There are those you know who — who know and there are those who know; there are those who know. And then there are no — those who don't care if they find out or not. And then there are those, you see, who — who better not find out.

You never quite saw anybody as happy as I am to be home. Honest.

Audience: Yeah.

Over in England when I left they said, "You won't be able to get away from there if you go home. You'll leave, you'll stay in America." And the boys have been hinting around here — they've been hinting that it might be a good idea if I remained in America now. And that's all very well and I — they have been on their good behavior; they've done everything I have asked them to do; they've done a lot of things that I haven't asked them to do. They made a grand job out of this congress; they're — these boys night and day, about twenty-four hours a day — have been going around here for the last week getting this congress ready for you people and for us. And this is very, very touching — very touching. So, right here at the outset I will have to confess to being a very weak man. I — I can be swayed; I can be influenced; I'm not the strong character I should be. People's opinions and expressions, particularly from my dearest friends, do have an effect on me. And so I've just tossed in the sponge and I am going to stay.

Now, just ran a little process on you here which is a very, very interesting process, just to say goodbye to the figure-figure band.

Thank you very much. I seem to have detected there was some — one or two in the audience that wanted me to stay, too. So, thank you.

As I say, it flattens on a preclear, individually audited, just exactly as I did it — putting it in the walls, making sure he puts it into the walls. It flat-tens in about three to five minutes. That is, the worst of the results and effects come off.

A great deal has happened in a year, a great deal. We are making progress at a rate which I have never before seen. It doesn't mean that there have been enormous numbers of changes. You can hardly call them "changes" when I'm dumping about three-quarters of it on you right here in the congress — thud for the first time really.

It's a genetic entity implant and is the higher harmonic of eating.

But during this last year we have been able to bring Scientology up and put some long pants on it, dress it up, bring it into a level of workability that it's never before even vaguely been able to approach. We have been working — the lot of us — with preclears, with cases, for six years now. And we've slaved away, we've ground away. Some of us have used a little Carborundum on the case, you know. Somebody else has whittled; somebody else has used a solvent of some sort to clean the spots off the case. We've gotten along, we've worked hard, we have striven — every one of us with very good intention — to do the very best we could for the cases, for the people on the various dynamics in order to achieve a higher ability and a better state for man.

Did you ever run into a preclear who sort of digested his engrams? Did you? Did you ever run into one?

The past six years have been a testing ground, a research area whereby we were getting together the tools necessary for a task. I feel ashamed of myself because it didn't happen in 51, it didn't happen in 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 — not until now, at the end of 56 here, toward the end, that I could honestly say ... Now just — let's just kick out the optimism, let's just kick out the sales talks, let's just say, well, he had to keep people interested and we were doing more for man than anybody had ever done before. The difficulty on the original state of Clear came about mainly because the techniques used to produce one in 1947 were never put in anybody's hands. We had a special method of running engrams: You simply built the man's confidence in being able to handle them till he threw them all away and he was a Clear. And that happened in a great many cases, but it didn't happen in 50. People were grinding away hard and slow.

Well, I see that this phenomenon is not entirely unknown.

In 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 we were doing more for man individually, than man had ever done for man before, but that was not enough, that was not enough, nowhere near enough. It's the idea of sitting down and grinding away on a preclear, auditing him, making him do this and do that and bringing up his state of health to a level of being human, of being able to function, of being able to mote somehow or another, that wasn't enough. That wasn't what we were shooting for. It wasn't high enough!

Now, the difficulties, the general difficulties which a preclear has are — stem really from curiosity. And this is a very high button, you see. And it's a fabulous thing, this curiosity. And one of the better and more understandable explanations of what a preclear is doing, who pulls in engrams on himself, is explained in that one button, "craving to know." Only his body pulls them in, he doesn't. A thetan would pull them in and look at them, a body pulls them in and digests them. Do you see that as a possible phenomenon?

All right. I've given you the best I knew. I've given you the best research and test reports that I could. I've kept things going forward one way or another. Sometimes tired, but never without hope. I knew that somewhere forward just as you did — there was coming into being, better and better processes, and there was coming into being, a time when we could process somebody above the level of merely being human or merely being well.

In other words, an individual has to know about his past — "Mirhuhhh, if I don't find out . . ." see? No telling what will happen if he doesn't discover whether or not . . . Well, let's — let's not go Freudian because we're not talking about psychoanalysis.

What this society needs is ability. Have you tried to hire anybody lately? Even the Irish agree — even the Irish agree that man could be more able. In fact they agree so thoroughly that when our office opened up a Personnel Efficiency Course in Dublin, the Irish — the Irish came in and said, "What are you fellows doing here?" This, I said, this is the American College of Personnel Efficiency."

Well, let's see, let me think of another example. Well, let's say, he — he has to know whether or not he was buried or married during his tonsillectomy. Some simple mental problem.

And the Irish said, "Oh? Oh?" And they said, "Do we need that!" This seems to be man's opinion the world around. It's one thing on which man is fairly well agreed — that man could be more able.

Well, what makes him so anxious? It's just that some thetan or other has played the trick on him of planting in him "craving to know." That's really all — all there is to it.

But the devil of it is, you have to reduce his disabilities somehow and get them disposed of or get his attention out of them before you can actually begin to make him more able, and most of us have been involved in making his disabilities less troublesome simply in the hope that he would then extrovert and do better, and those are the results that we normally see.

Because he doesn't crave to know anything, he merely craves to know. Got that?

But a great deal has happened in the past year; a great deal has happened!

And the funniest part of it is, is that any person simply does want to know things, but when he craves to know things, he can't learn! Because the second he starts to know something he gets sick! Do you understand?

Now, let's just lay aside the sales talk; let's just forget about — be charitable, forget about the nice things I've said about what Dianetics would do and what Scientology would do. Be kind. That is what you're supposed to do here, see? It's what you are supposed to do. You're supposed to be kind and charitable and forgive all — even Ron, you see.

He craves to know and somebody starts to oblige him and he said .. . Only he does it so fast, he doesn't realize there's a somatic involved. Follow me? He does it so fast he doesn't realize there's a somatic involved in it. Craving to know.

And when preclears sat there and Ron said that this and that ought to do this and that for him, the phenomena was there — I think you will agree to that — the phenomena was there; the process did have a biteability; it did bring him up; there was — thing — things did happen. But you were never satisfied with the final result, were you? Let's speak honestly — not entirely, completely, uniformly, preclear to preclear satisfied with the final result.

Therefore, a healthy desire to know is balked by a craving to know.

You've seen a preclear here and a preclear there that — you could have done more for him. You just knew somehow that if you knew how, you could have done more for him than you did. Now, that doesn't mean that you didn't do plenty for him, but we're extremists! You did more for him than the witch doctors — than — well, the witch doctors ... Just a minute, I'll think of some modern practice that is outside this classification of witch doctor. Well, the witch doctors couldn't have done as much as we've done by about half. The fact of the matter is that 22 percent of man gets well anyway. You come in and you give him a glass of water and you say, "Sir, if you will merely drink a glass of water every morning before breakfast, your symptoms of epiglosis will disappear." And they do — they do. This gives the entire field — it's not a field — something or other of medicine. Just a moment, I've been over in Great Britain. I've had to speak correctly all this time. The modern abattoir of medicine disrespects healing done by the mind — by means of the mind. They don't respect it, because they say, "Somebody comes in, I give him flour and water mixed up into a pill and he takes it and he gets well, and there's nothing in it, so therefore the mind does have an influence, so therefore mental healing has no validity or purpose or application!" I think you'll agree with me that that is the conclusion they take.

A person, a student who is craving to know something, never finds it out. Give you an example. Husband jealous of wife. Why? No evidence. But he still craves to know who she's been out with.

Audience: Yes.

You see, he really doesn't care whether it — whether she's been out or not. It's just that he craves to know. And if he can't find out — buhahhhah, see? That is the jealousy somatic that so many of you have seen.

I think you will agree with me.

Now, somebody arrested, for instance suddenly, craves to know why he is being arrested; but again, this "why he is being arrested" is simply just the same manifestation all over again. You got it?

Well, 22 percent of man get well no matter what you do for them. You make the sign of the Comanche on their forehead and they say, "Well, what do you know! Arm moves again." But that's only 22 percent.

The case that doesn't have any — very good luck in processing is running this way. You audit out four or five incidents, he finds out about what he's doing. You see? He finds out about these hidden points in the time track and he gets them very smoothly down, and so forth. And you say, "Boy, now that man will feel better," we say. "Oh, that man will feel very much better."

How do you make any betterment of that figure? If we were able to bring it up to an average 30 percent, we would have bettered the results of any organization or school of healing or treatment or practice of the past; just 30 percent is all we would need in order to top it. What if we took it to 40? Well, Dianetics took it to 50 in 1950; on an average, 50 percent of the people who would consent with ... Oh, what trust!

Three, four days later, he's craving to know what happened before then. So we audit out a few more engrams and he finds out by the picture system what happened to him. He feels so relieved and then next week he's got to find out why his father married the girl. In other words, his curiosity has fallen down the line from simple interest and curiosity, into a somatic desire and this physical desire, this craving to know, gets him into jealousy, gets him into problems, problems, problems, problems, problems. He finally gets problems so that he'll have a craving to know about problems. And he has to have more problems so that he can know the answers to those because he knows that he has to have the answers to problems, because he craves to know the answers to problems. So naturally, he has to have problems in order to know about them.

When I think of the way we used to audit! "The somatic strip will now go to . . . When I snap my fingers the first phrase of the engram will occur." Curl up in a ball, on the floor — the birth sequence. "Oh, you want to say something? Well you're just avoiding, shut up! Get into valence."

I know that doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense.

The poor guy gets three feet back of his head, you know, and he says, "Wheee!" You know, "What do you know, I'm not a body." And he says, "You know, I'm looking at this from a distance."

But this is a congress on human problems, so I just thought we might as well take the first day and just dish this whole thing in. Do you see? Problems are the lower harmonic of curiosity and that's all they are. Now, they have other anatomies — problems fit into games. A person wants a game, wants problems.

And the auditor says, "Get back into valence!" The things we didn't know have filled the remaining books since. Very, very wonderful, but we pushed it up to 50 percent. And just about 50 percent of the cases couldn't run engrams. If we could get a case to run engrams smoothly and so forth, we could generally in oh, a few hours of — I mean, a few hours. for us at that time — five, six hundred hours — get him over his asthma or something of the sort. It was pretty successful — pretty successful by and large, and it was an awful lot of fun. Could you produce an effect upon people — wow!

But problems only cross up where an individual has to know the answer to the problem!

I remember one time there was an attorney out in California, down in Palm Springs, and he had heard something about Dianetics — making such a horrible commotion up in Los Angeles — and he says, "What is this thing, Dianetics?" He says, you know, "What is this thing?"

Now, let me assure you that a research man going on a "craving to know" never learns anything because he is made so impatient by this somatic that he never can stand still long enough to find out!

And I said, "Oh, it's a way of handling the mind."

So that we get the view of somebody who takes test tubes and Bunsen burners and prefrontal lobes and other material objects and he keeps looking at these things, and he's just about to discover something, when he says, "I'll find out about that . . . No, we'll leave that up to Professor Upjohn." "Now, Professor Upjohn, why don't you do a connected series of three cases. That's plenty to establish it as the national remedy for this." And he doesn't ever find out.

And he said, "Well — uh — what — uh — what good's that?" You know, standard reaction.

It becomes painful to know, because he wants to know.

So I said, "Well, supposing you could say a magic phrase, snap your fingers, and a witness on the witness stand that you didn't want to testify, would curl up in a ball and fall out of the chair on the floor?"

Knowingness can even be a blow. It's a very odd thing, that if you were to take a man and hit him very hard, he would get up believing he had found out something. Do you follow me? He would actually believe he'd discovered something. He'll have all sorts of rationale concerning this.

"Oh," he says, "that would be useful."

But let's say — let's say we were being Schutzstaffel or something of the — of another age and time, that seemed to specialize in this sort of thing; but their idea of "human rights" was to put somebody up to his neck in foul water for thirty days. That was human rights: the right to be tortured.

Now, you don't have to believe this, but I had witnesses. So I said, "The somatic strip will return to three months after conception. The first phrase of the engram will occur." It's an absolute fact that the somatic strip will obey you much better than it obeys the preclear. What fantastic things we did; how much we learned.

And the Schutzstaffel then — let us say would get this fellow and they would hit him and he would get up feeling he possibly might know some-thing, you see. And they didn't have to say anything, they just hit him! And then he might know something. And then they would just hit him and then he figured out, "You know, there's something I might know. Let's see. Why are they punishing me? I must be guilty of something. I do know something, I'm sure. It's just on the tip of my mind in some fashion that — " so on.

And time went on and we pulled out of that and recognized some things that were not very palatable to people. But I must confess to you that I have never consulted palatability in terms of data. If I saw it, I said so. If I noted it happened, I didn't consult the Ladies' Aid Society as to the publishability of the material. I didn't consult anybody. I simply published the material, that's that. If I found a new way and a better way of doing something, I published the material.

So, they get him out in the water and they hit him again! And they hit him again! And they hit him again! And they say — then after they have given him this regimen — they say to him "Confess!" And he, if he's really been handled and he was crazy in the first place, he now confesses. To what? To anything. Because he knows something and it's a great relief to him to give voice to somebody else. Do you understand that? That he knows something.

And exteriorization came along and a very large percentage of the Dianeticists didn't. We know why since: they can't look at a static. It hurts them. They can't look at a thin spot in space up here and stay comfortable in the midriff; it's too upsetting to them. It's just a mechanical fact — it's too bad. We have a process today that they could be run on for five, ten minutes — they'd be able to look at a static and they would have come right along with us, but this is a long time since. They're coming back. I am trying to get in touch with most of them as a matter of fact, saying, "Hey, guys, come over here. There's an indoctrination course running in there. How about you getting a couple of boilerplate patches on your engram bank and square it around and put you back in the running?"

And the only thing his accusers will listen to is a confession of his own deeds which he never performed.

Well, an astonishing number of things have happened. And during the last six months we find ourselves completely and entirely back in Dianetics, running engrams at a rate of speed you never dreamed of, and having to run them to really clean up a case well. We find ourselves back where we came in. All of the phenomena, all of the "curl up in the ball and fall on the floor," the screamer, the sperm sequence, those horrible things that came up and actually effectively in the long run completely blew up the Foundation in Elizabeth that couldn't agree on them. Preclears kept lying down on the couch and presenting past deaths and the board there tried to make it illegal to run one. It's very, very bad to — I know, to have something that's unacceptable — hasn't been acceptable to most people; it's been known about for a long time but hasn't been acceptable.

Now, I assure you that there's something quite peculiar about this. He doesn't confess because he wishes to escape further punishment — that is a rationale. He confesses because he believes he did it.

In the engram, a moment of pain and unconsciousness contained in a mental image picture containing an instant of exteriorization — pain, unconsciousness, exteriorization — is found to be the engram we were looking for, all up and down the track. And we have a way to run it that doesn't run it very directly, but simply blows it out of existence. We have a way now of getting a "case computation" — remember that word, sound familiar? The service facsimile — remember that? The main engram on the track and the psycho-somatic problems as they exist in present time, abolished with maybe fifteen hours of running. Twenty-five, thirty-five hours of running probably would straighten out a lifetime, but I don't have exact data on how long it takes to clean up seventy-six trillion years. But it's less time than you think.

Now, how does he believe he did it? Well, he must know something. Obviously, they keep hitting him. It has nothing to do with the fact they're accusing him. They just keep hitting him. And every time they hit him, he's got the sensation of having received some information. And eventually he becomes the information he thinks he's receiving and he will actually remember having sabotaged the railroad cars or done something filthy like — oh, I don't know — thought a dirty thought about a general or something.

Why I use this "seventy-six trillion years" — you old-timers remember that — Time magazine one time devoted a whole page to ribbing me. A year later they were saying that I had discovered it. Two years from now they will probably be saying they've always been my friend.

And he will come up and he will say, "Well, I did it."

But here we have — here we have an incredible piece of news and not one of you have taken it in yet. We don't have to, maybe. The processes we have in Scientology are sufficiently good that they handle it in some other fashion, but the problem of the thetan is the problem of the mind; the problem of beingness, the problem of the spirit, is his problem with the mind. Unless we solve that very directly, we can't make fast progress. But we're making that progress. I'll get it through to you in a minute: you're back in Dianetics! There's a lot of old Dianeticists sitting there. And some of you new Scientologists, and some of you guests that were patient enough, if with some misgivings, to come along with your overenthusiastic friend — you want to know what Dianetics is. You came to hear about Scientology.

How does this mechanism occur? It occurs in a very, very simple fashion, actually. Knowingness is a common denominator and so blows, food, anything else, would be either on a desire to know, which is curiosity, or knowingness itself. And these things play off one against the other and we get as a result of this a very tangled state of affairs. Because it might be in the first place that there's nothing to know. It just might be that there's nothing to know! It just might be that everything that there is to know has to be invented in the first place so you know about it. Do you follow me?

Well, Scientology is a science which even includes Dianetics! No, Scientology is a study of the construction of universes and the role played in them by a spiritual being; the background of masses, spaces, energy, thought and its relative positions person to person, dynamic to dynamic. It is a very broad technical subject.

So, right along with "Craving to know," we get another button which isn't auditable particularly, called "Inventing something to know about."

Dianetics was a pretty — pretty good subject. It went up to the fourth dynamic and it handled a thing called a mental image picture, called an engram, and these mental image pictures were discovered to be housed, kept, maintained, stowed, hidden, stashed, in a reactive mind which was over thisa-way — on some preclears that-a-way. On other preclears it was a little electric train that went across with a word in each car. Dianetics believed — and very, very agreeably — that there was such a thing as the analytical mind and the reactive mind. And the analytical mind was what you were consciously thinking with and doing; thinkingness turning into doingness. And most of that was done by the analytical mind.

A thetan, native state, not-knows anything about it, makes something, invents something to know about it, gives parts of the body internally all kinds of Latin names. And then says, "You see, I know something about this. Look at all this list of names." Well, that's idiotic, but he thinks he knows something about it.

But a great many hidden responses — automaticities we called them later — were hidden in a mind called the reactive mind which operated on a stimulus-response basis. Somebody says "cat," the mind said "cat." Somebody says "mother," the mind said "meowww!" We tried to love our neighbors and some-thing said "hate." You say, "Where did that come from?" You say, "I love my neighbors." Something said, "You know you hate your neighbors." Circuitry. Fellows had little — little things that sat up here and every time they said something, why, the little circuit said, "You boob." You know, all these little gimmicks and gadgets talked about in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and succeeding publications and the tapes of that period all comprised Dianetics.

You take a — oh, I don't know, a brain — a brain collector — one of these chaps — one of these chaps who makes a whole long list of things, and he says, "These things are psychosis. There's epiflavus; there's manic obulous; there's schizophrenia class one, class two, class three, class four and schizophrenia unclassified. Then there's legulla oblongata, schizophrenia paranoia — unclassified." You know?

Now, there was one item in Dianetics which was not very well looked over. We didn't look over this particularly. There was very little said about this. I knew it existed. I wasn't particularly interested in it since I didn't understand what I was looking at on a lower level, and I was not prone to leap over large hurdles and grab at material I didn't know about, when I didn't know what the hurdle was, you know. In other words, I am not, you might say, a standard issue research man that — that you know he — he says, "Well, undoubtedly Professor Umph knows about that. We'll go over here. This is more interesting over here. Old Jones probably knows about that ..." And these "probably knows" finally accumulate into a science. And then somebody examines all this hash that is an alleged science and finds out it all boils down to "probably knows" without saying what. Well, that was the state of affairs of the mind when Dianetics came on the scene.

Did you ever see some of the Germanic insanity classifications? They go page, after page, after page and at the end of that page after page after page, we get down to something very, very interesting indeed. We get "other types." And at — under these "other types" we find all the insane people that they pulled into the sanitarium. They have a very good system there — nobody ever uses it.

But there was this little thing called an "awareness of awareness unit." The unit that was aware of being aware. It wasn't even discussed very much. But that "horrible little germ" came along and corrupted and ruined the whole science.

Well now, that system was imported into America from Germany, along with psychiatry some fifty years ago. And the system has not been changed materially, but it has been added to and added to and added to and added to until there are as many psychoses, pretendedly, as there are parts of the brain. And believe me, there are a lot of parts of the brain.

I remember an old — an old auditor in Elizabeth. He and I were having a — having a very, very good time talking about the probabilities of this and that and why decay came about if survival was the only thing things did. And by the way, that's true, you know, apparency is — of decay is all the decay there is. Thetans go on forever. Anyway, we were talking about this and we went along very nicely and very smoothly, trying to find out why things caved in if their total ambition was to be destroyed. So, we decided — we decided — I advanced this theory and said — said, "All things" — now this was just a hypothesis, you know, not a real theory — "all things might be said to carry with them the germs of their own destruction." That was a possibility — why things became ill. They seem to have to have along with them each one a germ of its own destruction.

I look in a brain and I don't see very much, except some neurons that are going snap against the synapses. It's not a very complicated arrangement. It is not even very electrical, it is not even very helpful, but you wouldn't want sawdust in there. Brains don't do any thinking.

Governments construct themselves perfectly except for a little flaw over here, and one day the flaw suddenly becomes a crack and the crack suddenly becomes a chasm and the government suddenly becomes a hole in the ground. So, advanced this interesting hypothesis. We kicked this around for some time. We abandoned it as untenable. Untenable hypothesis. Ha! And all the time, in the back of Modern Science of Mental Health, it said there is an awareness of awareness unit. And that was the germ that destroyed, apparently, Dianetics. Do you see that?

And what do you know. We have a lot to know about on the subject of insanity then, all of which is invented knowingness.

We kept talking about mental image pictures, the reactive mind, the somatic mind, the analytical mind, how man thought, how he combined pictures, emotions, perceptions, so that these things would reapply themselves to his body and he could do this and he could do that with them and he could do something else with them. And we never said what was looking at them! Come on you old Dianeticists, think about that. That's true, isn't it? We never said who was looking at them! We simply said you. Didn't we?

Now, somebody comes along, thinking about this, in this congress of human problems, and puts a bill down here through the United States Congress and enacts it into law, the first line of which says, "In view of the fact that 775,000 people are admitted every day into American mental institutions ..." And a little further down, ". . . and in view of the fact that the better institutions cure 75 percent of those who are sent to them ..." And a little further down, "We hereby demand and receive an appropriation to create better public relations for psychiatry . . ."

Audience: Yes.

And only one association in the United States was permitted to use or to make a bid for any part of that money. And those facts that appeared in a bill before the United States Congress and were enacted into law are lies — complete utter falsehoods. And the individuals who put them in are guilty of fraudulent misappropriation of United States funds! That's theft!

And the engrams might be on cells and get blown up and they might be here and they might do there, but they undoubtedly were the basic cause of aberrated conduct. We can prove this. You — don't let an old Dianeticist near you if you are a new Scientologist to run an engram. You want to look at a real engram, you say. You know, what is all this stuff: mother, sex? The news-papers used to say pornography. What is all this stuff? Prenatal chains .. . Well, what is this stuff here? Goes on and on. A fellow can remember every-thing that happens to him at all times, including everything that occurs, even in the depths of an operation. Boom! That's too uncomfortable!

Because 775,000 Americans aren't admitted every day into institutions! If that were true, how long would it take to put the whole country in?

And I'm sure — I'm sure that you as a new Scientologist would be very wise, educationally, to calmly lie down on a couch. That, by the way was the sign of the coffin case. He would come in to get audited and lie there, stiff, stark, flat out on the couch, pulse — clammy. We would say, "How are you getting along?"

Now, here could be something to know about. There really could be some-thing to know. That is to say, a being mocks up, let us say, a table, and he says, "You put things on it." And people say, "Well, we can agree to that. That's good. That's fine. That's useful."

"Fine."

And then somebody else comes along and invents a whole classification of tables by manufacturer. Well, this is useful, too. There are Chippendales and Steinways and other furniture makers who ... I see we have some other pianists in the audience. And these people, of course, classifying those are simply classifying something that's real and actual. The table is real, it's solid. You've got something there, you can put things on it, you could take things off of it, you could build it in various ways, you can cover it with various cloths. It is something with which we can associate with, handle, feel — it's there. That's all.

You'd run engram after engram after engram. We had a lot of these cases along and several of them were on the board at Elizabeth that voted not to research any past deaths. They were in them, see.

Now, you could know about that. You could even have a catalog of the people who build tables and all of the types of tables, and this is all factual, because they did build them and there were various types.

In other words, a person gets stuck in one of these engrams and then heis the pictures of the engrams; then he does the things the engram perceptionsays. It's like looking at a big piece of motion picture film, you know. And youas a modern Scientologist say, "Well, I think I ought to lie down and let thisold Dianeticist run an engram," see. Dianeticists are horrible people to restrain.The Dianeticist is saying, "Ha-ha-ha! The somatic strip will — ha-ha — return to the incident necessary to resolve your case." It used to, too. Anyhow, whether you could run it or not or hold the preclear in it while he screamed dismally was quite something else.

But what would we think of somebody who came along after all this and made a totally completely phony classification on the subject of tables?

But anyway, preclears would blow up, roll on the floor, scream, lie there and have nothing happen at all and then for the next four days have measles, except no germs were present. All kinds of wild manifestations would occur.

He said that tables were ordinarily used to dry shoes. He gave us thou-sands of uses all of which were assigned to tables. None of them were useful to tables. He gave us types of tables that were never built, never observed, never seen!

I ran one time — thinking of the adventures of Dianetics — I ran a preclear one time for — two preclears as a matter of fact — for the benefit of a couple of medicos who slithered into the scene. I was foolish in those days; I thought they were interested.

Well, we would say, that man — that man has no sense of utility or the fitness of things. Right?

And I put the preclears down on the couch and I was running an incident and — out of one of them and he started to writhe and look pale and he started to get sort of flushed looking, and the medico says, "What's wrong with him?"

Audience: Right.

And I said, "No, nothing, nothing. He's just going through an old illness." And the medico said, "He's doing what?"

What would you think of somebody who — great — gave numerous classifications of insanity which were not discovered in real life?

"Well, he's running a mental image picture — a picture which is contained in his reactive mind which has the power of reimposing on the body every-thing that the body had experienced while the incident was taking place. And of course, it has in it fever and chills and perspiration and sensations. It has the various tactile of beds and tea cups or soup bowls or anything else he was doing at that time. And he feels these things and that puts the picture back in action. Or an auditor audits him and puts the picture back in action and runs it out, and of course, he reexperiences all these things all over again."

Do you know that you could keep on classifying insanity on and on and on and on until every slightest eccentricity was then classified as an insanity — every slightest eccentricity. The fact that somebody didn't always put his shoes on when he got out of bed, but walked around barefooted for twenty minutes. We could then finally say, "This is insanity!" couldn't we?

Now, they know all about reexperiencing — they have vast textbooks with people — they have known about it for years. They could make people reexperience everything. They don't know what they are talking about. The individual actually can be put right straight back through the incident — bing-bing-bing-bing-bing, just as nice as you please! They don't, you know, get the traumatic effect, "Well, I remember when I was a little boy and a puppy ran over me and this has been very, very bad because it had sexual connotations; I've never been the same since."

We keep adding to this classification, adding to it, adding to it, more and more insanity, more and more insanity, more and more types until we would have achieved this goal of every American in an institution.

"Oh, well, Mr. Jones, we now have the most significant incident in your life. We'll spend the next four years analyzing it." Ha-ha! How careful those people were being. Maybe they instinctively felt that maybe somebody would walk in the door one day and say, "The somatic strip . . ." Because that isn't what made his life aberrated; it was pain and unconsciousness and he was still carrying the picture around with him and it was still capable and imposing all its force and ferocity upon his body, his mind and his beingness.

Now, I ask you, would insanity be on the increase? Or would the classifications be on the increase?

And in order to run one of those things out, it practically took one of these big jackhammers — out of some cases. You'd erase and erase. You know this idea that you recount an incident enough times — this is not necessarily new, you see — you recount something a lot of times, why, it'll worry you less. That was about as much as society knew about this sort of thing. Actually, the guy has to go back on the track to the moment; he has to progress completely through the entire experience from one end to the other; he has to come back to the beginning and reexperience the whole thing all the way through again from one end to the other. He has to go back to the beginning again and reexperience the whole thing and all of a sudden the unknown points start coming up. And it isn't contained in figure-figure-figure, think-think-think; it's contained in hurt-hurt-hurt, gag-gag-gag, bluh-blooh-bluh! Society didn't have enough nerve to find this one out; that's all it is!

Audience: Right.

I'm not exaggerating. I'm — am I, old-timers? Am I exaggerating?

In other words, it might not be true today at all that insanity is on the increase! It might be declining enormously — unless it was worth money to somebody to have it increase.

Audience: No!

Now, I realize that it's a serious charge to say that any group has fraudulently obtained funds from the United States. And if I were not in possession of the bill, and if I had not had the exact appropriation located, if we had not found the money and had then thereafter seen the program in action, I would not tell you those facts. But that bill can be procured from the printing office down in Congress.

Wild business!

Male voice: What's the number?

So — so anyway, an individual lying there flush, the medico says, "You know, he looks like he's getting sick. Looks like he's coming down with something." Quick! Out with the thermometer. "Do you mind if I take his temperature?" Right in the middle of an auditing session. I've got the fellow being scolded by Father while he's lying there with a temperature of 106 or something like this, you know. The doctor says, "I should take his temperature. You know I've got to stop this one way or the other." And he muscled me aside.

The bill number? Forgotten at the moment. The copy of the bill, however, is in our files. They change numbers on bills every time they go from the House to the Senate and then to the printing office again. And then it's public law and it gets very confusing keeping track of them. So it's no sense trying to look for copies of bills — you merely look for "Appropriations — psychiatric." And you'll find that bill.

I decided, well, I might as well get the preclear's temperature taken. I've never done this. I know he's got a fever. The doctor puts it in. Waited. "103! My God!" he said, "This man has got to get to bed! I can't permit this by my medical knowledge, authority and mission to the AMA to permit this session to go on any further. So, you get him up to bed."

There have been other such bills. Bills and bills and bills and bills, all of which seem to have to do with increasing facilities, increasing payrolls and increasing insanity! Now that is important.

And I said, "And so, we get you over in the chair." Ptock! And I said, "Now, let's go back to the beginning of the incident again. That bother you, that monkey business?" "No! No! No! Let's go back to the incident."

That is important to us here at this congress because we are the only people at this time in America who are doing anything for mental health! And we aren't considered even vaguely fit to be near insanity, and so we don't handle it. We don't want it actually. Our business happens to be in the field of ability.

The doctor's friend was coming up to come to the defense of his colleague because he's obviously in the hands of madmen — and he was going to say, "You are certainly not going to do anything more, are you?"

But the fact is that we can do something about it! Then please answer the question: Why hasn't somebody stepped forward — because we've talked enough, we've written enough, we've demonstrated enough. Why hasn't some-body stepped forward and said, "Boys, if it is true that insanity is increasing at this alarming rate so that very soon we're going to have to put an electric wire fence all the way around America — here's a government institution — show us what you can do." We'd show them.

And I said, "I don't know about me, but you're not. You're going to sit still." And they sat there looking, because they knew a sick man was having something bad done to him.

I've seen an old Dianeticist walk down the hall of an institution and leave — out of all the many people he addressed — two or three of them perfectly sane behind him. He just told them to come up to present time. Everybody he met in the institution, he'd say, "Hello. Come up to present time."

And I finished off the engram, wiped it out, brought the preclear up to present time. Put the other one down, ran the engram and all of a sudden he looked flushed!

One girl came up to present time and gave a speech that night on how glad she was to be there. Factual — factual.

The medico said, "Look! You realize, don't you, that you can be arrested for impersonating an angel of mercy like myself."

No, I wouldn't lead you astray or lay myself open to libel suits by giving you information on this very interesting subject.

"Oh," I said, "you want to take his temperature?" So, I let him take his temperature. I picked him up and put him back in the chair. Ptock! Erased it; brought him up to present time. They are both feeling pretty good, both preclears, "Ha! I feel a lot better." Measles was off the case, see. They felt a lot better. They felt pretty good about the whole thing.

But there is something to know about the mind: that it exists, that it has reality, that it has existence, that it follows certain rules and patterns. And that is only as true as we find those amongst us who have those pat-terns and who do follow that existence, and who do share with us an agreement upon the reality of this physical universe.

Medico sat back there, "Something wrong with these people; they look normal." He took his thermometer — 103. And he said, "George, let's go home." Well, if you could shoot somebody's temperature to 103 and bring it back to normal again in a half an hour, you are not practicing medicine, I've always contended.

But if we invariably discover this to be the case, then there is something to know about the mind. And we can stop inventing things to know about it.

So, anyway, we slaved along. We got along well in old Dianetics. We had a lot of fun and we completely neglected this horrible thing that suddenly made an appearance in the middle of 1952. And Hubbard was fool enough to start talking about it — a thetan. He discovered a spirit — hallucinatory, of course!

I'll give you an example of inventing something to know about the mind. "All insanity stems from childhood sexual peccadillos." You people can handle minds and making people more able. And have you ever found one preclear whose case and life resolved because you could eradicate some small sexual experience or guilt in his life? Have you ever?

But a spirit had been discovered. Spirits had been discovered. Hubbard, with his usual optimism, said you could discover them in everybody.

Audience: No.

And so, what with a lot of legal maneuvers and other things, it really was true that we were in a different field and it was also true that Dianetics was sort of — sad but true — it was a sort of a dead issue at the moment. We were interested in spirits, following them around, wondering how many horse-power they develop, trying to measure their capacitance, resistance. We had them on E-Meters. Remember E-Meters — Volney Mathison — got so they were this big and then they were this big. And he had eighteen settings on the front of them and suddenly a little light would flash and that told you what time it was to go to lunch. We had them on oscilloscopes and bacilloscopes and everything else, trying to measure them and figure out exactly what this was all about.

Has anybody found one?

A fellow out in California one night showed up — I was in Phoenix, had a house out in the desert. It's all been built up since but it was a nice house then — coyotes mourned quietly every night. I like coyotes mourning every night, they sort of add to the — you know, the scene. They add to the flavor of things when you're researching spirits. And the boy came at about — come to think about it, there had been a little congress over there, a little meeting and he came and he sat down — well, he knocked on the door and he said, "Ron," he said, "I've got something hot and I want to see you."

Well, then, let me tell you something. You have handled amongst you thousands and thousands of people and, therefore, the datum couldn't possibly be real, could it?

Now, I've heard this before. I hear this regularly. And I never say, "No, don't tell me." I — yeah, I will say factually, "We've had that for a little while," or I will say, "That is darned interesting, I will look into it." You know, it's a communication line; I really am there — I mean — solidly hit me. I mean, when you write me a letter it does arrive here. I might not answer it at any length, but I normally get a reply back one way or the other.

Well, then what's it doing still being sold, at what expense, to the United States government? If it isn't there, why are they treating it? Unless, of course, they might have other fish to fry. But that we don't know — that we don't care about.

And I said — however, that night since we just had a big meeting and I was tired, I said, "No." And Evans knocks again. I say, "No, Evans." I say, "Go away, please. I am tired and exhausted."

We can appreciate a man trying to hold a job just like we can appreciate a hog trying to lie in the food trough, if he holds that job only to keep other men from holding jobs as well.

He goes out and he lies down in the front yard on the couch — couple of sun couches out there, sitting in the middle of the desert. He lies down. Moon — sun goes down — moon comes up; he's still there. Somebody stuck his head out and said, "Evans, why don't you go home. Ron isn't going to see you."

So, it's very pertinent, this congress of human problems, to take up this thing called knowingness — very, very pertinent indeed. Because there is something to know about the mind — there is something to know.

And he said, "I've got to see him. I've got to see him."

Maybe man didn't know it a few years ago, but we certainly can demonstrate that it's there to know about. And that by knowing it, a great deal of return to sanity and ability can result. That, I think you will all agree on, don't you?

So, finally after the TV programs were all over and I had wakened, I happened to be passing by the window and I looked out in the front yard, in the bright moonlight, and here was Evans Farber still lying there looking up at the moon philosophically. And I said, "Why, that boy will catch his death of moonbeams or something. I'd better go out."

Audience: Yes!

So I said, "Evans," I said, "this is cruel of you. I have just been up about 48, 80 hours or something and why can't you see me about this some other time?" And he said, "It's important, Ron, it really is." He says, "I can exteriorize thetans at will that you've been talking about." We'd been looking for a process that would; we knew it theoretically; we'd run into the phenomenon; we'd tried to do something with it. Not very much had occurred and he turns up and he says he can exteriorize them by an auditing command. Well, I said, "Evans, that's — that's interesting, but ..."

Very well then. Isn't it time that we kissed goodbye to all this invented knowingness?

He had some kind of a theory behind it and quoted it out of Scientology 8-80 and told me exactly how it worked — that something or other happened, or there was a little preadvance release of the material. And he had read it over and he said, "All you have to say to them is 'Try not to be three feet back of your head.' "

How we go about doing that happens to be the business of this congress, because it is the primary problem in our own lives and is a primary problem in the public life of our country.

I said, "Is that so?"

What we do to discourage misappropriation of funds on misrepresentation of facts; what we do to swing forward a broad, effective program to bring into being a saner look at insanity, a saner look at neurosis — and more importantly and better and more intimately in our own activities — a better use of our ability to create higher abilities in man. Do you agree with me that that is a good enough reason to have a congress?

And he said, "Yeah, look," he says, he puts me down in the chair and he steps back and he says, "try not to be three feet back of your head." And I go sphewwww! And I haven't been able to get back in since.

We have a great deal of technology. I suppose we have examined over ten thousand, certainly, separate phenomena in the mind, body and spirit since 1950. We have probably examined more per month than are taught in a university in four years. We have isolated the relative importances of these things and we have it down to a point now where we know what is important to handle, and what is unimportant to handle.

So, a few months later we were all ghosts! That technique is not advised since it has a tendency to wear out and thetans flip back in and all sorts of things happen, but it was the first direct exteriorization technique. A little later on we found out you could get about 50 percent of the people you walk up to in the street and you just look at them, get their attention, you know, "Be three feet back of your head." And they go sphewwww! "Well, what do you know! What was I doing in there!" You know, that kind of a reaction. Very amazing.

And the importance of a datum is of equal magnitude to the datum itself. If you don't know how important a datum is, there's no sense in knowing the datum at all.

Here's a phenomenon that existed, that was right there waiting to be discovered for a very, very long time, nothing known about it. Real — talked about — I mean, old-time religion talked about a soul and a spirit and how you had to be good and you would do this and that. They talked about all the various odds and ends about it, but nobody gave its dimensions, capacitance, inductance and resistance. You got the idea? In other words, we didn't have an accurate scientific description so that no phenomena could be produced really as a result of the knowledge that man was a spirit. So, people could doubt it, people could say, "Well, man isn't a spirit — and man is and man isn't."

We knew an awful lot of data in 1950, but we hadn't sorted out all of its importances.

Well, this is all ancient history to a lot of you. It's all ancient history. It's interesting though, but the germ of the destruction of Dianetics was a thetan: launched, theorized, calculated and everything else. The first one launched — Mark 1-type carrier — in Phoenix, Arizona, by — or no, in Los Angeles, really, earlier by Evans Farber in 1952 — launched. We have been launching them ever since from time to time.

It's very interesting to see an old-timer or a newcomer look in and say, "I thought this was a discovery of last month," and he finds it in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. It's very interesting and it would be very pleasant to take such a compliment of having been so far — farseeing.

As a matter of fact, now it's very difficult to keep from launching some-body. If we are very careful and break all the rules, we can keep somebody in his head, but otherwise it's pretty difficult. He has to be really poorly audited.

The only difficulty is this: that I didn't know how important it was. But now, knowing Scientology later on, he does know how important it is. So, he does the evaluation of it and brings the importance out and sees that it was written before, and he says, "Ah-ha," he says, "Ahhh — Ron's pretty smart." And of course, I don't go around saying, "Well, luck off that . . ." I say, "Well, we do have certain insights."

But we advanced the field of the mind — and my discoveries that succeeded that and the other material which followed it — well we also advanced, entered and to a very marked degree described and resolved the sphere of religion. Man had only had that name for it previously and we were in the interesting position of not being religious and being in the possession of all the materials that religion ought to have, which is a very bad position to be in.

But the selection of importances has occupied the greater proportion of our time doing this work. And we've got it narrowed down now to some very interesting importances — very interesting and very simple.

If you know that being holy has nothing to do with being Clear, it's a very hard thing for you to understand why you should be holy — a lot of complexities of this character.

Now, to give you this information at the same time that I talk to you about using it, seems to me to be quite pat. It seems to me that's what I ought to be doing. Because I can't talk to you forever about the first dynamic if the third dynamic won't permit a first dynamic to exist. And if first dynamics won't permit third dynamics to exist, we will have a very, very unbalanced culture to say the least. You know what would happen if you had a society of cats. Every cat going around is "the only one." I dare say, there'd be some interesting randomity connected with observing such a society, but I seriously doubt that the society itself could handle any of its problems.

In other words, the different oddities, materials, the conflicts — we'd launched information man was not in possession of and that information was very difficult to communicate. To some degree we went out of communication — maybe it was a good thing.

And do you know I sincerely believe that it has been necessary to make men who were able enough to handle the problems of the third dynamic before we could have solutions on the third dynamic, and I think we have done that.

The years went along. We developed more material. We got more certain. We know today an awful lot of things — an awful lot of things about this subject. We have the most — probably the only complete records of a complete research on anything, probably, just regardless of what, that has ever been undertaken. We've got our complete records. We have gone all the way along the line. We followed along carefully with books and tapes and other equipment, other recordings of the work that's been done — very voluminous material.

I came back here to Washington — the people in the organization are bright, alert people. I look at your faces out there, they aren't the faces I looked at a few years ago. They're younger, more vital, more interested. You look at me — I should have been dead long ago. According to some people if only for the public security.

All of the material's gone on in London and work's gone on. I've been in London and Camden and Phoenix and London and it's — Washington in between — more and more and more information, more and more information, more and more information, more and more information. Well, you finally get so you know enough about this. You do! I mean, you finally get so you know enough about it. Say, "The devil with it." That is probably why they invented hell. They got tired of the whole thing about the human soul, you know, and they invented hell just to have someplace where they could threaten to send it if they got tired of playing with it.

But we have answers. Then are we going to take these answers and file them under some professorial classification and say, "Well, we did a good job. And now that we've finished off the task of research, why should we do any-thing about it at all?" Are we going to do that?

And what do you know! What do you know. Just a very short time ago, a very short time ago, found myself walking along minding my own business and all of a sudden I said, "The unit of awareness of the mind is looking at a facsimile, a mental image picture, and usually looks at it in preference to looking at the physical universe directly. The basic game of a spirit is: him-self not capable really of being solid — to then put up solids to look at because they can't be unsolid and he can't be solid, so there isn't any complete communication possible. So we have a basic game going on and it must be that the thetan who had gone down scale can't tolerate solids."

Audience: No!

And I went back home and sat down at a desk to make a couple of research notes. I said, "Well — " you know I was writing along, a couple of research notes — "the one solid that he does not care to make solid anymore would be a mental image picture containing pain, unconsciousness and loss by exteriorization. Oh no, we're back in Dianetics!" And so we are.

Well, if we're not going to do that, then I'm afraid that we have a little work ahead of us. I'm afraid there's an awful lot of game just over the horizon.

Actually, just in the last few weeks I managed to bring pretty close to a level of perfection, methods of handling the reactive mind: to handle all of the reactive mind, to ungroup the track and put the whole thing back together again — paying no attention to phrases, just by using solids in particular ways — stretch the track out, pat it in place and achieve greater results than we have ever achieved before in Dianetics and working with bodies, and quite incidentally working with the mind and the physical universe and the principles involved with solids. There's several sets of principles which we probably won't even go into this congress. But these principles lead us back to the fact that we have to know Dianetics. If we hadn't known Dianetics, we never would have discovered the rest of it. And having discovered the rest of it; we find ourselves totally, totally beaten, pounded, hammered, herded, corralled, nailed down into running Dianetics again.

You see, you have to feel comfortable, in addition to your own ability, you have to feel comfortable about your ability to handle aberration in other people. You have to be comfortable about that.

So the "Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man," which is the title of this lecture, include first and foremost a good grip of Dianetics. And if you were able to handle Dianetics once upon a time, you will say, "Gee-whiz, why didn't we know how fast we could make a bank run!" We used to scan them, and we used to do this, and we used to do that.

You, yourself, have to feel a security in your handling of it before you would ever have a subjective reality on the fact that we were actually at end of research track.

Now, I'll give some of you old-timers — I'm not going to leave you in mystery on the subject. You just pick an arbitrary point in the middle of the preclear's age and you have him find an incident which is later than that time and have him look at it. And when you decide that it's not another engram — you see, you don't run the engram, you just pick an arbitrary point, an engram or not in the middle of the person's life — and you tell him to get a picture later than that moment. And when you discover that that picture is not a mental image picture that contains pain, you tell him, see, "Okay." You say, "Make it more solid," so he .. .

Development — certainly — anything can be refined. Anything! Anything can be smoothed down. But I'm afraid we're over the major hump. And with that, we can look toward action.

You say, "That's fine. That's fine. Now, can you find one earlier than this incident" — old engram, old tonsillectomy, automobile accident or something or just an arbitrary age in the middle of life and you say, "What is it?" And you discover as the auditor that he isn't really looking at something that contains physical pain. Because if you let him make it solid while it contained physical pain, why, you'd get the pain and you'd have to handle that engram and you'd be handling another part of the track, you see. And you say, "All right, make it more solid — just the picture."

What sort of action? Bombastic, irresponsible action of a kind that tears more things down than they build up?

So the fellow . . . "Yes. Yes. Yes. It's more solid."

No, I think our actions should be to prevent irresponsible action and place forward action which is comprehensible to people of whatever degree or social level.

And you say, "That's fine. Now, find an incident later than the arbitrary incident of(age)." Determine what it is. Don't let him get out of control, you see, because he's liable to start making it solid the second he finds it and you don't let him do that because you'll just stick him. And you say, "What is it?"

But we will take all that up a few days hence before the congress is over. And right now I'm just talking to you about knowingness, and I wouldn't for a moment influence you.

And, "Oh," he says, "it's my mother throwing chickpeas to the chickens," or something like that.

Now, here we have an old friend — to show you where research has gone — here we have an old, old friend. It is a scale which is known as the Know — Mystery Scale.

And you say, "That's fine. That's fine. Make it more solid."

You remember this scale?

He does. And you go earlier and make it more solid. And he does. And you go later and make it more solid. You go earlier and make it more solid and you go — and earlier and later and earlier. And all of a sudden service facsimile and the rest of the material he — you've been looking for in this case for a long time — life computation and all that sort of thing — he suddenly gives it to you — nothing much to it. And then you — earlier and solid, and earlier and solid and all of a sudden, "Well," he says, "I'm — got a picture here of me lying here dead."

Audience: Yes.

"Earlier — " you say, "well, can't you get one a little earlier than that?"

Of course you would. It's a scale. It's a degree of knowingness, actually, and it all comes together under the titles of something to know about. That's all the scale consists of. That's all the life there is.

"Oh, yes, got one of me here at a ball, looking at a — at the queen."

Well, right under that scale we have a thing called "not-know," which you ordinarily know as "forget."

And you say, "That's fine. Make it more solid. That's good. Now, go later. Later. All right. Can you get one later than the arbitrary age — middle of life time?" Never change that age, by the way, never change it. He comes up with another juicy incident, just let him have it. And make it more solid. Earlier, make it more solid. Later, make it more solid. Earlier, make it more solid. Later, make it more solid. Ten thousand years ago, fifteen thousand years ago. Twenty thousand years ago.

Now, a person knows everything there is to know and then he has to "not-know" something so he'll have some game. He'll have something to do — he'll have something to think about. So he "not-knows," or he forgets his past.

"Oh, you've got a — somebody is standing there ready to clout you with a stone ax. Oh. Well, can't you get an earlier one than that?"

Some man who is the greatest authority in the world on sponges, let us say, quite frequently likes to forget the whole thing and become an absent-minded professor so that he can go and study about sponges all over again. It gives him something to do.

"Yes, I can. I've got this woman, dragging her by the hair over the rocks." "Good!" You say, "Make it more solid."

All right, forgettingness is, of course, in this.

Well, that's the way you run it; that's the way you run it and that's what Dianetics has come down to. The most effective single process that we know today, a very workable one; and during the break maybe you'd like to try it on your friends.

But the next step we get down from there is a very old friend of ours known as "look."

So, here we are — we find ourselves back in Dianetics because we're in Scientology. So, we'll just have to get ambivalent and put up with it all. I just wanted to start this congress out with something that you could talk about, because we haven't got much time to really go into these little details like having completely solved Dianetics.

What does look consist of? Look consists of all perceptions. Do you follow me? All perceptions. The principal four and the fifty others we discovered in the Foundation years ago. There are about fifty-four of these perceptions. Quite an amazing number of them. But they are a perception level of things. You see things, you hear things, you feel hot, cold, the sense of position — all of these things are perceptions of one kind or another.

I'm awfully glad you're here. We are going to take a short break and then I'm going to come back and it says I have to talk about children. And maybe I will and maybe I won't. Who knows? There might be — even be some-thing to say about them. I'll try to find my notes in the interim! But if I can't I'll have to do something else.

But we have summed them up under look.

So, I will see you in about fifteen minutes.

But down below this we have emote — emotion. So that below lookingness we have emotion. And below emotion, we have effort. So that an individual who cannot feel emotion does usually, generally feel only effort. He cries — only feels no grief. Because emotion is above his effort.

And down below this we have a thing called think, and that's what the brain is supposed to do. Figure-figure-figure-figure.

And below think, we have, of course, very rapidly here, symbols. And below symbols, we have eat. And below eat we have sex. And below sex we have mystery. An individual can be seen to go upwards, as he is processed, in terms of interest.

In other words, at first he's interested only in mysteries, and that's what we just audited, really, the bottom of all of what we audited there, "craving to know" is a mystery. Only a mystery could be so bad that you wouldn't even know there was anything to know about, or know that there was a mystery there, and that would be the mystery of so-called mysteries. And that's what we are talking about at that band.

Just above that we have sex. Just above that we have eat. Just above that we have symbols. Then we have think. And then we have effort.

But, you know, it takes — just shows you what auditing can do for a person, when I could stand up in front of this many people and say, "I've been wrong." It just shows you what auditing can do. I don't know that I'd do it.

But let us say — let us say I am "omitted." Oh, isn't that a lovely word. I don't have to be "wrong," I'm merely "omitted."

I didn't notice something as we sailed by. There's another part of this scale which tells the whole story of auditing — symbols, down here, and above it — solids. And those two things flank think.

And when one has sym — solids made into symbols, he thinks.

A symbol is anything that has mass, meaning and mobility. If you've got something with mass, meaning and mobility it's going to run into things and get dislocated one way or the other, and if you notice this you're liable to think about it. Do you see this?

So let's just magnify, for your own curiosity, this scale, and put it down on this basis.

Here we have our old friend, effort, which is to say forte main, strength, and so forth, and under effort we have solids, and under solids we have think, and just to keep us on the scale, we have, of course, below here symbols.

Well, that's quite amazing, since that gives us the anatomy of problems. This is a congress on human problems; there's the anatomy of them.

An individual trying to pass from effort upwards would have to go through the emotional band. In other words, he can't lift the table, so he cries — some such thing. Now, that's an inverted look.

Much better than that, after an individual can no longer feel apathy, he feels sort of thick, you know, he's sort of woody, you know, sort of dah!

And we go right down from there and we find this is part and parcel of it, as he goes down from simply feeling — tactile is the last perception to move out — he gets into solids, and it is just that solid there.

Well, the only knowingness left to him is a thinking and symbolization. He figure-figures. He doesn't ever quite arrive at any information. He wants to know about things all the time; he invents things to know about. But actually, here we have a level where he is "craving to know," because he "can't know," you see. He's below being able to know, so he just really "craves to know."

And down here we have inventions — to know about. He craves to know, so he invents a lot of things to know about — none of which are actual. Do you follow me clearly?

In other words, when an individual can no longer actively really know, he comes on down scale, he can't emote, he usually can't perceive — is passing. He gets into solids and he can't — follow this carefully — he cannot any longer tolerate solids, then where does he go? Figure-figure-figure.

And his solution is not a solid, but a symbol. Mathematics does this. Mathematics does not confront the bridge girders, mathematics confronts a piece of paper about bridge girders, doesn't it? But if the individual using the mathematics is actually capable of knowingness then the mathematics has some use.

If the individual who is using the mathematics does not have any knowingness, then he is not capable of any use. Don't you see? If he's not capable of knowing what he has just written down as symbols, then what good are the symbols?

So, suppose you then had people who just wrote down symbols and thought about them without ever knowing anything! Symbols — he thought about them, and thought about them, and they were symbols. And he thought a little bit more, so he wrote some more symbols, but he didn't know what they mean, so he thought about them. You see how this could be? And this is the basic problem. An individual who is at this band has problems in such legion that to solve any of his problems would be a great disfavor for the excellent reason that he can't tolerate a solution.

Now, hardly anybody, thinkingly speaking, can really well tolerate solutions. You try to run too many solutions on a person before you also give him the ability to have a few more problems, he's liable to become upset! You follow me? Making sense to you?

Audience: Yes.

Any way?

In other words, what I'm trying to tell you about is, that is the basic anatomy of human problems!

Human problems are that the individual cannot face the actuality of the problem — he can't face the mass anymore. He can no longer look at his wife, let us say, he can no longer look at his children, he can no longer really look at his car. These are all solids, you see.

But something is keeping him in the house, but he doesn't want to be there. There's only one thing left for him to do! That's think! Do you see that?

When they can no longer face solids, they think! Figure-figure-figure, think-think-think-think-think. Let's see. Let's see. And it drives them mad not to have something to think about. So they get symbols as substitutes for solids and getting these symbols in various juxtapositions so that they are incomprehensible, they then have something to think about. And this ordinarily passes for thinking.

I've just given you an example of that. Because they cannot face the actual fact of a psychotic, some practitioners are likely to think about psychosis, not look at it. Don't you see? They can't confront the solid, so they think about it in terms of symbols. And they wind up in thinking psychoses and neuroses that don't exist. And they become a problem. They themselves are now a problem as people, as a practice, because they're not solving anything, they're not doing anything, they're just running via. They write down some more symbols, and they think about these symbols, and then they write down another book, and so on, and they never look at this at all. Do I make my point?

Audience: Yes.

They just never look at a solid at all, so how the devil could they know anything about the subject if there was no way, whatsoever, for them to communicate with the subject itself?

Supposing they couldn't tolerate solids at all! Supposing nothing in the world could be solid to them. They couldn't look at a person. A person is pretty solid. They couldn't look at a — at any time, they couldn't look at the actual instruments with which they were dealing, they could just think about looking. And this is one of the more curious things you ever saw.

You say to some fellow, "How are your children?" If he can't look at his children, you will see him go, "Well — uh — I think they're all right. Uh — they're doing fine. I think." See?

In other words, a person who can no longer confront the object he is supposed to know about can no longer know about it! If one cannot confront the object one is trying to know about, he will never know about it!

So, the first mechanism necessary to know about a subject, the first mechanism to know about a subject is: Is it? The first thing you'd have to know about a subject: Is it? Does it exist?

There's no sense in knowing all there is to know about the Rocky Mountain ibex if there are no Rocky Mountain ibex and never have been.

Then one comes into a dream world, a complete fantasy. So therefore his problems and his worries have nothing to do with the actual masses or objects with which he's surrounded.

A person with marital problems cannot confront the objects connected with marriage! So he has problems about them, and thinks about them, and that is all! He never looks!

You could say then that a man who has major overwhelming and over-powering problems is in — unable to confront the objects which are the subjects of those problems! Do you follow me?

Audience: Yes.

This gets very plain then, doesn't it?

Audience: Yes.

In other words, an individual who has problems with cars can't look at a car. And you'll find this is true in society. You'll see some old rattletrap bucketing along one way or the other. Well, maybe it's just running on a wish and a prayer because the guy can't afford anything else.

Now, there is another manifestation entirely. A car is going along, and its wheels are kind of going this-a-way and that way, it's going dah-dah-dah and no money problem really involved, or maybe there is, but you say to the fellow, "How are you getting along with your car?"

"Oh, the thing won't start."

"Oh, it won't start?"

"Oh, in addition to everything else, it won't start."

You say, "Well, well, what are we going to do with this thing? What are we going to do with this thing?"

He'd say, "I don't know."

The car is sitting there, see.

"Yeah, I don't know. I wonder why it won't start? That's all right, don't tell me, I'll think of it in a month. I wonder why the car won't start? I wonder if it wasn't the — oh, I don't know, it might have been the type of gasoline, it might not have been, dah, dah ... Let's see, who used that car last week? Oh, I've forgotten, but I bet it was that person that used the car last week must have done something to the car to make it start ..."

And he's liable to walk right off from the car and start complaining to people about the person who used the car last week, and trying to find out who it was. The car didn't start because he didn't turn on the ignition key! Why didn't he turn on the ignition key? Because he can't look at the car.

I did this one day myself in a very interesting way. I dismantled the little ignition system because I couldn't get it to work and put it back together again at considerable cost and effort and time. We wanted to use the vehicle and I put the little ignition system back together again, and so forth and noticed that a battery terminal wasn't connected. There wasn't any sense in taking the ignition system to pieces. It didn't have any juice through the wires.

And we were at that time running the motto, "Look, don't think." We knew that, but we didn't know how important that was going to be to Scientology. And me, I just really, actually had not looked all the way around on the circuit and noticed that the battery terminal was disconnected.

We all do things like that whether we're in a hurry or otherwise. Well, don't confuse that with an inability to look at a battery — an inability to look at an ignition system. An individual will take them all to pieces and strew them all over the floor and you'll never get them back together again. He has to create a new problem, don't you see.

He creates a new problem every time he attempts to solve the old one! And he creates the new problems which are worse than the problems that they solve. Once upon a time we used to call this the "principle of the introduction of an arbitrary." And that's just how they did it, that's all. That explains how they did it. This explains what they're doing.

An individual who can no longer confront the mass thing with which he is dealing will have problems with it — and that is the totality of human aberration. There isn't anything more to it than that. I'm sorry, I'd love to be complicated.

The funny part of it is, that an individual's confronting of solids must contain his looking and participating in the solidity. In other words, he must be willing to make that solid before he can perceive that it is solid. When he depends on something to be solid which is not very solid to him, it eventually sort of disappears.

In other words, he goes all around the world depending on everything to be solid and he never makes anything solid. He has placed a childish faith in things — we won't say what — in the creation of these things. He doesn't think that he himself had any part in their manufacture, and so he says, "Well, here's all of these objects, and they're all solid, I see."

Look! If he doesn't make them solid, they won't stay that way! And they become thinner, and thinner, and thinner to him.

Now, they become as solid to other people as they make them solid, or don't make them solid. But he goes around depending on other people to make the wall solid so he can look at it. Do you see how that is? And do you know after a while he won't see it, because it isn't solid to him?

In order to have a solid wall, you've got to make one. It isn't enough to just suppose it's going to stay solid for the rest of time. It won't.

So something else enters into here. A person who no longer creates, will have problems. And a person who no longer creates solids, will be in grave trouble if he goes on fooling with solids.

So the answer to problems broadly is, you might say, causative solids. I just coined that for you, it's not a technical term. It's much too fancy for Dianetics and Scientology — causative solids.

In other words, the individual falls away from life because he got into a sort of a parasitic frame of mind of expecting everybody to make everything solid for him. Everybody was going to make the whole universe solid for him. Everybody was going to make everything solid for him. And all he had to do was look at it or weigh it, or rap on it. And he will go downhill until he himself reenters and consciously plays the game of "I'm a thetan that can make nothing solid and I am making it solid and it is solid because I now perceive it is solid." Have you got the game?

Audience: Yes.

That's the game he plays. When he no longer plays the game, the game does not continue to be played, and he won't have anything solid. That's all. When you stop playing a game, you're — you're not playing the game, the game is playing you.

And when the game starts to play you, you get into this situation, and you never come up scale above that.

Human problems consist of a refusal to observe human conditions. That's all.

Except that an individual who refuses to participate in a forward constructive attitude toward life refrains thereafter from living. If a person cannot participate in life, he can't live as we know livingness.

All you have to do to get back in the game is just play the game. And we've been six years trying to find out what game we were playing, and it's a very simple game.

It's the game of "make it solid, look how solid it is." And that's about all the game there is.

And when you run solids, the figure-figures all drop out. When you run the figure-figures, you make no real progress in the case at all. No real progress.

So, although Dianetics appears to be revived, it is simply this — we have now a mirror image of Dianetics. We used to run the thoughts and problems of the engram, we now run the engram off the thoughts and problems and they vanish. You understand there is a difference?

And that's all really I have to tell you technically, and I guess that's — that's about that, and you go on and get your Personal Efficiency Course and then settle down and have a lazy tomorrow and — practically nothing to do. I have very little to tell you beyond that. Yeah, that's about it.

You know, I detected there's somebody in the audience that doesn't believe me!

Well, I am very glad you are here for many reasons, because you are my friends, and because I'm glad to be home, and because there's a lot of information to give you. And there is an awful lot of help in putting things to rights and into action that I need from you. And I need that very much.

And as these next three days roll along, why, you'll find out what it is.

Just now, we're overtime. I will see you all tomorrow at one o'clock.

Good night.