexity — there are many better examples than internal-combustion engines — but as you go into complexity you do not necessarily go into workability. It's not necessarily true that as you move into simplicity you move into action either. There is a certain level of complexity demanded for any maximal efficiency.

The next level above that is the creation of a mechanic. But people run them in reverse: They have to be able to create the mechanical adequately before they can create a thought. That's just the way it stacks up.

But there is every reason to believe that this level of simplicity demanded is almost always exceeded by man. He does not try to simplify, he tries to complicate. And the action of complication follows the curve create-survive-destroy. As we look at that curve, we see from this point of „It is,“ you see, the isness of this mock-up and the fact of its perception — just got that; just no more than that — the isness of the mock-up and the fact of its perception. See, there's no additives there. We only get a curve by adding complexities. In order to make it survive now we start adding complications to this isness. In order to destroy it we usually add many, many more.

The number of people who create thoughts are very few. H.L. Mencken, just before his death, wrote quite a dissertation on this. And his opinion of the ability of man to think an original thought was poor.

Actually the destruction of a mock-up is simply its isness and perception. It begins right where it ends. That you get in perfect duplication. You know about perfect duplication in The Creation of Human Ability: You make a perfect duplicate of anything, it'll disappear. Well, of course, what is a perfect duplicate? That is the isness of its creation. It is; we perceive it. So if we say, „It exactly is,“ and we exactly perceive it, it isn't. See, it already exists; we really run out what we just did and it disappears. That's a perfect duplicate.

But for a man to create a thought, he evidently — if he's fairly low down the line — has to have the idea that he can create a mass or a space or something. So the creation of masses, spaces, particles, so on, is actually below the ability to create a thought.

But why doesn't the thing have persistence? That's because it hasn't got any place to „went,“ and because it doesn't have any future to go into; it is. Don't you see? We have to invent past and future as the first invention to get off the first point of the cycle of action. Now we start moving up into more creation and more survival and more destruction, and we do this by adding. It's an additive process.

You see, one gets starved for masses, spaces and particles and believes that these have in them a number of thoughts. They believe these things have in them a number of thoughts. And so they take the thoughts out of these masses. They remove the thoughts already extant in the masses of yesterday. Of course, they have to put them there to remove them, but that's perfectly all right. They believe that these thoughts came from the masses.

Now evidently, destruction is a subtractive process. Everybody thinks it is. But the type of destruction which is utilized in this modern world is additive. Man, they certainly leave debris around! Now, let's take the atom bomb. You say the atom bomb is a great destructive weapon. I don't know that it is even a weapon. In fact, I doubt that it is a weapon. Not from a standpoint of its industrial use, but it just isn't a good military weapon. It is insufficiently directive. It's like using gas in a high wind which is liable to shift in any moment. It just is not a weapon. It's liable to affect your own personnel more thoroughly than the enemy personnel. You're liable to get all sorts of complications in using it as a weapon.

They develop philosophies. Man is fantastic. He develops a philosophy like dialectic materialism. He says every thought comes from the collision of two forces. (Two or more forces he should have said.) By the way, that's not even scientifically well written. You know? I mean, it has extraordinaries. Like why two forces? Why not three forces? You know? That kind of nonsense.

But we take this thing called the A-bomb or the H-bomb, fission, fusion, and we do destruction with it. And now we get additives nobody can solve. You see? We get various compounds and derivatives and et ceteras that are far more complicated than the original ingredients. It's very wonderful. I mean, how much more complicated things get the moment we explode one of these things. And yet obviously when we explode the bomb we have no bomb. See, the bomb is now gone, it's exploded. But what have we got left? Wow!

Of course, somebody with a scarcity of masses treasures the masses. And he says, „These masses are really something.“ And he rather deifies them. And he says, „When you bump these two masses together, of course, you get a thought out of them; that shows you that they're God.“

Now, man believes that when he destroys something it disappears, and therefore, he is totally uneducated — he's at an educational level, let me say, inadequate to the handling of destruction. Because the more he destroys something the more difficult he may find the situation. As we seek to destroy things we're liable to add complications to the situation.

And the only difference between Roman Catholicism and nuclear physics is that the Roman Catholic has an easier idea getting some thoughts into space. In nuclear physics we get thoughts into space by banging together masses. But there's no less deity involved. There is no less a worshipful attitude toward these masses that give up these beautiful reactions.

Now, man himself is adding these. It isn't a phenomenon of nature or something like that. Man adds these complications all by his little lonesome with no assistance whatsoever. He is on this kick of addition, additives, more of it, more complexity, to such a degree that if it didn't make complications he'd invent some for it to make.

Every once in a while they turn around and tell you, if they're not watching themselves too carefully or if they've had a drink, „Isn't God wonderful!“ You know, they turn the reactor on and let it react for a while, and they turn around to you, „Isn't God wonderful!“ Now, they got tired of having God in space and put him back in idol form. That's the truth of the matter.

Let's look at what happens when we attempt to destroy a person in this society. We shoot the person. Probably the randomity occasioned by this would consume several hours of the day. One would have to do many other things after he shot the person. Then ensues the Dragnet television drama of rounding up the killer, and then the comedy of a fast and speedy trial as called for in the Constitution that drags on for two or three years. And this complications, complications, complications. And eventually there's difficulties concerning the execution of the murderer. And not only that, but having executed one of its citizens, the government of those citizens is now in more trouble than it was before, because it's now executed somebody, which is a crime of murder, after all. There's the difficulty of the disposition of the body.

Any race does this eventually. It gets tired of looking into space and ruining all of its havingness and puts their gods into masses. Actually, probably idolatry is much more healthy from a standpoint of body masses than a spatial religion. You got something real solid, you can walk up to it and lean on it, you know, and you can say, „Oh boy. Yeah, I know God heard me now; there he is.“ See?

But the disposition of the engram is just left up to happenstance. In other words, one never did do anything but add, from the moment he sought to remove somebody from the environment, straight on forward. It's quite interesting that I don't think any living being or any living thing can be wiped out with total impunity. It's not possible. There are always consequences. Man would have it that way. Because he wants consequences, and he gets complexities.

Savage people worship rocks, and so forth. And that's pretty low- toned and pretty barbaric when they get down to worshipping rocks. But when you get down to worshipping rocks you can't see, you've got the modern atomic physicist.

Let's look it over now. He wants consequences. They are protective consequences, and so forth. He wants to be safeguarded, he wants certain things and certain parts of the game to stay in certain grooves. And so what does he do? What does he do? Right straight along the line, what does he do? Just adds complexities. More of them he gets, why, the more of them he has and the more complicated he will make those things.

So anyway, these boys actually are copartners in the creation of any given instant. And the instants which were, just aren't. It's too simple though, of course, you see? It's — have to make it more complicated. But the instants which were, aren't: They didn't go anywhere.

You couldn't possibly come out with some little square box that you would plug into your house circuit which would give you current from there on out and sell it for a dime. You couldn't do this. This is a fantastically simple thing. It'd be some sort of a little box that was inexhaustible, and it maybe had very simple constructions, and it'd be plugged into your house circuit, and there would be juice from there on out. Now, you think that would be very nice and there wouldn't be anything to this at all. But the funny part of it is, introduction of that much simplicity brings — in the anxiety of man to get along the cycle of action — brings almost immediate chaos.

Now, if you understand this clearly, then you understand what is wrong with your preclear is his ability to create. Ability to create thoughts, his ability to create particles and masses in terms of the bank and certainly, observably, he is very deficient in being able to create walls that are as big as and solid as the room walls.

The more simplicity you try to introduce, the greater the chaos which is liable to ensue. It's a little law involved with it. Of course, if you did that you could look at the expanding spiral, just in the field of economics, of what would happen if everybody started to plug in one little box into the light lines which furnished him with all the light he needed from there on out. We say, „Well, it couldn't possibly affect us because all it would affect would be the power company.“ No, the power company has stock; the power company owns real estate; the power company owns the Federal Reserve Bank; the Federal Reserve Bank owns the government... And here we go! See? We're on some concatenative chain.

I told a preclear one time — just making an experiment — something that would appall you, I'm sure. You speak of the Auditor's Code, a break this bad, you see, malice aforethought, can happen in the world of research but you actually have to add about four or five more clauses onto it before the break can be conceived to be big enough. You see?

Now, the trick is, then, to achieve a simplicity which does not then fit on any logical sequence. Got that? The moment you could move off, totally off, of a logical sequence, then you could have a simplicity. And so we get the invention of death, exteriorization after, and a new life.

He was making mock-ups, and he was doing rather well. I was testing the action of mocking up barriers. And he kept saying he was mocking up barriers, and he kept saying he was mocking up barriers. And I finally said to him, „You're sure you're mocking up barriers now?“ I said, „Where are you mocking them up?“ And he pointed to a line out in the middle of the floor and so forth. And I walked over and patted the line and felt around it and passed my hand through it and so on. Pulled Steves's trick that he pulled back there in '53. Kept telling preclears to mock up a Coke bottle, and then say, „I can't see it.“ You know? This was to encourage them to make more solid mock-ups. And I told this preclear I couldn't feel that wall. I couldn't feel it. I didn't think he was doing well. Asked him if he was sick or something. And got him to struggling to make the walls thicker and heavier and thicker and heavier. And I finally said, „You know, I don't think we better go on with the session. Maybe you need some rest. Maybe you should go take a rest and we might try this again tomorrow.“

It's against the law practically to... In fact, you couldn't possibly sue somebody who died last year for the debt he owes you. You could sue his estate, but you couldn't sue him. Even if you isolated him. Even if you found out that this little baby now over in the Jones family was actually Bill Kraft, and he owed you 8,642 dollars and you waited for Bill (now Jones) to grow up to his majority. And even if he inherited a large amount of money in the Jones family in some fashion, and you sued him for it, everybody would conspire to knock this thing silly. Because they have a complexity invented called continuance in death, and you are seeking to wreck a complexity by being very simple. You're saying, „Bill Kraft is Bill Jones.“ No, they want a complexity of identity. There must be identity changes. Do you see how this is? The society is set up, then, to follow along certain complicated lines and it tends, normally, to make them more complicated.

He says, „Why? What's the matter with you?“

All right. What's this got to do with a preclear? Well, it has everything to do with a preclear. The preclear is hellbent along a curve called create-survive-destroy and if not processed off that curve or in some other direction, he will destroy himself, even with good auditing. Be alert to that. Be alert to that.

I said, „I can't feel these walls. I don't think they're there.“

He'll follow that curve from simplicity to complexity no matter what you do. Now, he'll get a cognition, let us say. He gets a cognition, and he sails along with this cognition. Now he adds something to this cognition; he adds something else to this cognition; he adds something else to this cognition. And he's finished the auditing you've given him. He's gone his way and so on. He's had this cognition. Now he will add, add, add, add, add, add, add, add, add. If you yourself have not broken him off of this curve to some degree, if you have not reversed this direction, if you have not boosted him into some kind of a cognition that he can accept some simplicity, you simply will have aided and abetted his hellbent career along this cycle of action into a destruction of one kind or another. Do you see that?

He went into an awful decline. Isn't that odd? I was trying to find out why he went into a decline. He intended to pick an agreement and he picked a disagreement.

Now, the simplicity which he can achieve then becomes our study, not the complexity. As far as ability is concerned, we do not want to know how many balls he can balance on the tip of his nose. This we do not want to know. That's a complexity, you see. We want to know if he's got a nose. See that?

So he came in the next morning intending to pick a disagreement. We had a wonderful fight, and he felt much better. And we got on, and his mock-ups got right back to where they ought to have been. You see? I was trying to damage his mock-ups so that I could improve them again, and succeeded in doing so. I had him with mock-ups there that were fabulous, for him. He never saw such mockups. But he kept making them, by the way, on the basis: „Of course, you wouldn't think this is very much, but...“ Now, what is this whole mechanism of creation in terms of masses and spaces? It is conviction of existence. Conviction of existence. There are a number of postulates which go into this action of putting up a mock-up. But the basic postulate, of course, is „There it is!“ The next one is, is „I perceive it.“

Now, it actually would probably be easier to establish an ability to balance three balls on the end of his nose than (without Scientology) to establish the fact that he had a nose. See that? So it requires a simple technology — and Scientology is basically a simple technology, in spite of the complexities which it apparently gets into sometimes — to cut back through this morass of complexity.

Now, if you go around having a preclear saying, „I perceive it, I perceive it, I perceive it, I perceive it,“ why do the walls get stronger to him and heavier? Now, that is, then, a reverse perception. He was on an inversion. See, he'd said „I perceive it, I perceive it, I perceive it“ so hard and so furiously, so factually, he tried to be so convincing about having perceived it, that he started to drop out of the bottom on this whole basis of having perceived it. And the harder he says „I perceive it“ now, the less he perceives it. Why?

Now, there are three ways to handle a black panther. Three ways: One, attack him. Two, avoid him. Three, neglect him. Three ways you can do it. Of course, avoiding him also includes running away from him. We used to erroneously call this the Black Panther Mechanism. The Black Panther Mechanism, we thought, was simply „Neglect it,“ and it became synonymous with „Neglect it.“ Actually, it all came out of this story in Book One about three ways to handle a black panther.

The mechanism didn't work. He has lost on this mechanism too many times. He said, „I perceive it,“ and then nobody else agreed with him. He said, „I perceive it,“ and then something happened to it. Somebody else had a mock-up in front of it. Somebody was playing a joke on him or something of the sort. You see? Mix-ups of perception. But the perception was basically „I perceive it.“ However, your preclear doesn't go into all of these delicacies. He simply wants to put something up and see it. And this he does, and he needn't make an articulated postulate in order to do it.

Now, what would happen if you neglected the complexities of a case? It's a very interesting question. You better look it over. You better look it over very well. What would happen if you just abandoned or neglected the complexities of the case?

A thetan doesn't go around thinking „Now I will think a thought: Mm. I have thought a thought.“ No. He says — he doesn't have to think „Now I am going to put up a mass,“ and then put up a mass. He just — Mass. See? That's all there is to it. He doesn't really think „Now I am going to move my body's arm,“ and then put a postulate into the body's arm which then moves the body's arm, see? It's perfectly easy to make the postulate the action. See, not to confuse two things; I mean, that's the postulate, see? You could do that just as easily as the other way.

Male voice: He'd make it more important. You'd get sidetracked.

You can get a guy so that he doesn't know whether he's walking on his head or his hands by simply asking him, „Just what do you tell your legs to get them to move?“ Of course, this is a lie! He doesn't ever tell his legs anything to get them to move. He simply says „Action,“ and he has an action.

Male voice: He'd simply persist on the create-survive-destroy.

Now, because he has to tell other people something before they do anything, he gets this confused with himself. And he believes he should tell himself something before he does something. And this is not at all true.

Male voice: He's going to bring them up even sharper to get you to look at it and say, „This is effect.“

So therefore, any instantaneous reaction in front of his face in the engram bank is liable to surprise him. He doesn't consider himself capable of it. He doesn't say, „Now I am going to get an action,“ and get an action in front of his face. Instead of that — that isn't what happened — he simply has an action in front of his face which can exert considerable influence against the body, and this surprises him. He doesn't know that he's capable of this.

Female voice: I think he'd move quite — right along quite well.

Well, I don't know why he keeps this hidden from himself, except that it makes more game. But the funny part of it is, is an engram appears in front of somebody's face on the same basis that he moves his arm without telling it to do so. You might say it's a mass postulate. Quite amazing.

Well... Well, it's a funny thing, but it's the preclear and his body that make everything there is complex there. And there's a possibility that if you don't get him to make them, they won't ever be made.

Now, you can actually get somebody making these mass postulates, and he can get into much better shape. You can ask him such a question as „How much effort could you exert in moving that desk?“ You just run this as a process. „How much effort could you exert in moving that chair?“ „How much effort could you exert...?“ Not how much less effort, you know, but just how much effort, which makes him really go in the direction of more effort. „How much effort could you employ, now, in holding yourself to the floor?“

Let's look at this very carefully. You have to process as though you were adding complexities — do you get the lie? — in order to add a simplicity. Now, there's a fundamental formula. That's very fundamental. That's more fundamental than any process we are using at this moment. More fundamental. In that way you achieve simplicity. That is the fundamental of modern auditing. That comes under games conditions. It satisfies all sorts of things. To state it differently, you go at it as though you're going to make it so complicated nobody can do it, you see, and just throw him the curve of simplicity continually.

Now, he'll think he's running out things. He isn't running anything out. He is exercising his ability just like the strongman exercises his ability to appear interesting in front of this huge audience. A strongman takes a five-hundred-pound dumbbell and — although he, after the show, picks it up and just tosses it lightly on the truck — in front of the audience, he picks up that five-hundred-pound barbell with the grunts and groans that would give a giant a hernia. Man! And sweat runs off of him, and he trembles, and he poises himself just so. And finally gets it up to a half-lift and then finally shoots it to a whole-lift. And boy, this is really dramatic! It's easy for him to do it. Now he's trying to make it harder to do so that he'll get more appreciation.

How would you go about such a thing? You want him to touch a wall. That's a simple action. You're trying to get him the isness of the wall; the wall is there and he is perceiving it. You add a games condition anytime you make the preclear do it. The common denominator of a games condition is cause-distance-effect, which backs him along the create-survive-destroy curve. Now, if you can get him to do a cause-distance-effect, then you back him up toward create. See? They're parallels. They're curves, you might say. You get him to do cause-distance-effect.

There isn't anything in the universe that is hard to do. But nothing that is easy to do gets applause. So the communication formula enters into the basis of „if you want attention you'd better make it difficult,“ and that is where we get our basic complexity. That's why things must be more complicated. The strongman effort.

Now, the rule actually is, is anything that's happening to him you get him to do. That is a general rule. And allowing for the simplicity-complexity pattern or mechanism you can then effect almost anything you want to with the preclear, allowing for his acceptance level of complexity. It's cause-distance-effect. That is what you process with the preclear sitting at cause, so on.

For instance, I upset a pediatrician, just yesterday. I told him, „You handle children extremely well.“ A wave of pain went across his face. I'd come close to tapping this one: It is fantastically easy for him to handle children. Everybody considers that this is very difficult. And in two or three years in his career, he will have made it more difficult. But I tell him that he does it well, you see? I have already crossed him up a little bit. Just malice aforethought. Just my pointing my fangs at the medical profession slightly.

Two cause-distance-effects are in existence at all times. The preclear is doing a cause-distance-effect upon his environment and the bank, and the auditor is doing a cause-distance-effect upon the preclear. This is a simultaneous action. Preclear actually doesn't too well notice the auditor's cause-distance- effect. He has a tendency to ignore that as a causative thing because the interest of the auditor is in the preclear, which gives the preclear the idea of cause too, you see? But the truth of the matter is, the auditor is doing a cause-distance-effect on the preclear; the preclear is doing a cause-distance-effect on his bank and the world around him.

Of course, I probably should have gone one better. I think now I should have asked him, „How do you go about handling children that well? Just what do you do that...“

Then that tells you that we wouldn't have the preclear run himself as a victim unless we ran him causing himself to be the victim. You got it? So you could even run him as the victim by having him cause the victimization. But this is not a victim situation. You got it?

I told him this because he made a strange remark to me. He asked me if I ever read the book called Peter the Fisherman, or something of that sort. The little children, he'd pick them up and they'd stop crying. That was how he explained his ability. I think this chap will be needing our assistance one of these days, because he's got himself all mocked up into the saint bracket. He must be eight yards, invertedly, back of his own head. You know?

So the basic fundamental we use is this thing we call a games condition. We process a games condition. A games condition is no effect on the preclear, total effect on the environment. To achieve what? A total effect on the preclear.

If a thetan can't stop a child from crying he ought to quit. It is very easy. But if you think it's difficult, and you get a big regimen for doing it and so forth, you'll find it's hard to stop children from crying — quite difficult to stop children from crying. As a matter of fact, the more you insist that they stop crying, the more they cry. Isn't that peculiar? Hm? You say, „Now, you haven't got anything to cry about; what are you crying for?“

Now, we have just stated, in a slightly more precise or mathematical way, the first thing: In order to make it simple, make it more complex. They're not parallel statements; they don't substitute one for the other. One is what you do, and the other is how you do it.

It's an interesting thing that if a child has skinned his knee, for instance, and you tell him, „That is nothing. That is nothing. What are you crying about? You shouldn't pay any attention to that,“ and so forth, you can actually observe the bruise develop much more rapidly. Because he actually is holding a bruise up to you. See? Well, something is putting the bruise there. The body, without assistance, wouldn't hold the bruise. It has to have the assistance of a mental image picture bank in order to hold that bruise.

Now, look-a-here: The amount of complexity which a preclear can achieve will always exceed your imagination. That's a safe rule. It's not at all true, but it's a safe rule. Got it? Amount of complexity which he can assume — always exceed the auditor's imagination. It's a safe rule. Because he's doing it unknowingly, he's had seventy-six trillion years to dream these things up, he's got them all in his hip pocket and Lord knows where he's been and what he's done on the track. And all of it sums up to this: How to be complicated.

So we get this whole thing of making it more difficult. If you want to get attention you make it harder. Got the idea?

Well, now, a body can't breathe unless it has lungs. Why not? Well, it can't breathe unless it has air, and the air has to go into the lungs and the air has to be distributed through the bo-- I want to know what the devil this air is doing in here. How'd the air get in here? Oh, well, you have to have air. That's so you get combustion with something or other so you'll have heat! Oh, heat now! Uh-huh. Well, all right. Well, how do you get heat? Well, the food he eats. Hey, now wait a minute; we're off on to food! You get some sort of an idea of this?

Now, if you've got somebody who has this kick, all you have to do is ask him to make it more difficult. Now, you can process an incident this way: You can say, „Tell me something worse. Tell me something worse than that. Come on, give me something worse than that. Give me something worse than that. Something worse than that. Something worse than that. Something worse than that.“ And it's an interesting thing that the incident will process under these lines: You just make it worse, make it worse, make it worse.

To have something fall you have to have gravity. That's an interesting thing to have. What do you have to have, to have gravity? Well, you have to have a planet, of course. You do? Well, to have a planet, you see, you've got to have space and a universe, naturally. Oh, wow! Not really! You mean a fellow just can't say „Gravity“ and have gravity? Yes, I'm afraid he can; he can say „Gravity“ and have gravity. But this exceeds his desire for complexity.

Actually the alternate question — „Invent an individuality that could cope with it,“ and „Tell me or invent a worse situation“ — is a killer. That blows engrams. That's a real fine process. One and two. One and two. One and two. „Invent an individuality that could cope with it.“ „Invent a worse situation.“ „Invent an individuality that could cope with it“ — just some specific incident.

Now, what do we mean by all this complexity? We could mean just game. We could mean just game and that's all. He wants more game, more problems. And they're not good for him!

All right. Now we have this, then, workable in other factors, and one of those factors is effort. And most everybody around has difficulty with effort. They have difficulty because of estimation of; they don't measure the resistances of other things. See, they don't measure this. They get one-sided about every effort problem. They don't measure the resistance of the door; they measure their resistance in opening the door. You got that?

We're in the position of threatening to give the preclear all the ice cream he can possibly eat, but because it would, and we know it would make him deathly ill and knock him off ice cream forever, why, we give him the bare spoon and convince him he can create the ice cream. You got the idea? He feels better afterwards. It's quite interesting that the auditor seeks to achieve a greater simplicity by inviting the preclear to do it in a more complicated fashion.

Now, what is wrong with their ability to experience is the ability to experience effort is poorly developed. You got it? If you cannot measure the effort of the door at the same time you're measuring your effort in opening the door, you won't open the door smoothly. Now, this is the answer to that peculiar riddle: Some people do things very clumsily and some people do things very smoothly. Some people go down and run a piece of machinery on and on and on, and nothing bad occurs. Somebody else starts running this same piece of machinery and everything bad occurs. Well, that is because the individual running the machinery is measuring one of two things, or both.

Now, I'll give you one of the ideas of this: „Invent a worse situation.“ Now, this is a rather fabulous process — just that process all by itself; „Invent a worse situation.“ It's a sort of a common denominator of all processes.

Now, somebody could actually only measure the machine's effort. Or somebody could only measure his own effort. It requires somebody to measure both efforts. He has to be sensible of both efforts in order to do a good job of handling. Follow me?

He said, „Oh, I'm having a terrible lot of trouble with my girlfriend.“

In order to speak, it is not enough to control the body and the voice tones in front of an audience. Oddly enough, you also have to have in some small grip the audience's ability to listen. See that? There's two sides of this.

You say, „Well, could it be any worse?“

Now, pan-determinism is the term we assign to handling both sides of a situation, two or more sides. And self-determinism is the definition we assign to handling one side.

„Well, I don't see how it possibly could be.“

Now, it's awfully good for a person to handle just one side. That's awfully good. That's wonderful if he can handle one side. Few people can do that. He can handle one side of it perfectly, so we say he's a self-determined individual, and this is a compliment.

„Well, you invent a worse situation.“

But the funny part of it is, if he were really good, he'd handle both sides: He'd be pan-determined. He would have the rock's effort to stay against the ground and his own effort to lift the rock so measured and calculated that his effort to lift the rock would be minimal. Unless he was trying to make it difficult.

And after a while he has worsened it sufficiently that he can look at it as a simplicity. It no longer is a complicated problem. Why? You satiated his appetite for complexity. Just as easily as that. „You invent a worse situation,“ you've said, „than this situation you have with your girlfriend.“

Well, the way you make it difficult is to make that rock decide all by itself how much it should stick against the ground. And in that there's nothing there to decide, we of course get a heavy rock. See this?

Now, a problem of incomparable magnitude is an interesting mechanism. You know that you can find a problem of comparable magnitude to every fundamental, single data in this universe by a problem of incomparable magnitude as a process. Why does that work? Well, it works very simply: He's trying to suppress the unimportance of his problem. You ask him for a problem of incomparable magnitude, and he has to think of the problem he has as far more important than it is in order to think up something far less important than the problem. You get the idea? He has to throw out his evaluation of that problem. That's what happens. So problem of comparable magnitude and problem of incomparable magnitude aren't actually comparable processes. Problem of incomparable magnitude is incomparably superior.

All right. Now, we look this over and we find out, then, that a preclear is making his case more difficult. He does not go easily in the direction of simplicity of case. He makes his case more difficult. His case got him attention; in order to get more attention, he's got to have more case. Got the idea? Case got him attention. More difficulty: more attention. See?

Now, I'll tell you one of the data ways this is used. This is actually usable in research. We ask somebody for a problem of incomparable magnitude to time. He can give us tons of them. Incomparable magnitude to time? Wow! That's easy, simple. Nothing wrong with this. Easy to run. And all of a sudden he'll come up with a problem of comparable magnitude to time. Ah, but you say at this moment that there is no such thing. Yes, there is. There are many problems of comparable magnitude to time. But you cannot get the preclear to think of them directly.

Also we have this other factor coming in alongside of it. We have more communication. There are more things to communicate with. He has a greater complexity of communication. He knows better than to break off communications; this is always painful. This he knows. So we ask people questions like, „How much effort could you use in lifting that chair?“ „How much effort could you use in lifting that rock?“ „How much effort could you employ?“ „How much worse could you make that situation?“

Now, that is a simple comparison; problem of comparable magnitude is a simple comparison. You ask for a non-simple comparison; you ask for incomparable magnitude. Now, boy, that takes it around about four more vias, don't you see? He has to look at time, and he has to look at something or other, and he has to compare these two. And then he has to make sure that they are not of comparable magnitude, and then he has to say they are not. And the next thing you know he achieves the simplicity of a problem of comparable magnitude to time.

That is sort of an insulting sort of question, but I've had it work many times during an emergency. Somebody is running around in a small circle, and I've stopped them and asked them, „Now, let's see, how much worse could you make this situation?“ They take a double-take, and then they kind of laugh and actually do something effective. See, it snaps out the exactness of their action.

Now, that's quite interesting because that is more than any philosopher has ever done in this history of this planet. It's quite a stunt. You get your sixty-nine-IQ preclear into getting problems of comparable magnitude to time; that's pretty good. You mean there are other data as important as time? Well, you devaluate the importance of time as a datum and you devaluate the whole causative action of time. Time ceases then to be a causative action.

People are too prone to think of thought as without force. You can think a thought called a lightning bolt if you really know that lightning bolts are really simply a thought thought. See, lightning bolts are just a thought thought. Think a thought, crash! See? People articulate their thoughts. People think a thought and tell something else to think this thought and so on. Get the idea?

Preclear is cause. Why is a preclear cause? Well, he achieved something as complex as time. He did it on a via. We don't ask him to solve time, we ask him to get a problem of incomparable magnitude to time. He finally comes up with a problem of comparable magnitude to time. We ask him still for problems of incomparable magnitude to time; he will eventually come up, on this fantastic number of vias, to a problem of comparable magnitude to time and then eventually a problem superior to time.

People postulate. That's just a little bit different than an action thought. They say it will happen; it is going to happen, so on.

Now, you think at once, space being such a dominant thing in a universe of this character... You can actually get any preclear — if he can be held into session, if he's workable at all — to find problems of comparable magnitude to space. He actually can find things that are of comparable importance, quite brilliantly. In other words, you're off on a track of inventing up a whole new universe. And you do that by a problem of incomparable magnitude to space. Incomparable magnitude, however stated. You could say, „No matter what you think of time, give me a problem now which is infinitely less important than your worry about time.“

There is the thing of just happenstance. You know, it happens. You mustn't overlook this because you'll run into it in auditing.

Now, what is this? We can get him to get a problem of comparable magnitude to space. We can get him to invent. And if we can get him to invent we can get him to create. If you were to take all the stable data of Scientology, one right after the other, you would find that you could do a substitution. And it becomes a Substitution Process, which is the simplest process of all. And on a look at it, just as processes go, on a solid front of comparison, we find out that if you can just substitute — he thinks A is important — if we can substitute B for A with as great an importance, then B and A are first equally important and then, of course, A ceases to be as important as B. Grading and value. You want somebody to go out of this universe, zoom? He'll certainly go out.

More game — more difficulty. As a test I have sat and asked a preclear for five solid hours, „How much worse could your case get?“ „What could happen to you?“ I've asked him. I didn't ask him that as a repetitive auditing question; his case couldn't have stood it. See, I asked him that question but I asked it in so — enough ways to get into communication with him. „Well, you say your health has been pretty bad. How much worse do you think it could get? Mm-hm, hm-mm. Could it get any worse than that? Uh- huh, well, you say your lungs. Well, could they get any worse than that? What's the worst you know about concerning lungs? How bad off can lungs actually get?“ Of course, he runs down to the very unsatisfactory zero of dust. You know, dead, dust, so on. That's a nothingness. He doesn't like that. So the lungs, of course, he concludes, must survive in a badly decayed condition for a very long time. See, because they really don't get worse when they die. Body goes and makes some better lungs; he knows that. Follow this as an action?

Now, how does this effect this thing called a stable datum? Stable datum is terribly important here because you can only get him to shift his stable data by showing him that he can create data as stable. And therefore, problems of incomparable magnitude to any stable datum as listed in Scientology walks a person straight out of the universe. This is one of the more fantastic actions that can be taken. You've asked for something very much more complicated than a datum of comparable magnitude. That is a simple comparison. You ask for a problem of incomparable magnitude — a problem not nearly as important; a problem anyway you want to state it — and you'll get the whole substitution mechanism carrying forward neatly and smoothly. And the next thing you know, you've got it.

Now, creation, then, gets branded with a number of significances. These significances are what the individual thinks are good and what he thinks are bad. And these are regulated by „How much attention can I get? How much attention can be delivered?“ or „How much communication would I have to get up if I got rid of something?“ Even an engram is something to communicate with in the lonely little shell of a head that the thetan has, you know? Even an engram is something to communicate with.

Now, just take time, space, energy, mass — take the entirety of the sixth dynamic: problem of incomparable magnitude to radiation; problem of incomparable magnitude to gamma rays; problem of incomparable magnitude to the past. These are big data. These are the fixed data of the track. Now, why are they fixed data of the track? Because there's only one of them. We have a law that fits in there: A datum becomes important by its absence of a comparable datum. Got that? Fixed data. Now the fixing and unfixing of attention and data itself then compare in these two things. Right?

Now, you essentially, as an auditor, use these principles continuously. You use these principles all the time. You say, „What more could I communicate with around here, for this preclear?“ You say, „All right, now we'll have him communicate with the wall. We'll have him communicate with the floor, the ceiling.“ Why? That's to give him enough communication.

Now, I'm just giving you an example here of how we go about this. Let's look at this far more simply. There is a simpler process than this. That's just make the preclear do something simple, and add the complexity by threatening to kill him if he doesn't! You got it? That's not always the most therapeutic process, but it's certainly direct. We say, „Touch that wall.“

Now, if you give him enough communication, after a while you can call it to his attention that you are breaking communication. Now, you can call that to his attention roughly or smoothly. You can say, „Break communication. Break communication, break communication, break communication.“ And he'll collapse. I don't know, nobody has ever taken it past the point of death, so we don't know whether a thetan has ever gotten well from this process or not. Might be a wonderful process, but nobody has ever survived it. We get them down toward feeling woggy and out of communication, and they stop running the process. And we really don't have any way to keep them running the process. So we assume that breaking communication or breaking ARC or stopping ARC is at once a fatal activity for an auditor to engage upon.

Now, the complexities tend to run away and so forth, because you won't let him create them; you make him neglect them. And if they are neglected then they aren't created. Actually, 8-C is apparently a much tougher process than many figure-figure processes because of its fantastic simplicity.

Now, this goes further than that. It is a very arduous thing to run processes which are broken-communication processes. It's hard to do this. In addition to that, they are not very therapeutic, which tends then to kind of rule them out. Doesn't it?

Now, of course, you can keep it from being too simple in the preclear's eye by permitting him to be awfully significant about it. The actual truth of the matter is you're merely demanding that his obsessive creation of complexities cease and desist at this moment, that he walk over to the wall, that he touch the wall, that he let go of the wall, that he turn around and see another wall, that he walk over to it. You got it? Wow! You're saying, „Cease and desist. No more complexity. No more complexity.“ And if you run it so that he's really there and in session, and he can't wiggle sideways from you, and he can't think of anything else to amuse himself as he walks, you've had it as far as the preclear is concerned. He's going to get over it or die in the attempt!

But there is one break-communication process which stands in an isolated state; Not-Know Processes. Now, those are broken- communication processes and theoretically should make a guy worse. But because it's an automaticity that's being overcome, the worseness of it is improved by the gain from taking something off automatic. The earliest version of this is „Something you wouldn't mind forgetting.“ A later version is „Look around the room and find something you would not mind forgetting,“ since not-know doesn't communicate well. You tell them, „Look around the room and find something you would not mind forgetting.“

Well, you get two breeds of cat: You cater to the mechanism of complexity with a problem of incomparable magnitude; you neglect it utterly — just let complexity go by the boards and insist on simplicity. And there's even another way to go about it: Just keep telling the preclear not to get complicated; tell him to avoid it. In other words, you could go on with long discussions about how he wasn't to get complicated and so on. See that? He'd have to look at complexities in order not to get them. He'd have to do all sorts of interesting things.

Now that, of course, is essentially a break-communication process, isn't it? Evidently the automaticity that is overcome permits the person to gain more. His havingness actually increases on the process, not decreases. So he's really getting more communication all the time. It's quite amazing. In other words, there's a trick involved with that process which makes it the peculiar way you can get him to break communication. But don't try to get him to break communication in other ways; it doesn't work.

Now, there are two techniques on Connectedness which are terribly interesting to the auditor. They're both game-condition techniques. They are apparently quite similar. One is „Look around here and find something you wouldn't mind making connect with you.“ This, by the way, is a fine process. It is amongst the best. Fascinating process.

I'll tell you a signal failure: You ask an individual, „Break communication with the ceiling.“ He finds that not too hard to do because he hasn't got hold of the ceiling. „Break communication with the wall behind you.“

There is a more complicated version which runs out his complexities. The first one merely exteriorizes him, rather directly, and makes him neglect his body and everything else. If anything, it's too direct on some cases. So you say, „What wouldn't you mind making connect with you, on how many vias?“ „What wouldn't you mind making connect with you?“ And then, „How many vias can we get in there?“ And you'll find out that the case runs more longly and more smoothly and runs out many more things and settles down eventually at its own speed to a direct connection. More self-determinism involved in that process. See? I don't care which one you use.

He says, „That's all right. I can do that. I'm not looking at it anyway.“

The 8-C Connectedness version is fascinating: „Look around here, find something you wouldn't mind make connect with you.“ Bang! See, just boom! And they go out of their heads rather easily if there's any reality on what they're doing at all. But if there is no reality on it, „On how many vias?“ puts the reality into the process. You downscale for complexity to get the reality. You got that as a process? Hm?

„Break communication with the side wall. Break communication with the other side wall. That's fine. Break communication with the front wall.“ He's still able to do these things, you see?

All right. Now, why have I been going into this under the terms of rudiments and auditing procedures and so on? Well, it's just because an auditing session is too damned simple for most preclears, and — I hate to say it — for many auditors.

And you say, „All right, now break communication with the floor.“ You say, „Go ahead, break communication with the floor. What's the matter?“

The rudiments exist in this fashion: There's an auditor, there's a preclear, there's an environment. One, two, three. Those are the rudiments. But get the simplicity of their establishment, the fantastic simplicity of establishment here: You just say „Auditor. Preclear. Environment!“ and, of course, he's on his way. Naturally.

He says, „What's the matter?“ he says. „I've broken communication with the floor.“

Except that's what's wrong with his case: There's nobody else alive in the world, he isn't in any environment and he isn't present. That's the totality of wrongnesses as far as the case is concerned, don't you see, unless you get awfully significant and very additive to it. He isn't where he is: Well, that's an error in environment. He isn't who he is, so that's an error in personality. And the person that is with him is somebody else, if he's there at all. But this is the working atmosphere of this preclear.

„I don't know. You still got your feet on the floor.“

Now, if all you knew about auditing was this — establish the auditor, establish the preclear and establish the environment — and you insisted on these three things occurring from there on out, from the beginning of the session to the end of the intensive, I am very much afraid that you would have achieved just about all the gain possible. You see the possibility of that? I just give it to you as a possibility.

„Oh, you want me to break my body's communication with all these things. Well, I can't.“

So just move the auditing situation as a synthetic situation into a real situation, and you've got it made. You've got it made: He can recognize that somebody else is present; he does recognize that he is in an environment; he does know who and what he is. And, of course, you would have a Clear on your hands and that would be that. You could almost state it as a definition of. It'd be a person who knows where he is, when he is there, who he is and who he's with. That's getting awful simple though, isn't it? Hm? But your auditing situation is a synthesis of life. It's an artificial livingness. Well, how come it's artificial? Why don't you just then proceed forward and make it real? Then you would see an auditing situation in every person you contacted anywhere. It doesn't just put you on „always audit.“ Doesn't put you into an always audit. What other kind of a situation is there in this universe? Well, there's the fellow by himself and the environment around him, and the fellow by himself and the environment around him and other people. But is there such a situation as the fellow by himself with the environment around him? How are you going to get out of an auditing situation? Now, I'm being overly simple, I'm sure. But yet anytime you become somebody's auditor out in the society at large, boy, do you win! I mean, the situation becomes under control at once, if you really do it smoothly. It's a fantastic thing.

„Well, let's start it all over again now. Let's break communication with the ceiling. Let's break communication with the back wall. Break communication with the right-side wall. Break communication with the left-side wall. Break communication with the front wall. Now break communication with the floor.“

I even had it pulled on me once. I was arguing with a Scientologist about something or other and he all of a sudden woggle-woggled me an auditing command. He did! He threw me an auditing command. He did it by accident. I immediately became aware of this fact that this guy was not fighting with his weapons. I'm unfortunately usually without opponents — people don't fight with me for some reason or other; doggone it. But he slid one in and I was at once aware of the fact that if he had proceeded along that line just about two more sentences, that would have been that as far as the argument was concerned. In the first place, I couldn't have kept a straight face. He was feeling a little bit desperate, and he was trying to throw himself into the situation he invariably is able to control, which is an auditing session, see? He was cutting for cover. And he was just discombobulated enough to throw out an auditing command. But it had such impact that I was fascinated with the thing.

„What are you trying to do to me?“ Down the scale he goes.

So I watched this thing — so I watched this thing — and I found out that there hardly is any argument or fight involved that a couple of auditing commands thrown into wouldn't blow up. That's a fascinating thing, then. That's a fascinating thing. So you aren't just learning about auditing, you're learning about this thing called a person, another person and the environment. Right? Those are the three.

Give him a subjective process. „How many people could you go out of communication with?“ „Is there anybody around that you wouldn't mind not talking to?“ Any of these processes. These are all killers!

Now, it isn't always true that an individual should, at all times, be in control of his environment. That is not necessarily true at all. Do you realize, if that were true, no motion-picture image would ever unfold before you on the screen; you would simply stop the projector. See? Because you don't control that which entertains you. You have to be able to make things controlled or leave them uncontrolled at will. And the definition of good control is to control or to leave totally uncontrolled at will. That's the two sides of control. Neither one is more important than the other. They are both important.

Now, they appear to be good processes, and therefore you could sit there obviously obeying the Auditor's Code and kill your preclear. I won't say that there aren't some preclears that deserve it. But I will say that it's not therapeutic. It just isn't. Why? Since obviously the world and the universe is breaking off the fellow's communication every instant.

To be able to do either of those two things at your own determinism determines the happiness and success of your own life. And that's for sure. To control or leave uncontrolled anything in your environment at will. Boy, this is really superman stuff, see? You would certainly exteriorize at will. You're busily controlling the body and all of a sudden you don't control the body. Well, you would be elsewhere if you weren't controlling the body at all. Do you see that clearly?

There goes the time track, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa- pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, lost communication, lost communication, lost havingness, lost havingness, lost havingness, lost havingness. He'll eventually try anything he can do to stop this continuous loss. He never asks himself this question: Is it lost? Is it lost? Did it go into wasn't? Has it disappeared into any ain't? Or have you still got it? We're obviously merely dealing with a trick. The individual, then, isn't breaking communication with every given instant on the track.

However, for the purposes of auditing session and getting along in a rather aberrated world, you should be able to control or leave uncontrolled the people you are with. You control them while you yourself are talking to them, and you leave them uncontrolled when they're talking. And we have it as a two-way comm, and then we have some interchange and randomity in existence, and so it becomes livable. In other words, when we're talking to them, why, we have control and when we're not talking to them they have control. And that's all. And if you're satisfied with either side of this — how fascinating — people never worry you anymore. That is the end of people as a concern, see? Got that?

He could look the other way and find out that the time of the future as it becomes the time of the present gives him something new to communicate with in any given instant.

Two-way comm consists of an ability to do this. And where people fail on two-way comm, they can't do this. See? Got it? For instance, a person almost never can speak effectively to people unless he is totally willing to leave them uncontrolled and let them speak to him. See? You see at once a little factor that interjects there: A person who is afraid of an audience cannot control one. See? That's obvious. Well, that's just low ARC, isn't it?

You can actually turn his attention on this. You can say, „Shut your eyes. When you open them up find a brand-new world. Open them up. All right. Shut your eyes and when you open them up find a brand-new world. Open them up. All right. Shut your eyes...”

And we have the totality of ARC regulated by the degree that the control formula is followed. An individual who is willing to control others and willing to leave others totally uncontrolled... You understand, I didn't say, „Be controlled by others.“ This doesn't necessarily follow in there at all. It's still cause-cause basis; he's willing to control others or leave others totally uncontrolled, at which time, of course, he would or is liable to fall under some control of others. But if he can control others, this control then could be thrown off at will.

And all of a sudden he says, „What's going on here? You mean I'm getting a new universe every second? Of course, I can't count on it! Whoever that is, Skirt the drummer, may stop drumming at any moment.“ One of the more civilized theories of what keeps the universe running. It's somebody's dream, and the person will lie there and dream as long as his drummer keeps drumming; but someday the drummer is liable to get tired. And then the dreamer will wake up, and Earth is gone, and the world is gone, and the universe is gone. That's much more practical than most scientific theories on the subject. Now, merely because it's romantic is no reason to denounce its practicality.

Now, this individual, then, experiences varying emotions in comparison with his ability to perform this. His ability to control others and to leave others totally uncontrolled — from an auditing standpoint, of course, assumes that others will inevitably, from time to time, control him — rather establishes the amount of ARC there is in the environment. Remember I said willingness to control.

All right. Well, the common denominator of all this is conviction. Funny part of it is, it doesn't process worth a nickel. Must be something wrong here if it doesn't process any better than it does. Must be, then, that a thetan really can put a universe there and perceive it. Just look over that statement. He really can put a universe there and perceive it. It must be a fact that this can happen. It may be that this is not simply a delusion. It may be that he actually can put a universe there. Got the idea now?

Now, let me assure you there's practically no ARC involved in a situation where an individual is totally unwilling to control anybody around him. Funny part of it is, it may sometimes look a little bit like ARC. If you dig at it a little bit it is, however, apathy. And things go apathetically in his environment. See that? ARC is monitored by control, factors of.

Now, what is this? This is just the grading of a consideration. This minute grading of a consideration. People who cannot create or do Creative Processes are people who are convinced that there isn't anything there even if they create it. People who can't create are people who are convinced that there isn't anything there even if they did create it.

Now, I don't mean to tell you that control is more important than ARC. That is not what I said. I said control monitors ARC. ARC can be too, you know; you simply postulate it or carry it along at that level and it is. But with a cross-exchange we find out that control can monitor it. And you know that you're liable to have a better ARC with a positive control, even in one direction, than a no-control situation. That would be a horrible shock for somebody in churches and back in the Dear Souls Area, and all that sort of thing, to realize.

Now, let's just accept as factual that a thetan can create something and perceive it. Let's just accept that as a fact. You got it? That he has to continue to create or he doesn't continue to perceive.

They wonder why the country went mad the other day and voted for some person that has just been doing nothing but cut comm lines for the U.S. He's having one hell of a time. Now, why did they?

An easy example of this: If an office boy fails to create his job newly in any given hour of the day, he soon finds himself without a job. He thinks he is holding a job. Nobody ever holds a job; one creates a job; one has to continue to create a job.

I've studied this whole fact of bad government. I've made a very thorough study of bad government here in the last two years. Had ample opportunity to do so, not just on our own scene, but in many areas and scenes. (Last three years, I should say more accurately.) I've studied this historically, and I've been fascinated to discover something which is evidently an indisputable fact: What we normally would look at with a careless glance and consider a bad government inevitably lasts longer than a good one.

And this one, fully explained to a PE class over a course of a couple of hours, will cause some of the doggonedest reformations of attitude toward work you ever cared to measure. You don't hold a job; you don't get a job and then hold it. You have to create a job and keep it created.

We could add this up, if we didn't know any Scientology, in lots of ways. We could say at once, well, people are so thirsty for overt acts that they immediately buy this, or people are so hungry to be knocked around, or they're all masochists. No, this isn't so. No, a government which will exercise positive control over a people is better than a government which will not. But when a government really does exercise control over a people, being a pretty aberrated organization, it's normally conducting its affairs, here and there and spottily, in a rather brutal way.

Now, the ability to create goes over into an unknowing creation. And this unknowing creation could be solid or it could be not solid. But this is beyond this realm of discussion. It may be true that a thetan can create a universe. After all, you perceive one, don't you? Well, it may be true that it can be created. It may be true that it is not a delusion. It is maybe true that it is not a chimerical universe. But it's certainly difficult to create a universe that you can't see. Ah, that's difficult.

The government really doesn't come up very high on the Tone Scale when it begins to control people. It's too disinterested; it's too... it divides the people off into masses — there's masses and there's us, and so forth. But those governments on Earth which have not controlled people but just hoped prosperity would happen, or something of this sort, have been brief and have ended unhappily, rather uniformly, for the last two thousand years. This is a very broad study.

He scares himself half to death whenever he does this: He creates particles like gamma rays that he cannot see, which yet have a terrific effect upon his universe. Boy, what a game that is! What a wonderful game that is! Creates these things and he can't see them, and he doesn't know when they're present except by reading the action of a needle. Well, the needle can perceive them, a body can perceive them, why can't a thetan perceive them? That's just because he says he can't. Everything else can perceive them but he can't. That's one of the silliest things you ever ran into in your life. He's just decided that he can't perceive them.

Why, for instance, does the rottenest government Constantinople ever formed last fifty-three years, and then they get an heroic leader — a good boy, nothing wrong with this fellow at all, evidently, pals with everybody — and he lasts a year and a half? Well, this fellow might have been pals with everybody, but he did not reach out to the degree that he should have to have controlled the entire population of the area.

So you see where we're going here? We're not talking about gamma rays; we're talking about mock-ups. Now, the rays are there. Needles can see them, meters can see them, bodies can see them, health charts can see them, but a thetan can't.

The government that was so lousy, was so bad, in spite of its mechanisms and so forth, still was exerting a positive control. It was enforcing its laws. Its laws were not to be sidestepped. Those laws existed. The game was there, the lines were rigid. And no matter how bad conditions apparently were or no matter what terrible consequences resulted from this control, the people wanted that before they wanted a no-control situation.

Well, it must be that he can't simply because he's decided that he can't. And that is the single decision which stands between being able to get a mock-up and not being able to get a mock-up. That's the single decision. You can get a lot of contributory decisions, but it's certainly a clear-cut decision when you finally hit it. He has decided that he can't see mock-ups.

You know what I'm telling you? I'm telling you that even if you badly control a pc you will get better results than if you get some synthetic no-control ARC going and sit back and let him wander all over the place. You got it? To that degree, bad auditing is better than no auditing. Got it?

When did he decide this? Well, you don't care. There are two ways to wear it out. Simply make him mock something up until he can mock it up. That very often works, but it's not a panacea or you would hear more about it as a process. You could have him look around and find things that weren't making mock-ups. This is effective. Effective. It does something. But if you look around and have him find things that can't see them, you're liable to solve that, right now.

Now, your control is as good as you can actually exert — exert it and leave uncontrolled the preclear. Your control gets better and more positive, and you become better as an auditor to the degree that you can control it and to the degree that you can abstain also from the use of force and duress. When you're really good at controlling people, you don't use any force at all. But don't ever make the mistake of looking at the lower harmonic of no-control and saying, „This is just good ARC,“ and think you're doing a good job. Because you're not! You're just afraid to knock his head off, that's all that's wrong. Now, you see where this stands? You see how this fits?

See, there are several things that would work. There are several triggers on the line that should work. But the test is, the one that does work. The one that does work. Having a person spot things which can't see mock-ups will run out an awful lot of auditing. See why it would?

Therefore, the establishment of an auditor, a preclear and a session is certainly mandatory because there must be something there to do the controlling, something to be controlled and an area in which the controlling happens. So, once again, we get the establishment of the rudiments establishing, actually, the ARC of the session.

Now, if you ask Joe to put up a mock-up and he put up a mock-up and then you convinced him it wasn't there, like I convinced that preclear under a test (that guy wasn't a — he was a test case; he wasn't a preclear) „Put up a wall. Put up a wall. It's not there. I can't feel it. What's the matter with you? Are you sick? Why don't you go home and get some rest?“ I keyed that boy in across the boards. Ruined him; invalidated him; upset him, so forth. How come he got mock-ups the next day? (I didn't tell you.) Well, he got mock-ups the next day because I had him spot things that couldn't see mock-ups. Got it?

Thank you.

Now, an individual who can no longer see mock-ups does this interesting thing: He mocks them up and otherwise perceives them, otherwise experiences them, but doesn't any longer see them or forthrightly, in a high knowing category, perceive them. And he feels haunted. He feels pretty upset.

Thank you.

Now, an individual who can't make one is something else entirely different. This category we have to enter into and inspect, one way or the other. This individual is having trouble with effort. We always call him the trouble-with-effort case. And the funny part of it is we really can't get him to postulate it. There is nothing wrong with his ability to make them except that he won't. So therefore, we cannot consider him a clear-cut case. „The reason Joe does not have mock-ups is because he can't see them.“ That's not exactly the proper statement.

[End of Lecture]

There could be two things wrong. It may be that he won't put them up. And this would be something on the order of a fellow who wouldn't lift his arm.

You say to this fellow, „Can you lift the arm?“

And he says, „Well, maybe.“

And you say, „Well, go ahead and lift it.“ And he lifts it. And you say, „Did you lift your arm?“

And he says, „Yes.“

All right. You say to this fellow, „Can you make mock-ups?“

And he says, „Ah-mm, no.“

„Well, have you ever tried?“

„Yeah, I tell the space out in front of me to have a mock-up, but nothing happens.“

You say, „Well, put one there. Put one there. Now see it.“

„Yeah, but how do you put one there?“

„Just put one there.“

„Well, where am I going to get it?“

„Just put one there, will you?“ And this is what is difficult about the process: getting him to put one there rather than say, „One will now appear.“ You get the difference?

Now, one of the ways you do that is to get him to lift his arm, and say, „Did you tell your arm to move?“

„No, you did.“

„Oh well, I suggested to you that you should move your arm; then did you move your arm?“

„Yes, I then moved my arm.“

„Well now, then did you tell your arm to move?“

„No.“

„Well now, move your arm again. Good. Now, tell it to move.“

So he says, „All right, arm, move. Move. Move, damn you!“ Arm doesn't do a thing.

You say, „All right, now you move your arm.“ And he does.

You say, „Now, just how are you putting these mock-ups there?“

„Well, I'm telling them to appear, of course.“

„All right. We'll go over this again.“

By the way, I've spent an hour and forty minutes with a preclear just telling him to do these things before he finally caught the re — got the correlation between these two points. I don't expect people to be that stupid. But this guy finally got it. He finally got it. And he was real proud of himself and he finally put a mock-up there. He said it was very exhausting at first because he didn't know where the energy was going to come from. So I told him to put the energy there too. I was in for another hour of it.

Now, you can get a guy, actually, to clench his teeth — something he gets rather easily, particularly men; he will say it was somebody else's fist — but you can get him to clench his teeth and grip his hands together real well and strain at it real hard and make a fist appear in front of his face. Actually put a fist in front of his face. Got it? Actually do that. Men do that rather easily. Girls, it takes an open hand usually. Now, the funny part of it is, if you exercise on this very long, you can have a preclear practically breaking his own jaw with a nonexistent arm and a nonexistent fist that he put there.

There is a type of postulate which results directly in mechanics. And it isn't really a postulate at all; it's simply the mechanic. It is the fact! And if you work hard with a preclear, you get the preclear eventually to simply have the fact appear. Don't you see? The arm moves!

Now, sure enough, there may be consequences. But he's putting consequences there for the motion of his arm: His arm moves and it gets tired. „Well now, put your arm there moving without tiredness; don't put tiredness there, just put your arm moving.“

He goes, „It's pretty hard to keep the tiredness from going there.“

You say, „No, no, just don't put it there; don't put it there. Let's try that again. All right. Now, you make your arm — put motion there, put your arm moving, without putting any tiredness there.“ You say, „Now is your arm tired?“

„No, you told me not to put any there.“

You say, „That's fine.“

Now, a fellow is told that when he puts forward the mechanic of working and the use of energy he must also put forward tiredness with it. That makes it more difficult, don't you see? That gives him more game; that's more complexity. But when you tell him directly to do this without putting tiredness there and then work with him until he can, he can work just directly, just like that, with no further nonsense connected with it. It's rather fabulous.

Now, this is what you might call direct creation. You don't say, „Space will now appear,“ and then look around, as you sometimes see a preclear do, to see if space appeared. Look, he couldn't possibly — he couldn't possibly get away from knowing it appeared if he put it there. Could he? And yet he will look around for the mock-up. So you tell him to go ahead and see it. Well, this one he finds very difficult to manage sometimes.

Now, you can approach this on a covert or indirect way, such as, „Spot things that can't see mock-ups.“ See? That's a very covert way. Got it? „Spot things that aren't putting up mock-ups.“ See, that's pretty good.

Have him do something he already can do — moving his arm, or something like this — have him do it for a while and find out what else he's doing there, and just tell him to skip putting that up and just put up the motion of the arm. See? It's quite fabulous. Quite fabulous. Terribly direct approach, almost insultingly direct. You see? Awfully direct.

Now, if you get a guy straining at it, he can really put a desk here. Not on the basis that he is already putting a desk here so you're making him take over the automaticity of putting a desk here. That's too roundabout. When you simply make him put a desk here, he'll be able to experience the existence of the desk here. And his perception goes right up like a rocket. Got it? It's much too direct a process.

That's why I am teaching you learning processes. You catch? Hm? That's why I'm teaching you learning processes. Because here are some processes that are so fantastically direct that all you do is cancel the preclear's effort to make them complex. You don't even pay any attention to it. You don't say we have to run a gradient scale on this. The only gradient scale you have to run on it is the gradient scale of persuasion.

It's just „You do it. Now knock off whatever else you're doing; let's put that there.“

And he says, „Well, my energies are being all exhausted...“ And some other line of reason, reason, reason, reason why, reason why, reason... Well, skip it. Tell him to put it there and tell him to perceive it now. Put it there and perceive it. He'll scare himself half to death some of these times, by the way.

Now, I gave you another set of postulate processes which reaches this more covertly. They're very excellent, and I don't know anybody they don't work on: „All right, decide to put a mock-up out there. Decide that if you did so it'd ruin the game and don't.“ And after a while, when he decides to put a mock-up out there, he simply starts putting one out there.

Now, that we know for sure works. But once you've put this one there and you accomplish that one, you have the next one: „Decide to put a mock-up there that everybody can see. Now decide that would ruin the game and don't.“ See, those processes.

Now actually, that merges eventually with this other thing of „Put a mockup there,“ but it doesn't do so smoothly. It isn't inevitable that these two processes go together and one produces the other, and you depend on the automaticity of those two processes following in sequence.

If you do that one for a while — „Decide to put a mock-up there. Then decide that would ruin the game and don't. Decide to put a mock-up there — a big, brilliant mock-up up there, as big as that wall. Now decide that would ruin the game and don't“ — you'll get him onto the inversion. See, his effort not to put one there causes one to occur. All sorts of oddities occur because of this. You fool around with these and you see these inversions work out, and so on.

But you have this other one, and this other one follows, to a marked degree, in its wake. Now, if you want somebody to mock up a man in the middle of the room that everybody can see, he simply puts a man there that everybody can see. See, it isn't just a matter of he says, „A man will appear and everybody can see it,“ because he doesn't do this, see? He puts a man there. You get the idea, see? And he puts it there in a way that it stops light and therefore becomes perceivable. Got it? And boy, that really takes learning processes.

He has to finally listen to you. You have to really be able to audit. You have to get a communication through. And you should yourself have some very good concept of what you're doing there. You get that, of course, by moving the arm and doing other things, and saying, „Now, wait a minute. Now, I move the arm. Now I feel some motion inside. Isn't that peculiar that I feel motion in this arm when I don't feel any motion in that chair out in front of me. I don't even feel its sitting-stillness. I feel this body's sitting- stillness. Well, why don't I feel that chair's sitting-stillness?“

„I don't know, why don't you? What's wrong with you? You been sick?“

Now, people stop doing this every now and then because they think they find it uncomfortable. They see a clammy wall or a clammy milk bottle or something.

First time I ever did this with any violence, had a wax-covered milk bottle out in Phoenix — you know, one of these paper bottles — and it was sitting on the table. And somebody was giving me some coffee-shop auditing. And I put this milk bottle — I wasn't putting the milk bottle there; I was just simply seeing if I could communicate with anything else in the room, one way or the other. And all of a sudden, I communicated fully with this milk bottle. The Phoenix climate there promotes a certain clamminess on something that's very, very cold and is suddenly brought out into the room air. It was the clammiest, horriblest feeling thing I ever ran into directly.

I recoiled. Nobody could convince me that I ought to feel anything then for the next five minutes. Get the idea? You hadn't ever felt anything that far from the body — five or six feet... Feeling it, you see, just exactly as though it was the body. You know, feeling it just as though you would feel it — not with your hand, with a beam, but just experiencing its existence. And it was cold and clammy and covered with wax. Nyah!

Well now, things get more difficult; things are, in final essence, an action called creation, creativeness; and mechanics do not require a thoughtful statement. They are their own class of action or beingness. You know learning processes; you could communicate this fact to a preclear or receive this fact yourself sufficiently well that you could bring these actions or objects into existence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]