Identification and differentiation are the two extremes of processes. An auditor really ought to make this experiment, just to show him the way things go. He should sit a preclear down and ask him what things are like things.

Something curious occurs — he plows right on in. It’s the second postulate. “What thing is like what thing?” is the second postulate.

Now we turn around and run him on what things are different from what things and he clears right up and gets as bright as a dollar.

So if we ask somebody to look around at all those people and find people he is like, we immediately find out why old Dianetics Straight Wire had such a terrific limitation. It had this limitation simply because we were saying, “All right, who had that manifestation?” “Oh, you have a twitch there?—Well, who had that?”

It would only run for four or five questions before it would plow in, so it was a hit-and-run process. The reason for this was: we were running identification.

So, if we were to take somebody out to a railroad station and say, “All right, now pick out some people around here that you are separate from,” he would get sharp and bright, and he would feel wonderful.

Let’s just take a shadow of that now: “Get a person there that you are the same as.” “Now get some things you have that are the same as the things you have.” The same, the same, the same, and all of a sudden this guy goes “Gug!” He doesn’t like it!

So if we ask him “What do you know about that person? Something else you know about that person; something else you know about that person,” we don’t have the full effect, but we have some little echo of this identification effect.

A very searching look at whether it is better to hit and run — one person, another person — tells us immediately something that is quite interesting: that if we found a lot of things you know about that one chair, for instance, the process would be effective, but it would be only about one-tenth as effective as “What do you know about that chair?” “What do you know about that table?” “What do you know about that lamp?”

We find they fit on a scale as follows:

• First Postulate: NOT- KNOW
• Second Postulate: KNOW.

So far we have been going with nothing but material objects or spaces.

Now, the third postulate is: FORGET, and the fourth postulate is: REMEMBER.

Forget and Remember stand in relationship to each other as an abstract first postulate, you might say, Forget, and the second postulate is: Remember.

Therefore, Remembering processes and Knowing processes simply make the person able to handle a second postulate. Therefore, they are long.

However, they don’t run out very well.

If we wanted to run out Knowingness, we would run Not-Knowingness.

In view of the fact that a lot of people just know things that are horrible, it would be to some advantage to run out some of this Knowingness. It is very false Knowingness, isn’t it?

So we have the consideration added to each one of these postulates: Good, Bad, Survive, Succumb, and that is added to Not-Know. Good or Bad, to Not-Know. Taking the second postulate we would have Good or Bad, Survive or Succumb, as Know. Good or Bad, Survive or Succumb, as the third postulate, Forget, and Good or Bad, Survive or Succumb, to the fourth postulate, Remember.

Now let’s look at that in conditions of existence, and we discover that an object, or something, must have presented itself, about which the individual didn’t know, and he’d have to decide that he didn’t know about it, before he would decide that he would have to know about it. So he is not-ising his Not-Knowingness, by knowing.

In order to forget about it, he has to not-is his Knowingness. So he has to not-is Knowingness, in order to forget.

To remember it, he will have to have forgotten it. Therefore, he not-ises Forgettingness.

By this pattern and scale we have all the difficulties a mind can get into. This is all a thetan can do, really.

Now we get the Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit Scale. We are familiar with that scale. We call it the DEI Scale. Actually it has Curiosity just above Desire.

So, we find one could be Curious about, Desire, Enforce and Inhibit Not- Knowingness.

We have the consideration, which is Good or Bad, Survive or Succumb, and now we have the volition. The volition of a person about this Not-Knowingness is to be curious about it, desire it, enforce, or inhibit it — or just plain not know it. Take it as its as-isness.

But if he decided not to not-know it, it would disappear. So in order to keep it there, he decides to know something about it.

Everything you get to know anything about becomes more solid, because it is a second postulate.

Now this very tricky set of values is evidently closer to the truth than we have been before, but it has to be worked experimentally, now, to discover how much of this is valid, and how much isn’t valid.

I made a test on one preclear who has a black field and made him good and sick. So we take the fourth postulate. Now get how solid things would become if you were using a fourth postulate.

I had him look at pieces of blackness, and instead of looking, remember them. It would have been easier for him to forget them instead of looking at them — and it was.

We didn’t carry the experiment any further. We just carried this as far as forget and remember — instead of look, let’s remember. It made him good and sick. It didn’t run out his occlusion.

We can understand, if we search a little further in this, what this blackness is, then. An individual decides to KNOW what is in that blackness, and immediately that he decides to know what is in the blackness, he will get a solidity to the blackness, won’t he? It’s a second postulate.

So you see how far this ‘‘figure-figure’’ carried us.

If we run something about that person that you would be willing to not-know and something you would be willing for that person to not-know about you — we will unravel the secrets out of people this way.

The people get better, and we are running closer to the truth than we have been in the past.

I just want to repeat to you, as I often have to do, one of those primary principles that is liable to go astray: This is the principle of Mystery.

The principle of Mystery is, of course, this: The only way anybody gets stuck to anything is by a mystery sandwich. A person cannot be connected to his body, but he can have a mystery between him and his body which will connect him.

Now the oddity is that it is the desire to solve the mystery which does the connection. So, really, the Know to Mystery Scale, on this day, has become the Not- Know to Mystery Scale.

We have pushed our information up just that much further.

You have to understand this thing about the mystery sandwich. It’s two pieces of bread, one of which represents the thetan, one of which represents the body, and the two pieces of bread are pulled together by a mystery. They are kept together by a volition to know the mystery.

And then people run the Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit Scale on that mystery. That keeps them interiorized, and this is really the secret of Interiorization. The secret is a secret. Q-and-A!

Survive and Succumb are simply a consideration. To a being who cannot possibly succumb, succumb is always a second postulate, but it is a second postulate to an actuality.

To really as-is a thing, you have to make a perfect duplicate of it, don’t you? The thing originally appeared, but was not known, so the second postulate came around and altered it into a knowingness. Therefore, in order to get the basic-basic on any chain of actual physical objects, you would simply have to say, “What could I not know about it?”

This is the cycle of alter-isness and not-isness of any perception: The Evolution of Thinkingness.

If you look carefully at number four, you will find that a fixation on remembering produced that tangle which is called a mind. Now, do you see how a mind could be loused up?

Now, added to any of the four above, are the following:

Considerations:Good, Bad, Survive, Succumb. Volition:Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit.

This is really not a scale, it is a time-plot.

Added to all this, of course, would simply be Confidence, and at any portion of that plot you could add this factor of Confidence. But Confidence goes into Conviction. At any point you have these two things taking place: You have Confidence, which then shifts off into Conviction.

Confidence becomes Conviction, so any one of these four conditions can become fixed, and so unalterable. But you tackle anything on this scale, simply by running the first postulate.

Right now “Waterloo Station” is quite stable just the way you are running it. Actually, “Waterloo Station,” on Know, or running enough Remember, would do this terrific thing: It would make the person totally competent to handle that second postulate. He would no longer be upset about the second postulate. He could handle it or not handle it, as the case might be, but he is liable to come upscale faster if you run what he would be willing to NOT-KNOW about that person.