& OK. Having figured that out, it's

The talk today Concerns itself with - its title could be "Do you take a motorcycle down the road or does the motorcycle take you down the road?"

% Okay, this is [substituted in clearsound version]

It also could be called "Consideration." And it also could be called "Extent of Viewpoint." Could also be called "Scientology: October 30th Lecture." Let's see, are there any more titles that could go on it?

- the first morning lecture of October the 30th, and this bright morning I would like to just start right in fairly low gear with you and have you pick out several points behind you and on - above you and on either side of you and in front of you, just several points. And now as we - as we go through this little process, I simply want you to put each one of these I give you in a new point - each time, remember, a new point. All right.

And it includes, in addition to that subject, Step III auditing commands and a list on the MEST universe for Change Processing.

"There's not supposed to be action there." Put that at one of the points.

Let's say-what is known as "viewpoint" must somewhere or another have a shift point. You must have somewhere on the line where a viewpoint stops being looking and starts being thinking - just to make a clear division there because people normally consider this word viewpoint as something for thinking. And it is actually looking; it's - viewing is the main consideration.

At another point: "There's not supposed to be action there."

All right, what would this point be? It would be the consideration of whether or not one was taking a body down the street or the body was taking one down the street. It would be at that fence that you jumped over into viewpoint being thinking and at that point, from there on everything takes on more and more significance; everything starts meaning something else, not itself.

Another point: "There's not supposed to be action there."

As long as one is taking the body down the street and knows he's taking a body down the street, he can look. Good, bad or indifferent, he can still look. And his emphasis is on the gradient scale - dwindling as we come up to the fence - the gradient scale getting less and less of looking; and then starts into some looking and a lot of considering; quite a bit of considering and then on up to all consideration.

Another point: "There's not supposed to be anything there."

Now, when you see this, you could see this as a kind of a double cone which comes down to a point; and the upper part of the cone - if we start at the top it's all looking and then it's less and less looking. It's not more and more of something else; it's just less and less expanse of view. And then gets down to the fence line and then stops being expanse of view and starts being "think of the thing" instead of "look at it." Well, it's at that fence point, too, where one starts to use facsimiles; one starts to save energy.

At another point: "There's no action there."

Now, of course, because of this look-emote-effort-think band, we realize that lying on both sides of that point where the two cones come together, we would have emotion and effort; and it would be emotion and then emotion with some effort and then emotion with all kinds of effort and then there would be no emotion and all effort as we jumped across the hand. These things go together.

Another point: "There never will be any action there."

Of course, they're going together on little tiny gradients as it goes down, you see? I mean, it's - it isn't a clear-cut double-cone picture. It's cones incoming to a point and going out into a new cone, coming down to another point and going on to a new cone and going down to another point and into a new cone. So that you get your DEI or Cycle of Action, so forth, on it.

Another point: "There never has been any action there."

Well now what determines - what determines whether or not you're taking a motorcycle down the road or the motorcycle is taking you down the road? Really, basically, it's just whether or not you know you're taking a motorcycle down the road. But much better than that, it's where do you consider it. Do you consider that the motorcycle is there to take you down the road? Or do you consider that you're there to take the motorcycle down the road?

Another point: "There always will be action there."

Well, one abandons the latter viewpoint - one is there to take the motorcycle down the road on the basis of: it's sort of a slavery to a particle: and that's not quite the right answer. So we'll go on the other side of it and say, "Well, the motor - I - the motorcycle is there to take me down the road." Well, that's not quite the answer to the thing but at the same time, where one starts dwindling off on the effort band, of course, one starts saying immediately, "Well, gee. I have to have the motorcycle to take me down the road."

Another point: "If I can't stop that one moving, I don't know what I'll do."

It just dwindles on the whole spiral. Now, if you had this double cone which goes down and you've got a sort of a little fence between those two points - that's the jump point where one changes his consideration utterly, where there's the utter change of consideration - we'd have another thing, and that would be, these would both fit into a great big cone. These two cones would fit into a big cone which had its point below the base of nothing on the second, lower cone.

Another point: "There must be action there."

See, you have these two cones and then you have this great big cone they were both sitting in. And that great big cone would represent the dwindling spiral of fun. That's all.

Another point: "There must be action there."

One is perfectly satisfied and considers that it's a lot of fun, at the top of cone one, just to look at a motorcycle going down the road; that's fun. Then he passes through the gradients where it's just less and less fun. And the least fun it is at all is to be an inanimate object going down the road on a motorcycle, where you have - the motorcycle is concerned - inanimate object, dead body on a motorcycle; that's the least fun.

Another point: "There has to be action there."

Dead body in an automobile: that's people going to work. That could be the motto of this civilization today: dead body in an automobile. It's rather sad but you walk up to one of these jaspers (somebody was here today from Texas), you walk up to one of these jaspers and you say - you say, "Hey, what do you do in the morning?"

Another point: "At least I have action there."

Fellow says, "Go to work."

Another point: "I have action there."

"Oh, you go to work? Well, how do you go to work?"

Another point: "There will always be action there and I can't stop it."

"Drive down."

Another point: "I must stop that point." (I hope the point was completely motionless.)

"Okay." You say, "Is it any fun driving down?"

Another point: "I have to stop that point."

"Fun!" The guy would be stunned just at this whole idea if he might possibly be able to bail himself out sometime to the point where he could have some fun.

"This point is arrival."

This fellow can still have fun; he can go fishing and have fun; he can actually go for a drive in the country once in a while and have fun. But the fellow says, "Fun? What do you mean?"

Another point: "That's the source of all my trouble."

"Well, do you have any sport driving down the road?" You've got to put more significance into it, see? "Is it sport getting into your car in the morning and going on down and parking it and so forth? And driving out here on the speedway and so forth? Is that fun?"

Another point: "That's coming in on me”.

"How-how do you mean?"

Another point: "That can't come in on me.

"Well, is there some small feeling of pleasure in moving down the road on a motorcycle?"

Another point: "That has to come in on me."

"Oh, I don't know."

All right, we've still got these points in assorted places. Now be sure and you - put one below and one above you. Okay.

"Well, do you ever remember any pleasure you had in taking one down?"

"I'm supposed to be here."

He'll think for a long time. "Had - had a new - no, no, not on the road to work. I had a new Ford once and took it out and - and it was quite a bit of fun; went fishing with it. So we had a very good fishing trip!"

"They think I'm there."

See, he just lost the grasp on the thing. If you were to grab him - you get his - his fun would diminish to the point where the thing had significance because fun is essentially a gradient scale, as it goes upwards, of no significance; the glorious irresponsibility. Of course, low on the scale, a person has to be practically an insane idiot to get any kind of irresponsibility in which there's fun. You think some psychotics are having fun; they're - it's what they call fun, that's the most they can reach.

"I hope I am here."

Well, you get way down the scale, way down to the bottom of the scale there and we find the fellow driving to work in the morning. If we were to stop the car and pull him - pull ahold of his arm and say, "Are you driving a car to work?" he wouldn't look at the car; he wouldn't look at the road; he might have to think for a moment before he answered you because you've just interrupted the fact that he'd had a fight that morning at breakfast or something or other had happened. He's still at the breakfast table and he's in that car and he's driving - total automatic response. The car certainly is taking him to work.

"I'll never get there."

So we match up together in this wise as we gaze upon behavior - we gaze upon behavior and discover that when things have the most significance, they are the least fun; when things have the greatest amount of significance, there you'll find the mostest particle; and the idea is to get there with the leastest - unlike war, where you have to get there "firstest with the mostest."

"They hope I'm here."

Now, if you arrive with the leastest number of particles, you will certainly arrive firstest and you'll probably have had some fun on the road. But if you have to be moved there by a large number of particles, you're going to be in trouble.

Now, very rapidly with all these assorted points around outside the body, well outside the body, now:

What's happening with a Step V? He's got to be carried through to Clear by the body or by the auditor or by the processing. It's by the "something else;" you see? He isn't driving; he's riding. See, but he's driving, but he's not driving. And there we have the gradient scale of exteriorization.

"I'm supposed to be here."

In order to have anything arrive, he has to be taken there because his point of consideration is simply "the motorcycle is taking me down the road." Only he wouldn't probably be too much inclined to even think about that. "Motorcycle is taking me down the road; the automobile is taking me someplace." He's so accustomed to this as an idea that there has to be a reason to go anyplace. When he doesn't have a reason to go, he stays.

"No, I'm supposed to be here."

But all arrivals are connected with having been taken there. You start to process him and what do we find? He expects you, as an auditor, to take him there. Processing to this degree becomes vehicular to him. Of course, he isn't going to be taken there.

"No, I think I'm here."

It's only processes, then, which cause him to change his consideration on a gradient scale which win with him easily and they win very easily - processes which change his consideration.

"No, I'm sure that's me."

Does he move a mock-up, or does the mock-up move him?

"I'm certain that's doing it."

He might have had a mechanism one time or another that made his mock-ups; if this is no longer working, he doesn't get mock-ups. So you just have a broken mechanism putting up mock-ups for him that doesn't put up mock-ups anymore, for a while, and you'll get surprising results with a V - a broken mechanism which puts up mock-ups which doesn't put up mock-ups anymore. "Now, let's get that putting up mock-ups." And he'll start activating the mechanism enough to look at it.

"That's causing it all."

Or you just simply cut the Gordian knot and don't get so significant about the whole thing, just have him put up mock-ups, that's all; just straight - straight stuff. Have him put up mock-ups. Or have him give himself some space.

"I'm supposed to be here."

Because if you were to draw these two cones, they wouldn't be equal-sized cones. When it comes to thinking, you've got tremendous significance, you've got enormous effort, you've got all sorts of things parked around all over the place; but you don't have this other: who is taking who where?

"They don't know I'm here."

What is the consideration for art? The basic consideration is simply whether one considers. Now people - there are artistic things around which people know that people are supposed to consider so that they can enjoy.

"They'll never find out I'm here."

The movies, for instance, are considered to be enjoyable. People go there because they consider this enjoyable. And very possibly it is. It's fulfilling their inability to have any action, to have dead bodies and things. But again, it's a consideration.

"All is lost."

In order for a movie to get any consideration today, it just isn't just plain beautiful.

Now, another point - very precisely located point: "All is lost."

There was a color organ came in up at the University of Washington. Did you ever see one? They throw up the most fabulous patterns on a screen - brilliant, clear color. And the university science department went over to see how it worked. The recital was otherwise unattended. Nobody went to see the color patterns. They were merely pretty; there was no significance to them. See?

Another precisely located point: "All is lost."

And a movie today has to have significance. If it's very, very, very significant, if it's a social triumph or something, why, you've really got something there. Everybody goes to see it because it's so significant of the age or time.

And another one: “All is lost."

We hear of old movies being quoted as being good because they are so significant. We have stories being submitted to magazines and magazine editors writing long letters about how significant they are. Significant of what? The hidden standard; the hidden standard that there is something to be significant about.

Another very precisely located point: "All is lost."

And one - as long as one believes there's something to be significant about, he keeps looking for significance. But he's sort of driven away from doing anything else because he's always trying to find something in the middle of nothing. So of course, he winds up finally and says there's significance there.

And another point located with signboards: "All is lost."

In other words, "something" is a sign; s-i-g-n. Significance: a sign or symbol of something else. And here you have logic. Logic is the art of making a symbol of a symbol of a symbol of a symbol, so that all these symbols, when combined, can make a symbol. And one considers this is good exercise. I'm sure it is. I'm sure it is. Never happened to try it myself. I have to try it sometime; must - might be very interesting.

Another point: "On the way."

A symbol is about all a fellow can look at when he's really down on the second cone. A little higher on that, why, he'll occasionally glance around.

And another point: "On the way."

Do you take the motorcycle down the road or does the motorcycle take you down the road? Well, completely aside from difference of case, it's actually simply a difference of consideration. Above all it's a difference of consideration.

Another point, completely motionless: "On the way."

It's the difference of "Are you somebody who manipulates particles or are particles something that manipulate you?" It's a different consideration.

Another point: "On the way."

A person could suddenly make up his mind that he's moving everything. If you want this idea of being, just decide you're self-determined, just try this one. Just right now try this one: „Anything that's moving around here, I'm moving it.“

Another point: "What a serious journey."

Try it again. "Anything that's moving around here, I'm moving it."

Another point: "I'm just a particle."

"Anything I hear around here, I'm making that noise."

Another point: "All other particles are rivals."

Male voice: Hell of a lot of junk.

Another point: "No letters better show up."

What happened?

Another point: "If I resist enough." Just that - "If I resist enough."

Male voice: It just keeps getting bigger because there's always some more out there that's moving.

Another point: "I don't think I'm here."

That's right. That's right; there's always some more moving.

Another point: "I may be here."

You stop and consider for a moment that within a few hundred feet of you, there are people driving cars. If you're indoctrinated into the idea that it takes a great deal of experience and care and skill to drive the car and you suddenly find that there's a car in your immediate area of control or look, you get the idea that if you really were driving the car or motivating the fellow who was driving the car, and if the car ran into anything, why, that would be very bad indeed. Well, you'd get the full flashback of its impact and the pain connected with it, you see, just by experience. You've got perfectly good pictures of this happening way back on the track.

Another point: "I'd better be judicious about where I am."

"I mustn't think about something happening because it will happen" is one that all mystics get. See, they won't put a postulate out into something.

Another point: "It's important."

One of the ways to - one of the ways to chip away at mysticism is, so on, get them to put a postulate out into MEST. "Oh, no. No, no, no!" They might cause it and - B would be very bad indeed; they can't be at A.

Another point: "It's important where I am."

So if you think of all the activity going on if you were - had complete sensory perception on everything within a radius of ten miles of here, you would include the city of Philadelphia. You would also include its water system. See, you just don't want that in your area of perception. Why? Because you consider it's bad or you don't consider it's bad. There are people out there you consider bad or evil. As long as you consider them bad or evil, you don't want them in your sphere of influence. There's just the buildup of choosing randomity.

Another point: "If this moved, they'd miss me."

Here's also the preclear. Something starts to happen with this preclear and all of a sudden the preclear stops it from happening. They recognize that if they extend their sphere of influence any further that they've extended it into an inability. They've got the idea that anything that comes into their sphere of control has to be controlled. That's all that's wrong with them. They have compulsive control.

Another point: "If this moved, they'd miss me."

There's no reason why you shouldn't have a driver of a car in your sphere of influence who is driving a car madly and wrecking it and everything else. No reason why you shouldn't have the Philadelphia police force; anything bum. They're running the police force. Just because it's in your sphere of influence is no reason you have to start running the police force.

Another point: "If this moved, they'd miss me."

This is the idea of your attraction of attention - fixation of attention. That's because people believe that if something is in their sphere of influence, it can only be in their sphere of influence if their complete attention was on it. If their complete attention was on it, why, therefore it's in their sphere of influence and therefore they can't have that much attention because if their attention isn't on something, then they don't control it; if attention is on something, then they have to control it.

Another point: "There is no motion."

Why would they have to control it? It'd be just because it'll collapse a few terminals and bring them some pain. Well, that means they can't tolerate pain.

Another point: "I need a stamp."

One of your first entrance points on any case is just get them over the idea that they're subject to the violence of the universe around them. They are - they think they're entirely, completely subject to it. Here's your other gradient scale that goes along with this.

Another point: "I'm lost in the suit pocket."

Well, as we look this over, we find out that there are several relatively artificial methods of indoctrinating people into the idea that they're doing it. One of them would be to simply take a handball and throw it up against the wall, catch it again. There you've got communications lines going and so on. Just make them do this for a little while and they feel happier.

Another point: "I have a mission."

But you'd have to tell them it was for exercise. They'd do it for the exercise. And then they get the idea that "Well, if they did this, then they'd do that for the exercise, then they would do that for some other exercise and they'd do that for some other exercise; and that exercise, then, would restimulate their glandular system and that would make them sweat. Sweat would be very good. And that would put them into a better frame of - that would put them into physical condition which of course would put them into a better frame of mind."

Another point that's sitting completely still: "I have a mission."

You know, they're adding up the symbol, like the symbol, like the symbol, like the symbol. The whole truth of the matter is, simply throwing a handball up against the wall would be an action where one is demonstrating that he has control of a particle rather than the particle controls him.

Another point: "I can't arrive here."

You could go through and have the fellow running away from a handball; having a handball rolling him up against the floor - have the handball throwing him up against the wall. Actually, that is his frame of mind; he thinks that if he played handball, it would be a process of a handball throwing him up against the wall.

Now another point that's securely there: "I can't be here."

If you ask somebody who doesn't ever take any exercise suddenly, "What would happen if you rode a motorcycle around a racetrack?" his immediate reaction would be "It would throw me." See? I mean, it just wouldn't occur to him that he would be taking a motorcycle around a racetrack.

Another point: "I'm just a particle."

The idea of learning how to ride one in a very short space of time and then taking it around a racetrack or training his body up so that he could do it - this idea would never occur to him. "Let's see, train the body up so that it would ride around a racetrack on a motorcycle; that would be very, very cute to watch. Yeah. Oh, I think I'll do that. By - probably a very interesting control pattern has to be worked out there in order to do that. I mean.. Interesting!" Sure it would be, very intriguing.

Another point: "I'm just a particle."

But his thought pattern doesn't go like that. You're operating into too big a jump on significance. You ask somebody to think his way out of something, and boy, you have a picnic on your hands; because his thought pattern has a tendency to be in its own plane of significance, which is to say, the symbols are just as big as the symbols which are just as big as the next set of symbols which have to be just as big as the next set of symbols. The only way you can get him out of that is to hit him by gradient scales which is why gradient scales boost people around. It gets them out of their symbol plane.

Another point: "It takes consideration..."

Now, you'd have to know this about a symbol: A symbol is a similarity, which is probably its derivation - similarity. And one fact, when it is the exact next fact, is identical to that exact next fact; but the two are indistinguishable, so therefore they're the same fact.

Another point: "I mustn't arrive here." "I mustn't arrive here."

Now, in order to get a symbol of this first fact, you have to slightly alter the second fact. Now, to get another symbol and get a chain of logic going, all you do is slightly alter it again, and slightly alter, and slightly alter And each time it's a slight alteration until at length, although the alterations were so slight as to be almost undetectable, we have arrived to a point where the last symbol which you've got on this chain is so violently different than the first symbol on the chain - which is the first fact on the chain - that you couldn't interchange them unless you went back on the same gradient scale.

Another point: "I mustn't arrive here."

One picture is another picture unless the second picture has on it a tiny dot or something that the first picture doesn't have on it, you see? That's the way they figure. That it occupied two different spaces, that sort of thing, would be entirely foreign to them.

Another point: "This will never be there."

So let's look at logical facts for what they are. You've said, if you write arithmetic, 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 - if you just wrote it down, 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 4. Now, that's a perfectly correct equation. Well, why don't you - why do you write it that way? Why don't you just write 4 equals 4?

Another point: "Here will never be there."

Well, it's - you see, it so happens that 1 is an identical thing with 1 if we're not saying one what. So the symbol can therefore stand as an independent liar; it represents nothing. And all the way down the track it's representing nothing. And symbols across the boards never represent anything but nothing.

Another point: "I'm just a particle."

Now, ask somebody sometime to listen to the silence in a piece of music. Ask somebody sometime, when people are talking, to listen to the silence in their voices. Ask people to look at somebody and notice all the nothingness - not look at the person, but notice all that space around them and start looking at the space and looking at the space.

Another point: "I'm valuable because I'm a particle."

Just by doing that, you'll unfix people's attention on the somethingness. Their attention is so fixed on somethingness and the somethingness is so much symbolically nothingness that they will wind up in the soup every time because they're just kidding themselves. Why keep on kidding themselves?

"I'm valuable because I'm a particle."

Look at the space around the telephone up here. Just do that exercise for a moment. Let's take something - let's look at the space around that lampshade.

"I'm valuable because I'm scarce."

Now once more look at the space around the lampshade.

Now get a whole mass of points in one place where you haven't been putting them before - whole mass of points: "We're valuable because there's only one of us."

Now please look at the space around the lampshade.

Another one: Put a whole mass of points in another place where you haven't been putting points: "We're not valuable because there's just one of us."

The space around the lampshade.

Another point: "I wonder where I'll get a Seeing Eye dog."

The space around it!

Okay, now let's recall something real.

Now let's look at the space well out from it, on both sides at the same time.

A time when you were in good communication.

Look at the space two feet out from the lampshade on the left, two feet out from the lampshade on the right. Look at the - all that space out there.

A time when you felt some affinity for somebody.

Now let's notice that again: two feet out on the right and two feet out on the left; let's look at the space around it.

A time when you knew you'd never have any further affinity for anything.

Now let's look at the space above it. Just the empty space above that lamp shade.

A time when you refused communication completely.

Okay. Now look at the empty space in the front wall.

A time when somebody else refused communication.

Look at all that empty space in the front wall. Isn't that gorgeous, that beautiful empty space in that wall?

A time that was completely unreal to you. (See, one or two there just got time track.)

You know what I bet is happening when I ask you to look at - some of you - ask you to look at the beautiful space in that front wall? I bet you keep seeing a wall. And I'll bet you for an instant you don't see a wall and then there is one. And I'll bet Rome of you, when you looked at the beautiful empty space around this lampshade up here, had your attention immediately center on the lampshade, just spong! - if just for an instant; you looked at the empty space and spong! You were looking at the lampshade.

A time when you were in good communication.

Now let's look at this wall again; let's look at the empty space in that wall.

A time when you wanted to be happy.

Come on, let's look at the empty space in the wall. The empty space.

A time when you decided you needed processing.

Look at the nothingness in that wall.

Another time when you decided you needed processing.

And again, let's look at a nothingness of wall.

Another time when you decided you didn't need any further processing.

Now let's look how real it is.

You can make it just at the moment if...

Let's look at the somethingness of the wall. Look how something it is. Look how wonderfully something it is.

Now something real.

Look how something that wall is. Look at the actuality, the heaviness, thickness of it; just look at that!

And a time when you made somebody happy.

You tell somebody to hold up the two back anchor points of the room, what do you tell them to do?

A time when you had some suspicion that you weren't quite human.

You can close your eyes right now - close your eyes right now and just get the idea: The MEST universe is actual!

The time when you decided to play it in close so that you could get more sensation out of it.

MEST universe is real.

Something real.

And the MEST universe is visible.

Good affinity.

Did any of you, by some accident, get the idea that it suddenly vanished for an instant? Well, it sure does if you...

Good communication.

Male voice: I'll say it did.

Okay, for those who haven't been tracking easily on this, now let's remember present time.

Yeah, if you don't - if you aren't real careful... By the way, there's a process connected with what you just had there - is you do this exercise, not because the exercise does anybody any good, as far as just getting the concept is concerned, but to find out what remains in the room. That object and its whole class of objects for the preclear has too little space in it, so we make space out of it; you know, mock it up eight times for a space. The next thing you know, why, we haven't got it either.

Okay, now let's get not being able to have present time.

Preclear is liable to get real scared doing this process because he's afraid with this and some other processes, all of a sudden he's - some of his most gorgeous automaticities he has will suddenly blow up and he'll have to do it all himself and he's been told this is bad.

Now let's have present time.

What's the consideration? Well, you consider that there's something there. And if you start considering on a conviction that there's something there, you wind up with total significance and nothing. Because by the time you've hit into the second cone very far, everything starts to disappear anyway. You're no longer good enough to hold it into actuality. See, your ability declines and then it declines negatively. It declines to nothing and then goes into delusion.

Okay.

Do you see what a delusive case is? Do you know that there are people walking around, as a routine and ordinary thing - they see things where nothing is and they think that it must be there but they can't kind of complete it or run into it.

This morning we have to take up the matter of the communication particle. I gave you the little drill so that what I had to say is more understandable perhaps to some of you and less restimulative perchance, mayhap. Communication particle.

Here's your case that's fallen all the way through on mocking up the MEST universe, time after time after time.

The subject of Scientology in its highest echelon divides sharply, so far as this universe is concerned, into two immediate things.

Might as well give you this process rather than sneak up on somebody and work on it; there's a lot of little processes like this. Anytime you want to undo an automaticity, all you have to do is force the preclear to do it or persuade him to do it. Whatever he's doing automatically, if you will make him do, himself, for a little while, he will lose the automaticity.

One is space, with its viewpoints and anchor points - definition of; use and exercises in; and the other (very closely allied to it but of the same rank with it, because it goes into different forms elsewhere than this universe) is communication.

But where you get to a delusive case, the automaticity has been bypassed and it has gone so far that you've got an automaticity of delusion. See, it's making up now what ain't. He is on a negative agreement with people. That's why the wall disappears when you say is real. It looks at first glance like it's the reverse vector. It's not the reverse vector. That's only an energy explanation. The fact of the matter is, you've just stated the truth to yourself. The second you state the truth to yourself, it comes true for an instant and then the automaticity machine cuts in and it ain't true.

Therefore, you should have a very good grasp of the theory of communication because we have already seen that continuous agreement with this universe brought about a condition which was not always entirely desirable, at least from some viewpoints.

Now, a fellow can actually unmock his body with this process. You talk about bailing people out of their bodies as though it's a tough one sometimes. Its not tough. What's tough is having a body, seeing a body, feeling a body and staying in one. I mentioned this before.

I wish to make a cautious statement there because, of course, we're dealing with this universe; one has to be very cautious and impartial with regard to this universe. One mustn't go too fast, and the future is always the past in this universe, and the future is the particle that exploded and came your way but hasn't arrived yet, you see? So, present time may be halfway on the line.

But we could go through the process of reviving motion the way we were doing on communication lines this morning. You know, you - the particle going down the line is going at the rate of 1/c, whatever that figure is; it's a beautiful piece of mathematics; its just gorgeous mathematically. It's utterly incomprehensible what 1/c would be; it just won't solve. And in the hands of the mathematician, never will, until we add the consideration for speed; because we've gone to the ultimate as far as the consideration for speed is concerned in terms of mathematics. Mathematics today is stopped at 186,000 miles per second, roughly. It stops right there. It doesn't go any faster than that. Man does and viewpoints do but mathematics doesn't. Mathematics is essentially something that we have mocked up for this universe.

You see, there's been an explosion at this moment - let us suppose there has been an explosion in south Jersey, the concussion waves of which will require thirty-two seconds to arrive. But it's a big explosion and will flatten the entire building. The explosion has happened; the buildings are not yet flat.

All right. We have the preclear moving himself between two positions, only we make him do it. We have himself walking; we could get him - mock him up, and he walks from one position to another position. See, he walks between these two positions in the mock-up.

Now, fifteen seconds after the explosion-we have the explosion, the future of the building which is about to be flattened. Very simple. Explosion is the future of the building which is about to be flattened. But the explosion has already happened - it happened fifteen seconds ago. But fifteen seconds ago is the future of seventeen seconds hence, because that's obvious, because seventeen seconds hence, that is - that's the future. That's seventeen seconds from now, so that's seventeen seconds into the future. So, you see, the building will be flattened by an explosion which is thirty-two seconds into the future of the explosion, but the flattened building is at this point (fifteen seconds after the explosion) seventeen seconds in the future of the building. I hope you understand this. This is what's known as a communication lag.

Now, he gets that all right; he arrives at position B - just starts in at A, walks across to position B, and there he is - pam! Nothing to that - very simple. You say, "All right, now, we will mock you up at A. Okay? Now, we will unmock you at A and mock you up at point A prime, which is one-eighth of an inch toward B. Now we will unmock you at A prime and have you mock yourself up at A prime prime taking the next step." Like an animated cartoon - we'll just take the whole thing to pieces on the terms of an animated cartoon.

Now, where is present time? Where is present time? Fifteen seconds ago there was an explosion which, seventeen seconds into the future, will flatten the place you're standing. Where's present time?

Stopped motion when flittered across the screen, when riffled in a book - like these little cart-moving cartoon books - these stop-motion pictures, when combined together and riffled fast enough, make motion pictures. You think this is a symbol of motion? It isn't; it is motion.

Problems in velocities and relative motion have always been trying to the school child. As a matter of fact they try the schoolchild with them, and try him and try him and try him. And then flunk him before the high court if he doesn't succeed in being confused enough to answer this question (quote) intelligently (unquote).

So we make him mock himself up walking from position A to position B - mock himself up and unmock for each new change in space which he's going to have his mock-up take. He's taking a long time to do it; it's very exhausting. And when he gets about three quarters of the way or even less than that, he suddenly realizes what you're up to. You're going to unmock the whole damned universe on him if you are allowed to proceed. He very often has that reaction.

A boat is going down the river at ten miles an hour. Another boat is coming up the river at five miles an hour. There is a current in the river of five miles an hour. At 3:00 the upper boat started downriver, and at 3:02 the lower boat started upriver, and the two points are 36.872 miles apart. Exactly how far from the starting point of the first boat will the two boats pass?

An auditor just progresses on, makes the guy do it some more; gets into some very interesting situations. Well, now, what happens to the - you see how that is. I'll make that more graphic. We'll pick up this microphone here. See this microphone? We'll hold on to two corners of this microphone and we will move this microphone now, from where it is now to this position B which is about nine-and-a-half; ten inches from it; that's position B; over here is position A and here's position B. All night. Now we're going to move the microphone to position B. There it is; a very simple operation, isn't it?

It's a very easy problem. The answer of it is, of course, a very simple answer. The answer, of course, is "MEST universe." And if you were simply to write this down in an examination paper, believe me, you'd be far more right than what they gave in the answer books. Because a foot - a mile is - a mile is a distance which was composed of so many feet and "feet" was the length between the heel and toe of a British king. You see? And the miles near London are bigger than the miles out in the sticks. It's very interesting. It's - MEST universe is the right answer.

The hand reaches down and moves the microphone from position A to position B. Or does it? Now, this is not even a brain cracker. Once you start this operation in processing, you find out immediately that you're into hot water.

You want to know who measured the river. You could be very embarrassing as a schoolchild. Who determined the velocity? How do we know that that's accurate?

Because the truth of the matter is, this is the way it's happening: Here we are, position A. Now we unmock it at position A and mock it in position B, see? Now it's mocked up. Now, we unmock it there and we mock it there, see? Unmock it and mock it. They're separate pictures but it doesn't persist across - mock-mock-mock-mock-mock-mock- mock-mock-mock-mock-mock-mock, see. Mock, unmock; mock, unmock; mock, unmock; mock, unmock mock, unmock.

Now, this is a theoretical problem, I trust, because the method of progress of a river steamer is not measured in this type of velocity, so we must assume that you knew the answer before you figured out the problem so that you could get the average velocities. Therefore, it's a hypothetical problem and can't happen, because it could only be determined by test and then figured backwards arithmetically. So it becomes a false problem which doesn't have any actual factors. Therefore the problem's unsolvable - simple. River steamer has to dart from the right bank to the left bank and go up with the current and so forth.

How far apart are each one of these things? The distance is 1/c, which is the speed of light which is the motion of particles, and that's how fast you mock or unmock things. But you do all that automatically, see? So we got mock-unmock, mock-unmock, mock-unmock, mock-unmock, and we're at B.

A proper answer to it is that the velocity of the stream probably has no bearing upon it. The upbound - the upbound riverboat is probably being assisted by the eddies along the bank. Oh, we must go deeper into the problem and fire its pilot for being incompetent! In other words, people putting out this problem can get in very hot water.

Now, a thetan, the only way he can get between two places really, is just to say, "We're at A; we're at B! Ha! Ping!" There's no motion in between. A thetan does that; there's nothing to that. That's Change of Space Processing.

The only thing which really determines the answer to the problem, as any thetan discovers, is experience. The only real answer to any problem is if the problem happened. Has it happened already? Well, then, we know the answer to it. And thetans who are in apathy about this whole cockeyed universe will get into that frame of mind eventually. They'll say, "Well, did it happen?"

All right. But no matter how heavy the object, no matter how burdened the thetan is with care, he's still able to do this! He gets the impact, he mocks up everything and he does it in complete agreement with everybody else because, boy, is he on an agreement pattern!

"Yes, it happened."

Now, you are going to run a couple of concepts on this boy and have him out of agreement with the MEST universe? No, you're not! You sure aren't because he might lose this ability to be able to pick up this piece of MEST and put it over here at B by moving it through all of the interspaces. See how easy I do that, from A to B just pang! Anybody does it; perfectly easy to do. The thing is, therefore, actually made of real particles. This is what you call an unwarranted conclusion. There is no slightest excuse to make these two conclusions come together.

"Well, all right, if it happened, we know the answer to it. Just because it happened though is - it's probably going to happen again, but we'd better not let it happen again, because if it happened in this universe it's bad " Period. That's all adjudicated.

I have a hand to reach over here, grab it - it's at A and then you see me move it to B, and now, all I have done mentally or physically is to move it from A to B. Bull! There's this terrific automaticity going on.

We take up this explosion - this fascinating problem. Where is the fifteen seconds? Is it in present time or the past or the future? Or just where is present time? The explosion happened and then thirty-two seconds later the building flattened, and the person is at the building - well, where is present time at the moment of the explosion?

Now, you start chipping away on a preclear's automaticity and he'll let you go quite a distance before he all of a sudden starts to look around for the shotgun.

Male voice: At the wave front.

Truth of the matter is, you read about this in storybooks, you read about jinns or janns, as they're referred to in The Arabian Nights, suddenly putting a whole palace down. There it is - boom - beautiful big palace complete with servants and so forth. In the later Arabian Nights, they get horses and goats and turn them into servants, but in the earlier ones they just appear.

Well, the present time could be the wave front all the way on down toward the building, but then you have a present time thirty-two seconds long.

Now, we have - we have this proposition here where we take the person to A and we move him through to B. We have the actuality, in theory only, of a person being able to unmock it at A and mock it up at B with no intervening steps! He just omits the rest of it. If he has the potentiality of doing it at the rate of 1/c, he then has the potentiality of running at some other speed.

I tell you, when you ask people - when you asked people, in Dianetics, to come to present time, you were asking them more than they rightly knew.

And this is why we say it's so hard to get somebody to deconsider himself on the subject of speed; although speed is a matter of consideration. So we would have what we dream about in science fiction and so forth, called "teleportation": A to B - bam! That's all there is to the process. All there is to the process is Change of Space Processing.

So if it is so - if it is so completely desirable to be in present time, it is logical to ask the simple, rather rhetorical question, "Where the hell is it?"

If you want to clear a preclear, you just have him be in different spaces and the significance of the spaces will shake loose; it's because there aren't any particles there anymore, But he knows there are. Because the fellow who gets very bad at this after a while, starts getting sloppy and leaving residue and so he is making facsimiles of everything he sees. You catch?

Time is determined by the relative motion of particles. That's all time is. In this universe they move at a certain relative speed with regard to each other and they will therefore traverse a certain proximity with regard to each other, according to your consideration.

Now, the dissertation I've just given you is theoretical but it is supported by processing evidence, Because the second that you start making this preclear mock and unmock, mock and unmock, mock and unmock, mock and unmock, you change the devil out of his own speed. His communication lag stops being in a complete agreement with the MEST universe and starts coining upwards.

% [The old reel ends here. The remainder of this transcript % is based on the clearsound version only.]

People are on - when they get into trouble - they're on a negative speed line; they are slower than optimum and they are leaving mock-ups behind in everything they do Now, this in aircraft recognition and so forth becomes very apparent.

An old person very often finds the days going by like box cars past a telephone pole. And a summer afternoon, when one is three, lasts forever. Consideration.

In aircraft recognition, they can receive at a seventy-fifth of a second an impression of a plane and recognize it although it's at a strange angle and a strange distance. They're not used to this picture of this plane, hut it only flashes on the screen for a seventy-fifth of a second and they can tell you what kind of a plane it is out of hordes of planes and hordes of pictures of each plane - seventy-fifth of a second. A normal recognition, sometimes, if somebody is real good, it's about a fiftieth, but ordinarily it's the speed of Brownie box camera.

We find two particles in proximity to each other determining time. Who for?

How long does it take for that to flick across the lens? One knows the shutter has opened and closed. How long did it take for the lens to open? A twenty-fifth of a second - fifteenth to a twenty-fifth of a second.

[Please note: At this point there was a break in the original master recording. This tape now resumes as did the original master recording.]

And you'll find out that normally, if you flashed on a screen a spot of light for a twenty-fifth of a second, people would actually be able to see its dimension. But at any less - at any faster speed than that, they would just be aware of a flick or something; they would not have a picture, they'd just get a spray of particles which are so brief or so instantaneous.

Second part of the October 30th morning lecture, continuing on this "Particle with Regard to Time."

For instance, I have a - I have a German flash gun, an electronic flash gun, which shoots at a seven-hundredth of a second. And it is so much faster than the normal eye reaction time that people see its afterimage. It's come back and flicked into a building and then kicked back and forth between the two window ledges or something of the sort several times and they will see the flash there because it's quite powerful, but they don't see the gun go. They know the gun has gone and they know they saw it go. But anybody with better eyesight and so forth, sees then what they saw go. Which is: the flash goes out, strikes several things, ricochets, comes back, hits something broad; by that time has spread and slowed and comes back in and flashes on the plastic lens which covers the electronic flashing device. And they think they've seen the gun flash; they haven't seen the gun flash at all.

Two particles then - this is very elementary - two particles, two units of MEST universe, are relatively spaced here and here and then these two particles come together at this speed, pass each other at this speed. Well, this simply means that there must have been some consideration concerning it. The second you say "speed" there must be a consideration.

The reason for this is, they say, "Well, I know - I - I know I had my eyes open when you took the picture because I saw the flash." And the picture will demonstrate that their eyes were closed. If you're making them blink just make this test. They're not looking at the actual flash.

Now, people go so daffy on this problem they finally say, "Well, did any two particles cross at all? And if they did, why, let's just skip it. All is illusion, all is illusion, I can't see anything, I'm blind, let's not look. Because it's all illusion anyway, let's not look."

In other words, there's a lag time there, and a very broad .. People get up to a seventy-fifth of a second, in other words, and they're getting lost; when they get up to a seven-hundredth of a second, they're in hellish shape. And my God, when they're getting up to something like C, well, they just had rather not look at that because they would see everything. And I suppose that is why the mathematician has instinctively called this C, C. He just has called it that, because it's called that in practically every society and every mathematics there is here in the MEST universe I have ever run into.

Well, that's one way of looking at it, but here we have these two particles, they're passing each other and somebody says they're traveling at the rate of eighteen miles per hour. Well, that's fine because you can set it up on MEST universe - look at the trap involved here - you could set it up on MEST universe meters and sure enough, it is traveling at eighteen miles per hour. What do you know! Now we've proven it.

Okay. What's the process of automaticity and what is the goal of automaticity? It's to make it so automatic that you can sure see it. But of course, any automaticity deteriorates and as the automaticity deteriorates and as the skill of the automaticity is lost, why then theoretically, the person goes into a negative of control. And it's at that point that he jumps the bridge we were talking about first into thinking. He can't feel it anymore; he can't see it anymore the way he should, so he has got a deteriorating perception and this deteriorating perception becomes an anxiety to him, so he thinks about it Why? Because he's merely operating in the plane he's in.

What's eighteen miles an hour? Well, eighteen miles an hour can very easily be considered by a scientist as a datum which has some bearing on the subject. He thinks that if he reads it on a meter, he's made it come true. If you prove the MEST universe by the MEST universe, then the MEST universe is true. Follows!

He's trying to hold on to, my God, as little as he has. He's got to hold on to as little as he has left; he knows this. He can't make it any worse. The funny part of it is, it's generally - because of the behavior of facsimiles - it's going to get worse before it gets better; so you get a deteriorating cycle.

Now, there's a particle there and if there's a particle there, then there's a particle there. And he just moves right on past this very small and insignificant point: There's a particle there if there's a viewpoint. That's what proves that there's a particle there, not that there's a particle there.

Change of Space remedies this condition very easily and is a recommended process.

You see, eighteen miles per hour is an automobile moving down the road according to its speedometer. It's being measured in its movement down the road by its speedometer. There was nobody to look - we're back into the old philosophic saw to some degree: Would there be a sound in the woods if there wasn't anybody in the woods? Well, let's solve it for a change. Put it into a category where we can use this thing instead of just squirreling on it.

Another process which is not a recommended process, necessarily, is a process which you can use, and there are many recommended processes which stem from it. It's just this process of have him mock up something at A and then something at B, and then have him mock up the necessary mockups in between; mock them and unmock them; mock them and unmock them. Make him perforce in his (quote) imagination (unquote) go through the entire gamut of steps exactly that he's going in so he can look, see, feel and hear the MEST universe. If you make him do this quite a bit he will - his speed will come up.

Now, the sound in the woods is a sound in the woods, if we've determined there's a woods. That's about all there is to it; if we've determined there's a woods. We have to move it up another step.

Now, he gets into contact with the habit pattern of the society he's operating in, he's in bad shape once more perhaps on his lag, but his lag isn't as bad as it was.

See, they - as long as they can keep it down to the basis of "Is this car moving eighteen miles an hour?" "Yes, it says eighteen miles an hour on the speedometer, therefore, it's moving eighteen miles an hour." It's all simple and elementary.

Now, look at this - the idea here of agreement. The body is running at a certain speed and when the thetan agrees with the body - and he's got to agree with it to run it at all, he thinks. Actually, all he has to do is make up a mock-up just like the body, shove it in the body, and then make the mock-up run the body. That's really what he's doing. That's the way he operates the body.

But the second you move it - move the same problem up into the fact: "Is there a sound in the woods if there is nobody in the woods to hear the sound in the woods?" All right. There's two particles in the woods and they're moving together and one is a tree and the other is an air particle and when these two come together it signals the fact that the movement from the sound source has finally reached the tree. And it isn't a problem, actually, of "is there a woods?" The most basic problem in it is the velocity because we've immediately entered the field of consideration.

So let's take a look and we see that a person's communication speed could suddenly shoot up when he exteriorizes, get very rapid on his exteriorization, and then he comes back close to the body again and things slow down on him. This is quite - I've had this happen very often in processing. You see, things slow down. Why?

We would consider it a great velocity from our viewpoint if it knocked down the tree. In other words, we've added volume or mass translation into speed and that is the way we consider whether or not something is moving fast - the amount of creation or destruction performed thereby.

He's into a habit pattern of agreement. He's still running the body automatically. As long as he runs it completely automatically, he's going to run it at the same speed he ran it before. That's because he's not running it. He's punching buttons that are running it. As long as he punches buttons that are running it, this is bad. So after you did this process, if you were going to go in for this, you would just keep running it on the body and on mock-ups of the body until he knew what he was doing with the body, because he's mocking it up too and unmocking it every second.

Now, once or twice in Scientology, we have hazarded, "What are these particles which compose this universe?" We've talked about it quite a bit in this class. If you dehydrate MEST in a certain way and a such and such a way and on a certain system, otherwise, it finally becomes very solid and view-able and all is well. And we do that. And if we throw some affinity at it, and too much affinity, why, it'll sort of swell up and do other things. In other words, particles have - obviously can be combined and do things with particles if the same system of communication is applied to the particles which originated the particles. If the same system is applied, then of course you get the same behavior.

Now, what has happened to one who has no mock-ups left at all? He is so far below speed that he knows he's losing out. You could actually process him this way - he's kind of - his body, a lot of his sensation is that he's not there. You could make him walk across a room. Mark one part of the room A and the other part of the room B (This again, theoretical process I've worked it.) And have him at A, not be there, and then have him be at A prime; there are a bunch of gradient steps you see: A prime, A prime prime, A prime prime prime. Every foot between A and B you have a little mark. Well, he steps ahead to A prime as nothing, you see, and then give him - get him to get the idea of creating himself there at A prime; and then have him be nothing and uncreate himself (give him ten minutes of nothing, you might say), at A prime - you just give him a moment of nothing, you see - and you have him, as nothing, then, move to A prime prime; and then mock himself all up at A prime prime until he's all there. And then have him unmock himself at A prime prime and go to the next step, still unmocked and then mock himself up at A prime prime prime; and mock himself up there and unmock himself there just as a body. I'm not talking about a mock up I'm just - what he's contacting at those places - just as weird as that I mean you have him - just get him contacting nothing at this place and so forth.

Why? Well, you've agreed on the whole track, all the way on down the track, that that was the way it was going to happen. And if it was going to happen that way, then of course you've agreed that it's happening that way, and so they're there! There isn't any question about it not being there. They're there; there are particles.

This is getting awful low on the looking scale, if I must say so. But lie will discover he's in an unmocked instant. Something hit him one time between mock-ups; it's about what happened to him. He never mocked himself up again. He never mocked up his visio; he hasn't mocked up any of these things.

You have a viewpoint, don't you? Well, that's all it takes to make a particle. And the whole MEST universe is proven by the fact that you have a viewpoint. It's proven by the fact that there's life, not by the fact that it measures itself

Every once in a while a person has relied on some piece of machinery to do this for him. Oh, it was elaborate - had gears and wheels and cogs and shot out beams of light and used up - it had attention-conservation spark plugs and it had attention-conservation this and that; and it had a conservation antenna and conservation light panels; saved energy in all directions and did it all, did it all, did it all. It even probably picked up attention which he was supposed to be putting on something else, and it really - a saving device, it was.

Now, the fixation upon the meter is wonderful. Because all a meter is doing is moving at the same ratio of the particles it's moving with, the particles it's measuring. It's of the same breed of cat and has been originated by the same agreement system, and it's running on exactly the same agreements as the particles it's measuring - particles or lack of. You see? You've taken a cat, now, and asked him whether or not there are cats. And of course, he's a cat, so he says there are cats. And here we have Q and A, because this universe is essentially foolishly silly in its origin. It is so simple in its origin that it would completely escape anything.

And he forgot it was there and it was doing the mock-up for him. And he's forgotten it's there. And not only that, he's - besides forgetting it's there, it, in the meantime, has had its antenna and panel and right rear wheel broken. And there's no repair crew.

And a matter of fact, a fellow can walk around a long time pondering this... What is the significance of it? Well, the reason he can work so long pondering it, is because there isn't any significance to it! It's just the fact that - a particle moving.

This guy is walking around dazedly saying, "I wonder why I don't get a mock-up." That's great; he's getting the significance of why he doesn't get a mock-up. That's what he wants. There isn't any significance about it at all except he's to a point of reliance where he knows something else has to give him the mock-up. And his reliance is that it will or he won't have a mock-up and it's broken.

Now a person who is sixty or seventy sees a car go down the road at twenty-five miles an hour through traffic and he says, "Speed demon!" And the kid of eighteen says, "Slowpoke! Why doesn't he get off the road? Why doesn't he get it - get it out of reverse, huh? Wake up and die right." Viewpoint.

So he's got a dim recollection of this and he knows something has got to be repaired. So he asks you as the auditor to run some sort of a process which will repair this. Well, you're not going to repair this because it's a piece of machinery; he put it together when he was in good shape and now he won't even look at it.

Fact of the matter is that the only actual monitoring factor involved, the only metering factor on any of this, is consideration. And we could get very biblical, "religiousical" and logical and say, "Be ye as ye consider ye ist," and you would have it. "Be as you consider you are." And you would just about shape your personality. That is very fascinating because it merely says - it permits somebody to say that all you had to do is decide to be self-determined, you'd be self-determined from there on and that's all there is to it. See, even that - somebody comes along and says that. Fact of the matter is, that can't happen.

So you can run mock and unmock processes on him, or just run straight mock-ups. Now, if you just run enough Self Analysis you take over again the process of mocking up as a nonautomatic function, as a self-determined function. See, that's why Self Analysis works the way it does. And their mock-ups get a little bit better, tiny little bit better and tiny little bit better.

I spent - November 14th lecture of 1951 goes on for an hour saying how this - how this is terribly possible, and then the second hour was devoted entirely to why it couldn't happen. An awful lot of people heard that first hour; nobody ever listened to the second one. I should have reversed them.

Well, in view of the fact that they're doing solid mock-ups as long as they're alive, every 1/c of time, this tiny gradient of time, see - pam-pam-pam-pam-pam! You can't - there's nothing goes as fast except the speed of light; that is, unmocking and mocking at that speed! Fabulous. Brand-new space, brand-new space, brand-new space - much faster than anybody could ever mention it. Think how fast a thetan really is if he can do that automatically. Maybe he doesn't dare know how good he is.

The point is that all art and so forth, is agreement. It's basically agreement. So you get an art form out of an agreed-upon aesthetic. But anybody can consider anything beautiful if he steps outside the field of agreement. And there we have a clue to all of this: If you step outside the field of agreement far enough, you're outside of it, believe me. And there's where exteriorization and its results produces your sudden effects. And why you can then go on and exercise somebody into what? The creation and destruction of particles, creation and destruction of space, creation and destruction of communications and channels - while exteriorized, because he doesn't have to agree with speed.

Maybe, like Superman, he has to be stupid in order to have any randomity at all.

Now, while a person is being audited, he has to, to some degree, agree with the speed of the auditor. But that's all right, we can get up to a higher speed than is normally tolerable in communication lines and you're outside the agreement level, or we could actually go down to a slower speed than is normally tolerable and we're outside the communication agreement speed. Because we have to step outside of the speed agreement, and this is only stepping outside of the agreement that there must be motion. That's one of the first agreements. The thing that pins people in this universe is just that: There must be or there must not be motion.

Male voice: Rube Goldberg.

The one thing that is peculiar in this universe is this fact: motion. Why should there be motion? That's very silly. Motion says that you have to go from one place to another place in a gradient line of travel.

Rube Goldberg - very strictly.

You have to go from - when you go from A to B - this universe tries to tell you - when you go from A to B, you have to go to A plus micromillimeter, A plus micromillimeter, A plus micromillimeter, see, down to the halfway point when they would start calling it B minus maximum micromillimeters, less one, less one, less one, less one, less one, until you're at B.

I was looking at Superman the other night. It's a very curious society; they obviously have had this god until recent times and so forth and they're still retailing his legend over TV screens and so forth.

The way to go from A to B is to go dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit- dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit- B, see? The way to go from the center of town to the edge of town is block by block. Well, every time you do that, you have - you are, in effect, creating new spaces. Now, we not quite sure what we have to do with these old spaces that have been created, but we're no longer there, so it's all right. We've kept creating space, so we just say that's in - all in the past. That's vanished space.

I mean, that country was overridden by crime at the time of this god, and so forth, and the people used to worship him. And there were the other people who worshiped criminals. And nobody would look at this god, and it's a legend of his declining days, is what they're running because nobody would know about him or look about him, but everybody would know and look about the crime. So it's actually a very interesting cycle of a religious cult which must have existed until recent times, because I noticed the pictures. They had automobiles and various things in the pictures - no modern gadgets, just automobiles and so forth. Very curious.

All a thetan has to do is lose his ability to vanish space and he's stuck with the past in present time. It's just as simple as that. The second he loses his ability to vanish space, he's stuck with the past in present time, which hangs him up with what? That hangs him up exclusively where? The past - because he can't get any more space, because where he is now doesn't matter - it doesn't make more space. See? The fact that he's at 9th and Chester doesn't make new space because the space he made that morning was at 5th and Wesson, when Joe hit him in the rear end with another car. That's space.

And Superman had to be enormously automatic and stupid in order to get any randomity toward the end at all, which I suppose is why he ceased to be a god. I notice he's not worshiped anyplace today except on TV. Got a temple at someplace called Rice Krispy. I think it's the sole remaining temple.

So, he has to be convinced over and over and over and more and more and more and more and more to make a new point of space. And at first a fellow goes along simply by creating and destroying particles and he's got lots of new space, new space, new space, new space, new space. And then after a while he loses his ability to do that on that scale, so he starts borrowing particles to - that somebody else is sort of moving along for him. And the next thing you know, why, he's down into the level where he's got - where he's what - going what? He's going engram to engram to engram to engram; that's his space particles. He's making new space on the basis of "Let's see, I was hit in the jaw in Milwaukee. That gave me an anchor point." Masses of anchor points is what he has to have. It - he's got to be convinced he made one.

Well, we have Change of Space as a remedy because Change of Space just drops out, grandly, mock-ups. Mock-ups? To hell with them! We're going to be in A and be in B, and be in A and be in B, and be in A and be in B; that's all! We're going to be there; that's all we're doing with Change of Space. No matter how poorly or indifferently or stupidly or anything else, we're going to be there.

But just the fact of driving by 5th and Elm doesn't, at that instant, give him the space at 5th and Elm. If it did, he'd be in present time. What determines the ability to be in present time? Simply that.

Oh, also Superman took to motion. He stopped being in these places simultaneously so he'd already entered into automaticities; because I noticed he carried his body while he was flying across some of the larger towns in the civilization. It was very curious seeing a god carrying his body along like that - very odd. They don't do it in some of the more advanced societies. Anyway... We...

Then what determines a communication? A communication, in essence, would be flowing along a certain line, making gradients of new space by this universe definition. And that is the imposition of an arbitrary. So your thetan recovers quite rapidly if he does his communication on a change-of-space basis: A to B, A to B, A to B, A to B, A to B. See?

Male voice: With a cape.

But if it's A plus one micromillimeter, so on, he sort of loses out. He has to be perfectly willing to let such a thing as a body go on doing all the gradient steps of a communication line, while he himself is content to guide it, or to guide other particles, or to re-form or mass or take apart other particles. If he's just willing to do that, he's all right; he can go through all the gradient steps he wants to.

We've got a beautiful panorama of any case when we say "too little, too slow, because he's got to have too much" - "too little, too slow, because he's got to have too much." That describes the way he works in processing and so on. The remedy: Change of Space. I don't care whether he's in his body or not. Hell, he's not in a body, anyhow. He's mocking up a body and unmocking it right where he stands all the time; doing it with the greatest of ease. He doesn't even know he's doing it, either.

But then one day he says, “I am a particle." He begins to believe that the particles which compose this stuff up here, are alive. The day he gets interested in little things which are alive "just like he is" (reference: biology class), he's gotten the idea that particles are alive and that particles recombining with particles is life itself. And this is the doctrine which is taught today.

You ask somebody to do this - he's got it really automatic. You ask somebody to do this; it's got reasons for all the portions of the mock-up and then he goes to college and studies anatomy. I mean, this actually - this jest probably won't come through to you till you run this process a few times. It's just weird! He studies anatomy!

"There's this universe, see, and after a while there gets to be a crystalline formation. And this crystalline formation..." See, and here we go, I mean, we're off to the - we're off toward madness immediately. Because we have taken out of the problem the one factor which solves the problem: consideration. We have fixed him with the arbitrary of having to consider himself as a particle, and consider life as produced by particles, and giving to particles as in that wall - those molecules - the role of source! He doesn't want to do that, so he assigns to those particles in the wall the role of receipt-point. And when he assigns that role to them, he's doing what they were supposed to do in the first place. But if he's identified himself with a particle, he thinks he's going to wind up eventually as a molecule.

I mean, you ask any pre clear to be three feet back of his head and if he's got any good visio at all - if he's got any visio at all he can always see inside the body. He looks inside the body and he says, "Yes, there's this and there's that?“

And all they had to do earlier on the track was to implant somebody with an implant known as “The Electron," and we were all set with a universe and everybody could be slaves. And that's all it took! And you'll find a lot of preclears going around - they're afraid they're going to become MEST. There are implants all over the place that tell them they should become MEST and so forth, Hey! You'll never be one of those particles - you can't be! You could have them. You could have all you want of them. You can make all you want of them. But you don't dare destroy that stuff eventually, because it's alive. You don't dare destroy it - it's alive. It is - it's terrible.

And you say, Well, look at the gland that's down there toward the center of the body?' He does.

If you don't believe that, watch some mama sometime upbraiding the little kid for having wrecked one of his toys; she gives him the definite idea the toy must be alive and hurt. And people will talk in terms of hurting MEST objects.

And you say, "Now look at the pancreas."

They talk of themselves as being ruined, and the rain as ruining their hat. You see? They talk of a motor having been abused, but they hope it didn't hurt it. They hope running it without oil for the last twenty miles didn't hurt it any. Complete confusion, you see?

And he says, "Oh, those - these the pancreas?" and so forth. Well, he just goes through the whole routine.

They're MEST and as long as they believe this, they think they're going to go on a dwindling spiral straight down to the point where they become one of them things.

And say, "Adjust any energy that needs to be adjusted anyplace in that glandular area," and he does.

And I let this coast for a long time to see how it wound up and what it did with cases and so forth, one time - I just let it slide. And I mentioned in a lecture that there was some feeling that this might not be - this might be so, and we got an immediate opinion on the part of a lot of auditors, yes sir: what molecules were - were dead thetans. "Yeah, molecules are dead thetans." And so people suppose this to be true.

Strange part of it is, it never seems to strike him as peculiar that all the other exercises he does, nothing is as instantaneous as suddenly shifting a small piece of energy on the pancreas; never ever strikes him as peculiar. He goes into the pineal area, the pituitary; he adjusts this, he adjusts that; he fixes up this little spot and that little spot and he shifts around and straightens out this pinched nerve. It's a very silly process. It's a highly workable process.

They see a body lie down and die, and then they see it become dust. Obviously the person was dust, then! Elementary, simple, neat. Of course, they don't want anybody to know that the second the thing started to - thing started to kick the bucket, they shoved off. Anything that was alive there and could consider was gone.

You're asking him to alter objectively what he's mocking up all the time. You're asking him to alter it.

So we have life as the thing which can consider One of its higher activities is consideration. If it can broadly and certainly consider something aesthetic, can do so.

Now what is objectivity? Objectivity is simply willingness to look and mock up something else besides you. And if you're willing to mock up something else besides you, then you can see something else. And as you go out - more and more complete, more and more complete. The more a person is willing to duplicate, the more he can look at, and that's what objectivity is.

Actually, a little kid running the glorious irresponsibility of being a baby, can consider that a lot of the darnedest things are beautiful - oooh! They come around and just any MEST is perfectly all right, any form they put it into, any way they smash it up, it's still beautiful; they just consider it so.

Okay. Now we want to talk for a moment about Step III commands and Change Processing.

And then one day, some artist in the rough goes to art school. The next thing you know, why, "Well, van Gogh, uhhhm, uhm, ..." He's considering, all right, but he's considering with a MEST communication lag. And that is the death of an artist.

[Please note: At this point there was a break in the original master recording. This tape now resumes, as did the original master recording.]

This stuff is not supposed to be destructible. The postulate with which it's made is "It does not destroy itself." That's the postulate in it. And if a fellow thinks he's MEST and just another breed of particle, and some kind of a communication system of particles which somehow mysteriously and mystically have become alive in some fashion or another, he thinks that he will get conservation of energy on this same level. He knows he can't do it because he's made out of these particles and these particles say they mustn't destroy each other.

Now, just continuing very briefly the October 30th lecture, this list is to be run by Change Processing, it says, and this is a list which was compiled out of the What to Audit so that you would have a ready reference of things to run.

The last ditch in this, as far as politics is concerned, is communism: "We mustn't destroy each other. We can't - we must conserve everything. We must produce. And we sort of live parasitically off anything that'll move." That sort of a weird, weird idea. Justice is composed of "We mustn't destroy each other."

Now, the object of this list is to run Change Processing on people who are exteriorized and you're shifting them back and forth and you're shifting them back and forth between these geographical areas in the MEST universe. Because each one of these, he's creating a great deal of significance. He's creating significance around each one of these continually as part of a pattern which he re-creates.

And a thetan should be able - should be able to pull stuff apart and put it back together again rather easily because if he doesn't, the stuff will pile up on him in the present. The energy he's using is energy, if he's fool enough to use energy.

So you just shift him back and forth into these geographical areas: One, the first geographical location of the thetan in the MEST universe as soon as he came from the home universe. Well, this is for the ME5T universe; you can experiment for the home universe, too, if you want to.

Now, you just run on somebody with these considerations, the idea of "I am a particle" and you get dynamite. You get - mock up a communication line going through his head or something of the sort and have him be on one end of it and then be on the other end of it: "I'm source." "I'm receipt-point." Weird things will happen to his case - weird. He gets somatics and - all over the place. Not particularly a bad process, but doesn't lead too far; but quite often will unburden the case markedly - the case that thinks it has to think.

But you just shift him - you'd say, "Be in the area where you entered the universe; be here. Area where you first entered the universe; be here." Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth - not what does he see there or anything of the sort. He'll have a sensation of being someplace and there's something happening. And then it gets gluier and worse. And then some chunks fall away and then pieces of track drop out and he has a bad time of it for a short time. And then all of a sudden he begins to see that there's not quite that much significance in the area anymore, and then it falls away and he, theoretically, is in just an area of space - somewhere, we don't care. See?

The thing you should do with such a case is merely rehabilitate his ability to create and uncreate space. And you notice we haven't gone too much, yet, into the uncreation-of-space exercises.

Then we go to the next one and we're clearing each one in turn this way. Actually, he normally just finds himself in an area of space. Sometimes he finds himself on a planet. And we just take these, and these are places to which he has attached a great deal of significance.

Fellow after a while gets scared to create something, you see, because if he - he creates the damned thing it'll still stay around and he can't get rid of it!

These aren't all the places to which he had, but this is enough to chop up his track as with an ax. All this does is get him over the automaticity of duplicating what has happened to him so he can now have it for experience.

You have most artists, if you - who are deteriorating, if you asked them suddenly why they're not painting as many pictures as they used to, they would tell you bluntly - well, I mean this - their first response, if you could only get it on a flash answer, it would be, "Well, I'd have them around." It's completely unconsidered. They have other methods of getting rid of them. They sell them, they translate them into other kinds of anchor points - money, which vanishes very quickly.

Male voice: Oh!

A writer almost never can be persuaded to write five or six stories in advance of the one he has a sale for; he'd have them around! You see? In other words, his method of destroying a thing he created is to sell it - get rid of it.

That's all. What's the matter?

Now, you have amongst the communist art schools the theory that one should never sell anything or part with it, naturally. At least commercial art permits one to get it gone. You know - swoosh. He gets the idea after a while though that it's precious and ought to endure someplace or another. That is a lower echelon, lower - level idea.

Male voice: I just had a horrible thought.

Well, all right, we needn't beat this thing to death. It becomes very simple that an individual who supposes himself to be an anchor point is not going to be able to make space. And an individual who supposes himself to be a communication particle which is merely a kind of anchor point, cannot, of course, make communications or receive them.

What?

Now, what's - what's a - what's a motivator? What's an overt act? How does that tie into this? Ties in very simply. The motivator-overt act sequence is a great deal of trouble to cases, which as a matter of fact is the hang-up of the maybe. And if you want to know why is it the hang-up of the maybe, it's because a person has tangled his consideration with the consideration of being a particle to a point where he has to have facsimiles with which to operate. He is a particle, he can only operate with particles, so therefore, only being able to operate with particles, it is then obvious that he has to have a particle before he can put the particle into action.

Male voice: If we'te keeping on mocking up these bodies and all, all the time, we must be doing the same things - all of the facsimiles we've got out below these many light-years.

A person has already abandoned his ability to create and destroy particles for this lifetime - you know, he's saying, "I've been punished enough. I've been punished enough. I can't create and destroy particles. I didn't do it. I can't make it." He's gotten the idea that he has to receive a facsimile before he can use it in an action. And if he's done something, you see, without the facsimile, then he's gone against the law of something or other. He's gone against the law of the MEST universe, is "There has to be a particle" - it says, too, "There has to be a particle there before there can be any motion of a particle." It's a silly law, but I mean, it's the fundamental law. There has - it's just - it sounds silly, it sounds too simplified but yet it's - it's there: There has to be a particle there before there is a particle.

Very probably. It's quite a trick.

See, in other words, nobody made these particles. These particles are not being manufactured at this moment - and they are, you see. People believe this who are low on the Tone Scale. They believe nothing is being manufactured at this moment in terms of a new particle. They think they are already manufactured by God or something at Some unimaginable distance in the past, when the stuff is just floating around changing its positions changing its positions, changing its positions, that's all, and vanishing with relationship to other particles.

Male voice: Now he tells me!

All right, the effort to arrive is the effort to have motivators. One gets the idea, when he goes along the line, that if he can just have enough things happen to him, then he'll have enough particles and enough impacts so that he will then have enough fuel or energy with which to arrive at a point toward which he's going. And these impacts and so forth might even work in such a fashion as to drive him along this line to make him arrive at B. He sort of thinks he has to be beaten into it, in other words, because he knows he hasn't got energy enough to go the rest of the gradient scale to B.

Now, in view of the fact that everyone is into perfect agreement with everybody else, one, theoretically, would fly out of agreement violently with the universe. He doesn't.

Now, the efforts to have motivators is also the effort to be the source. See? I mean, a fellow, before he can be source of any output of energy, why, he has to have some energy to use as - to output. Same law as we just went over with regard to the MEST universe: There has to be a particle there before there is a particle. So, as a motivator, he has to have motivators before he can be source.

You see, the thetan is actually very able. You are very able. You are much more able than you'd ever dream you are. And you can do the damnedest things. You can even create aberrations; mock them up and mock them up and mock them up, and then not mock them up. See? Not mock them up because you are mocking them up because you aren't mocking them up because you're now mocking up something else that you aren't mocking up because some other fac machine has gone into operation.

Therefore, you get all wise men and messiahs and things of this character having to be beaten into complete apathy, and crowns of thorns and sacrifice and all of this sort of thing has to go along before they (quote) have the authority to be a messiah (unquote). See, it takes a lot of motivators. See.

I just swear there are people around in sanitariums who are mocking up for their immediate vicinity on an automaticity machine which they built way to hell and gone back someplace, and it's the only one they've got left running; it's at least mocking up something. That's better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing, to a thetan.

Well, this comes about through the - through actually the belief that one needs facsimiles in order to use facsimiles. Of course, if one uses facsimiles, one needs facsimiles; one needs facsimiles, one uses facsimiles, it's obvious.

You just use this list and you just use it in that fashion. That should be run on every individual after he is pretty stable and he's exteriorized; be run on every one of them.

Now, the dependence upon facsimiles is, therefore, merely a dependence upon already created particles which is already an abandonment of the ability to create particles, and that ability to create particles is abandoned when the person first begins to believe that he can't destroy particles. He can't out-postulate somebody: "You're dead." "No, I'm not dead." "Yes, you are dead." He can't out-postulate somebody.

The other paper which you have here is the Step III auditing commands. And it just gives you the eight - pardon me, the first six have to do with what we call subjective and the last five have to do with objective and they're the corners of the room.

Now, the thirst for motivators equals the necessity to have and use facsimiles. Anybody who has motivator hunger is using facsimiles for operation, fuel, energy. They will also eat other people's facsimiles, they will steal facsimiles, they go out of valence. To have it explained well why they're in Joe's valence, they're in Joe's valence because Joe is a very put-upon man and he's very sad, so that means he has lots of facsimiles, so you just pick up those facsimiles and use them for fuel. And he's got lots of motivation for doing something, so therefore he theoretically could be source. "If I just had Joe's woe, I could be source: That's the way that works out.”

Yes. Seven to eleven is the five that make the bracket for the room itself and the first six are the subjective commands.

Now, this is - you notice, then, anybody who is having motivator hunger, you can run, run, run just so long on this case and all of a sudden you'll have to give the case a whole flock of motivators. Well, although we've been letting this go by this far because we didn't want to stretch this material, the wrong way to run it is feed them motivators - wrong way to run it. It's nonsense. They mock up motivators and mock up motivators and mock up motivators. They might as well be mocking up energy. I mean, it's just silly. It's adding too much reason to processing. You don't have to have him mock up motivators, particularly.

Male voice: Ron, didn't you mention for the first couple of times through, that five and six were to be left out?

Rehabilitate - this is remedied by the rehabilitation of the ability to create. Create what? Energy. Which is remedied by, to some degree, the sudden realization the fellow can destroy something or make it invisible or do anything with it; he can make it vanish.

Yes, you could, but it doesn't matter if you run all those - all of them.

If you worked with a pc until he got something vanished, why, he'd be much happier and after that he'd be able to create better. So you'd work with him some more until he'd made something vanish. Either by making it invisible or doing anything you want to it, you see - you don't care what you do with it - why, you'd get around to, after a while, the point where he - his creative urge would come way on up.

Now, when you're putting them up for objects, you could put them up for all eleven. Put up objects for all eleven, like cell grates and so forth. You can actually hang on to the eight - from the center of the room hang on to the eight cell grates that are in the corners of the room.

He has to be able to destroy before he could first create. And there are some slugs that have kind of crawled into the universe through back doors, in the theta world, who are going around so dazed on this one that they try to destroy everybody and everything they run into in an effort that - in an effort, you see, to then be able to rehabilitate their ability to destroy. And if they can destroy enough, then they'll have the right to create again. This is highly, highly simple.

But this is - a lot of variations on this, but that isn't really the way you do it; you just hang on to the corners of the room.

It isn't an ethical question. Motivators and overt acts are not a question which belongs in morality or ethics. And any time you tangle it with morality or ethics, you're simply letting your preclear agree some more with a system which won't put him up into the line of being an artist again or being able to make space again or anything else.

Of course, you're making him say how actual it is every time you ask him to hang on to the corners of the room, which is the tremendous effectiveness of treating the MEST universe very directly - just smash! He'll hang on to the corners of the room and hang on to the corners of the room and first thing he's doing is hanging on to facsimiles of, and the next thing you know, he's doing something else and he gradually bails the significance out of the corners of the room.

Morality is itself an interesting thing because it's a nice game; it's a game of restraint and restriction. When it gets played down to the level of making somebody a slave, that's playing the game a little bit too far and a fellow looks up and he can't quite see that it's a game anymore.

Well, as he's bailing them out of the corners of the room, he's bailing them out of all over the universe too, to some degree.

Well, then how do you rehabilitate somebody who's motivator hungry? Well, how do you rehabilitate somebody who just goes around trying to destroy everything? He just wants to destroy, destroy, destroy, destroy, destroy.

There's one thing I didn't mention in this lecture I should have mentioned, if you haven't gathered it. As we tie together all of this stuff of moving this microphone from A to B here, most people are in the trap of being the effect of their own cause. And that's the second law of magic, is don't ever be hoist by your own petard. Don't blow yourself up, in other words, with your own mind.

The test, by the way, is very overt, this destruction. We're not looking for a back of the - back of the - of the hill significance to this. They'll - may talk about constructing something, but the truth of the matter is they're not putting anything out; they're just overtly destroying things. You can go out and look at their MEST, very good test - boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy - enMEST. We go and look at this and we look at that and - with regard to their actions.

This process here is just - the fellow has set up an automatic machine so that he can be surprised by it. When it's the same thing - the same breed of cat. But now on consideration, we get his consideration shifting, and we find out that we have often talked mostly because it was good communication - about people agreeing with the MEST universe.

Auditors - people in Scientology, actually, in Dianetics, by and large are darned nice people. For instance, I noticed yesterday when I said, "Worth - while people haven't time," a couple of guys in the class winced. Well, the point is, we do have a leisure class - people who have some slight margin on their ability. There you're picking out the top crust of the society. The working, upper-working-class intellectual of the society is more pinned down. You can determine a person's worthwhileness, to a large degree, by the pinneddownness; until we go into the mockery level of the scale and then we find somebody is entirely mobile just so he'll destroy, destroy, destroy. See, how we - how you work that out?

Now, let's look at that carefully and we see that they're agreeing with their own automaticity which, of course, doubles back automaticity on itself most cruelly and horribly. See, I mean, a guy can't set up something and then agree that he didn't set it up and then agree that it isn't there, and then be the effect of it and agree with it completely, because he's just agreed with the fact that he's a liar.

You get the most mobile strata of the society, the most mobile (and when we say "mobile" we just mean comfortably able to move about) in the society - ordinarily it's the most worthwhile strata of the society. These people can create things, they can destroy things, they're taking it fairly comfortable, fairly easy on life.

Now, you wonder why we follow the pattern of in our behavior, the MEST universe and use a language which is precisely derived from and describes the MEST universe utterly. It should be very obvious to you why we're doing this. But people consider that they are being victimized by the MEST universe. See? They're being victimized by the MEST universe.

Below that level we have professional levels and these people are. less mobile, but they're not immobile.

Well, they're being victimized, then, by their own consideration - just short-circuit the whole automaticity problem - being short-circuited by their own stuff. And it's a remarkable thing. The reason they agree with it, and the reason they have languages with it, is because it is a common meeting ground. It isn't that every single consideration they have is derived solely from the MEST universe.

And we go down below that, we find the working stiff - the fellow who works hard (that's the phrase with which he calls himself, not the phrase I call him). And he works less hard than the laborer, but he's pretty well pinned down. His margins of survival are not very great.

What we have learned from the MEST universe is the theme song of following out the automaticity which a fellow first self-determinedly set up and then has kept going for some time. He's become the effect, then, of his own cause. So you see consideration is not limited by, in any way, shape or form, the MEST universe. One is not copying the MEST universe! He is copying what he does that makes the MEST universe! Should be very plain to you. He's copying what he does to make the MEST universe and then saying somebody else did it and then wonders why he can't control it.

Then we get into the laborer and the worst margin in the society you ever saw in your life is the fellow who has to sweat the hardest in order to eat. And we get down to that level.

Now, let's see, then, that considerations are not derived from, and the only pattern in existence is, the MEST universe; so we say other universes. There are other tracks of agreement rather than this track of agreement and so we run into these other tracks of agreement.

Now we start to drop into the loony bin. Because down below the level of a person's ability to work, we start to run into neurosis and psychosis. And we find people that are flying all over the place - they're never still a moment, they never go home, they never do this, they don't got one. If they do have one, why, it's a mess and a hurrah, and they'll only stay with that long enough to completely bust it sky-wide and handsome. And you get this tremendous commotion going on.

Well, more or less the same thing has happened on entirely different principles. And of course that makes another universe. Very easy to see how this could be.

These people, by the way, rarely have any substance. They rarely have any MEST to amount to anything. They rarely have any - in this society, rarely have any money and they rarely have anything. It's fascinating how that package goes together I've only had about three years of looking at man and it is quite interesting how his categories fall together so easily.

Now, people come along and they say dully, "Well, are these two universes coexistent? I mean, you can't have two universes, one universe inside the other. And look, all the space there is, is occupied by the MEST universe. I can see that obviously, so where could some other universe be? Oh, it'd be on the other side of Polaris!"

The town drunk, for instance, if - he's only - he's into an inversion of an inversion stage. You see, he's not only broke, indigent and neurotic, he also now is in the next stage down where he makes himself unconsciously so. Well, he - the reason he doesn't move around is he's not there and he's not anywhere.

Here we have geographical location all mixed up. Don't go worry about that, The other universe could be right here where we're sitting and it would be the same universe, but it doesn't have to be at all.

See how your society strata falls apart. Actually, there are only ten or fifteen thousand intellectuals in America - people who are free, people who have some mobility.

Now, consideration is not limited by, and the ability of a thetan is not limited by, the chain of agreement which he is operating with at this time. His ability to make other chains of agreement is much greater than the ability he is already using to re-create continually this universe. His ability is fantastic.

You would be utterly amazed - people of this class you are - the people you associate with and so forth - you would be utterly confused to know - I mean, it'd be amazing to you if you just took a look and found out how few you were, numerically, in this nation. Ten or fifteen thousand, about the works.

So he is never taking a motorcycle, never, on the grounds that the motorcycle is taking him. That's just his consideration: the motorcycle is taking him. If he's alive at all and riding the motorcycle, there is still some fairly decent part of him that is saying, in so many ways, he's taking the motorcycle down the road.

You go around and you get confounded because everybody's supposed to be equal in America. You go around and you get utterly confounded because the fellow next door just can't seem to understand what you're talking about. He knows you're a very clever fellow and very witty, kind of nutty sometimes about some things and so forth, but he doesn't understand you.

But where we look at both sides of that cone I was talking about there, it becomes very upsetting to him when he starts to think about "Am I taking it down the road or, is it taking me down the road?"

Well, the reason he doesn't understand you is his breadth of understanding isn't any - hasn't got any width to it. He's in a pattern. You've never inspected this fellow for a pattern. He puts on his hat at a certain moment; he goes through certain moments; the job he's doing, very often, looks like it's a very intelligent job and that sort of thing, but if you worked hard you could dream up a robot that would do the same job. This isn't decrying such an individual, this is probably below the level of the professional.

Well, that's just the difference of viewpoint; and it's not a difference of viewpoint at all. Under no circumstances, at any time, is he ever doing anything otherwise than taking the motorcycle down the road. It's - you can say what you want about aberration, but the most spinny psycho they've got in the worst sanitarium on Earth today still has left residually more ability than any scientist is visibly using with mathematics.

A professional - the professional class of a country used to include its doctors. These fellows are just working stiffs now. They're penicillin needle pushers. They're technicians. Always you read in costume historicals or in diaries or something like that, the doctor was always hanging around the drawing room and they were this and that and so forth. Philosophic discussion of this or that was going on, why, his opinion was always on it.

Okay, that's all.

Well, don't ask a modern doctor his philosophic discussion opinion. The last discussion I entered into with a US doctor on the subject was, he came in to give me a shot - I had a - oh, I'd had everything in God's green earth falling on my head for a few days and it had been very wet and I'd gotten a cold a couple of times. So, I decided that I'd just better stop what little bacterial fluster was going on in my lungs with a shot of penicillin, so I had somebody send for a doctor and he came over and gave me a shot.

He noticed my name on a grip. He didn't say a thing, he merely got very brutal. "What do you want to go into philosophies for and that stuff!" Here we go - MEST universe. He was very interesting, very interesting.

And I noticed he had a rash, a bit of a rash below his ear, and when he left (I hadn't said a word to him) I said, "By the way, Doc, if you..." Oh, they hate to have you call them "Doc" because a dock is something that belongs to a horse or it's something you tie a boat to. And - the - as he left, I said, "By the way, Doc, if you want to get rid of that rash, come around and see me sometime."

The - there are some of the old boys still around who haven't been super-indoctrinated, but they're real old, by the way. And they're real nice guys. Okay.

That's not off the point, particularly, it's just a consideration. But it's also the ability to create. The ability to create unfortunately depends, as you would neglect - and if you need processing, if you really need processing, it's merely because you have neglected the ability to destroy. And this doesn't ask for people to go out in mass armies and blow down all the towns. That is a method of trying to waste the ability to destroy on the MEST universe itself.

Where the ability to destroy must be in - put into place is a fellow's ability to blow up his own facsimiles. Stop using facsimiles for anchor points.

Now, a process immediately presents itself if you can just get a pc to start using, just that, facsimiles - indestructible facsimiles - as anchor points and keep him putting them up: brackets of six and then run five on the MEST universe, then a bracket of six - of indestructible anchor points.

He'll run out the postulate and the anger that he went into one day when some other thetan kept potshooting him all the time. He'd put up an anchor point and some other thetan would come along and blow them in. He'd put up some more and he'd blow them in. Put up some more and blow them in. This was a good game only up to a point of where he says, "Here I go now," and he puts up these undes- indestructible anchor points.

And you know, he's still got them. You'll find them in the case as you process him - indestructible. "I'm going to hold this line if it's the last thing I ever do," he says. Of course, he recognizes at that point that he has been chosen for somebody else's randomity, so other-determinism ensues. And the second he does that, he begins to associate himself with particles to some slight degree and after that goes into the line of being a particle and the second he becomes a particle, he starts believing he's a communication.

Now, get this - the thetan three feet, twelve feet, eight miles, Six light-years back of the head and using the body for a communications unit - a relay point for what he's thinking - is doing something entirely different than a thetan who is in the body being a communications relay point.

You want to know what's the chief difference between an exteriorized thetan and an interiorized thetan? The one who is exteriorized is running a communication relay point and he knows it's a communication relay point, and the one who is inside thinks he is being run. See? Because he is inhabiting a communications relay point, so lie thinks he's the communication.

And as you go downhill, people get more and more convinced about communications, communications become more and more valuable, to a point where almost any psychotic you run into, if you asked them for a word, they would hand you some solid object. They're handling solid objects when they're handling words. You ask these people to put up a couple of anchor points and they're liable to put up something like the pyramids. Real solid see? They're on this line of "We've got to make it terribly indestructible or it'll be destroyed."

Mocking a child - child says, "Glub, glub," and somebody says, "Glub, glub." Little boy comes in and he says, "School..." and somebody says to him "School! Rarrh - that's a - I bet you didn't either..." and so forth, when he offers these words, see? What's he doing? He's putting up an anchor point. He's started to use words as his anchor points instead of create real anchor points, see. Mama takes this anchor point and destroys it - she blows it up. Puts up another word, blows it up. He puts up another word, Papa blows it up. Puts up another word....

He thinks he can handle his schoolmates. You never notice anybody getting terribly aberrated from other children - they're the same size and they can beat their heads off if they have to and we don't get too much of that.

We get these giants going around who keep eating up these damned anchor points, these words. What makes a neurotic and psychotic, see? The entering wedge is "a word is an anchor point." Which is, of course, otherwise stated, "A symbol is an anchor point - a symbol made out of particles I don't own is an anchor point." That's the entering wedge, which is also a facsimile. "Particles which I don't own are an anchor point for me." It doesn't matter who made the particles - that has nothing to do with whether he owns it or not. The question of ownership should never enter. It's just that "somebody else owns this facsimile and I'm using it for an anchor point."

So, he's taught the English language and he uses it for his anchor points, exclusively. And he puts out these words and they're his anchor points. And people start mocking, pounding in words as far as he's concerned, ridiculing his speech, he'll get so he won't even put up words for anchor points. And he has hit the breakpoint of neurosis right there. He's right into it, hot and heavy.

You can give him a polite conversation - anybody could say anything they wanted to - and he won't say a thing. School teaches people to be neurotic, by the way, by teaching them that "silence is golden." Anchor points are golden - that means noise is golden. See what a direct, bald lie it is that "silence is golden"? It's not golden. It's no color at all. It's nothing. And of course, they always revere a child who is willing to be nothing. Only, of course, they sit around and tell him he has to be something. That's, of course, confusing to a child. They convince him he has to be something, and yet they educate him to he nothing.

Anyway, there is the entire problem, actually, if you want to look at it, as far as this universe is concerned: What is present time fifteen seconds after the explosion?

Well, I'll tell you what's present time fifteen seconds after the explosion: it's just what is the simultaneous instant throughout the universe. Just because MEST waves are flowing from A to B is no reason why present time is even vaguely disturbed; it's not even vaguely disturbed. Present time is simply a simultaneous instant. And people who are unable to reach present time are concerned - overly concerned about the motion of particles and the destructive quality of those particles, with regard to themselves as a particle.

What's present time? It's the simultaneous position. You see, at the moment of the explosion you could say, "Thirty-two seconds later a building is going to be flattened." But at the moment of the explosion, the building is there and the explosion is there. Halfway through, the explosion is pretty near exploded and its waves are out and the building is still there. And present time, as the particles change, the simultaneous position - what you'd call this, this is important enough to really assign a word to; you'd call it the "simultaneous position."

You've got the building flat and the explosion expended. Now, what's present time at that instant? Just the building flat? Thirty-two seconds? Who cares about thirty-two seconds? That is a consideration. Somebody has said, "Thirty-two seconds ago." When? You mean - you mean a meter that you have here which is made out of MEST particles has gone tock-tock-tock thirty-two times - that's all you're saying.

In a battle, it is often of great concern to find out for soldiers they've fought for hours, when they know that the action just started a couple of - oh, just a few minutes ago. And they look up and the sun's going down. Where the hell has all that time gone? Well, there was just too much motion around there and their time sense got disturbed.

And the other fellow thinks he's fighting forever and he's very astonished to find out that only one day has gone by when he knows he's been in that trench for seven months. The day itself will start to take on the characteristics of the seasons of the year: 2:00 to 3:00, now it's fall. Consideration.

Now, what's this got to do with somebody running facsimiles? How does he get into this in the first place? Well, if he's a communication particle he must be traveling through time. If he's not source and yet he experiences motion, then the source of the motion must be back of him as far as time is concerned. So, source is in the past and source is agitating particles and the particles being agitated in this fashion, of course, means that he is in the past; because he is a particle and all the particles are in the past.

Now, a very funny thing is an individual actually has, all through his body, particles which will tell him a date. This morning I asked a fellow for his flash answer machine. We were working with old flash answers - very fascinating. It just depends on what flash answer is the loudest to know which particles have the most command value. And I asked him what date it was and he says 1724 according to this flash answer, but that was the date machine under his feet.

I said, "What is the date of the creation of that machine?"

"1724, of course."

I didn't ask him the rest of it which is, "Where is it?" That might have been Rome or it might have been almost anyplace, you see. It's a particle which has been geared up and hung together with enough new energy on an old platform, so every time you look at it you reactivate it.

Every time you take the vacuum cleaner over and plug it into the wall, you connect it up so the vacuum cleaner runs. That's the way circuits go. Circuits are never operative unless live consideration is played upon them Tells you an awful lot about processing, doesn't it? A circuit is never active unless live consideration is played upon it. It is a - a circuit is a vacuum cleaner which is not plugged into the wall. You could very well be the source of the juice in the wall, but that doesn't mean you're an electron.

So, just because some type of energy translation moves energy into translation is no reason why motion is even vaguely necessary, much less - much less, there doesn't have to be a life source moving the energy all the time. A piece of coal isn't alive; hasn't got any life in it at all. All life is, is consideration of that piece of coal; but life could theoretically look at that piece of coal and burn it up. You could also take it up on a pair of tongs and drop it on an existing blaze and it'll burn it up. The consideration in that case is, "I think we put another lump of coal on the fire." If you were to drop it into a volcano, or if it were to fall after an explosion into a volcano - boom - it would also burn up. Which means, of course, "the MEST universe is alive," just because life does the same thing it does.

Motion is the foe of life, not its friend, so far as the cases with whom you will deal are concerned And they are fighting the one thing which is aberrative: is change in space by gradient scale. And they'll fight this so hard that they will fight all change in space, regardless by what scale. See, they fight the gradient scale change which is driving down the block with each new space, new space, new space, because they know they can't destroy space they've created, therefore they don't dare be a place that will create new space. You see, they - they're resisting that and they finally get about resisting being first in A and then in B without going from A to B.

Life can do the silly thing of existing simultaneously over a large area. The second it realizes that it can be simultaneously over a large area, it finds present time. Otherwise, present time gets tipped out of shape badly.

The reason why psychiatry insists on processing the past is it knows it's a particle, and it knows the patient's a particle, and a particle is on a communication line and a communication line has already been departed from, so they're just trying to find source of the line.

Well, in order to find source of the line, it says, in the MEST universe, you have to go and find the beginning of the line. The beginning of the line would be the source of the line, so therefore, you have to get to the beginning of the line, before you can do anything of the sort.

And sure enough, you just put your preclear at the beginning of the line, there's nothing easier than that. Just say, "Be at the beginning of the line. Well, right now, be at the beginning of the line. Now be here. Now be at the beginning of the line. Now be here. Be at the beginning of the line. Now be here." See? So you keep up that process all by itself "Be at the beginning of the line. Be here. Beginning of the line... Be here..." So he'll finally say, "What line?" You just - I mean, you just start in on somebody off the street, he'll finally say, "What line?"

"Oh, any line you happen to think of"

"Okay, I'll be at the beginning of a clothesline." He's sane.

But the people that aren't doing too well at the moment and who haven't been even vaguely indoctrinated in Scientology of course, you immediately go and find the beginning of a communication line - but people who don't know anything about that, they'll go right to the beginning of a communication line and they're a particle on it. They find this very hard to do and they'll find angels at the beginning of it, and they'll find all sorts of religious symbols at the beginning of it, and they'll find all sorts of bric-a-brac, at what? At the beginning of the line. Where is it? It's in the past, of course. Where is the past?

You just tell them to be at the beginning of the line, and if you just kept it up and kept it up and kept it up and kept it up and kept it up and kept it up, here and there and here and there and here and there and here and there, the first thing you know, they will have been in the geographical area of their entrance into the universe and have cleaned it up and you will have shot basic-basic on the case.

Of course, there are lots of other liabilities on such a case. The fellow thinks he's a particle, he is a message. After a while he begins to think he's an answer.

You know, you could - you - some fellows will fly into a towering rage - into a towering rage if they have an answer presented to them out of a page of a book. They just look at the page of the book and so forth, and boy they get mad. At what? Well, it's just an answer - not even an answer to something they've been thinking about. Well, we get the gradient scale, then we go back up and find the answer.

What is the answer? "Them," of course. You go around, every once in a while somebody will say, "Well, just as you're speaking there, I almost had the answer." See? They know that there's an answer there. Sure there is - sitting right there is an answer. They are the answer. Yeah, that's too elementary simple, because they can only be an answer as long as they're a particle. And as long as they use facsimiles they continue to believe themselves to be, to some degree or another, a particle.

Is there any reason why anybody has to use facsimiles in order to remember everything in the bank and so forth? There sure isn't. Because, you see, I'm not at all sure that the MEST universe ever goes into the past - ever. And I'm not at all sure that these facsimiles ever disappear or that a thetan ever does destroy any energy. He might just make it invisible and he would have to do that by changing his wavelength, wouldn't he? And if he changed his wavelength often enough to make enough things invisible, after all he would have run out of waves-lengths. Because of course there'd be a finite number of wavelengths; because of course he has to use motion, because he has to use energy. So it's elementary.

There is no answer to it and all is lost. Inevitable, you see. He's had to change his wavelength. Actually the system is, on most preclears that are having a rough time with their cases, running somewhat on that level; they keep shifting wavelength to avoid looking at something they just made and then they happily say, "Pffft - it's destroyed." Well, they're going to - if they keep on using this type of energy at that type of target, they will eventually run out of wavelengths. They can't avoid looking forever. They're going to run out of directions and geographical locations, and they're going to run out of everything else and they're just going to be pinned but good. Well, what's their first error? The original sin, of course, is "energy is indestructible."

"You will blow in my anchor points, will you! Well, now these new anchor points can't be destroyed!"