Thank you very much. This is the briefest demonstration on record. Got an announcement to make here first. This is the second lecture of the 20th of November, 1st Melbourne ACC.

And I have an announcement to make here.

I was going to have to go back tomorrow to England and it was heavy pressure because HASI, Limited is through and everything is waiting on the back burner. But in view of the thing, that you're such a good ACC and you've been so nice and you're making so much progress — in view of the fact you're making a little bit of history, and so forth — why, I decided to stay until Tuesday a week.

Okay.

This is a demonstration hour on 20th November, 1959, 1st Melbourne ACC. And we've got a lot of cases running now, haven't we? Huh? Audience: Yeah.

And you should take a good look now at a solution to something that first cropped up in 1951, about June. I first started noticing it in 1950. The number of bit and piece cases that were coming in, totally black, couldn't get pictures, nobody could get out of it and were totally stuck, or less frequent but just as puzzling, the fellow you couldn't hold in an incident and was all over the track all the time. He was into this one, out of that one, so-and-so.

Now, recognize these as simply plus randomity and minus randomity cases that have created themselves into a state where confrontingness has to be run before any real progress can be made.

You got that one?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now, it has taken me actually since June of 1951 until clear up to early fall (Northern Hemisphere) of 1959 to lay that one in the grave properly.

That took some doing. It's the first time I've announced it as broadly as right this minute!

Now, it's taken an awful long time. Because just as I couldn't get it through my head that people were in their heads, and just as I couldn't get it through my mind that people were stuck in their minds — I'm afraid my own subjective reality on this was not as good as it might have been.

But on a couple of occasions, I have hit picture series on my own track which were all balled up like fire drill, and so on, and have never bothered

with them particularly, and actually in looking them over, more or less, erased them. There are still a few small sections that are sticky and so forth, and I am afraid that I looked at those real hard trying to get some kind of a subjective reality on a total minus randomity.

It was a good joke on me. It's just before this life, I had a bad time of it and got electrocuted when I was about four and a half years old by a tram line, the full power of a tram line, and so on, and it — it remained somewhat occluded. You know, I didn't know this was the case, and so on.

But how in the name of common sense would anybody add something like this up to creativeness? There's something — nothing creative about hav­ing a tram line's power circuit dumped full voltage on your head, nothing creative about it at all.

I've looked at some of these incidents and pictures, and in scouting around have tried to think it out or confront it out. Some of these things have remained occluded just until very recently, by the way; this one escaped my notice. But I had a nice area there that probably was nicely occluded but I got run into it the other night and as-ised it before I could grab ahold of it.

And it just plain hasn't made sense to me, frankly, that an incident cre­ated by the individual himself could operate to this degree, as to trap himself. You understand?

Well now, just that same way, you're going to have a lot of trouble, or would have had a lot of trouble and probably have had a lot of trouble as an auditor, trying to understand some case.

I give you my idea of trying to get a subjective reality on some of these "never get anyplace, never do anything, can't do anything" sort of cases. You get the idea?

All right. Similarly, you're going to sit in an auditing chair sometime and you're going to look at somebody, and — or have, you know — "God knows what he's doing," you know, and "It does seem to me so weird." This is not within your level of reality.

And you probably plowed around a little bit and wondered if you had any similar circumstance you could look at, you know, and it just didn't seem rea­sonable. And the cases that were real different than yours, why, if you did have anything like them, why, you up and as-ised it or something of that sort, and it tended to remain a little bit incomprehensible to you. That's why I want you to get a real good reality on this Confront dichotomy and its put­ting cases back together again and so on. Because it actually, basically does away with most of these curiosa that you've run into.

And it's a great relief to me to find out that the persistency of creation on the part of these cases ran underneath some kind of a created — newly created force which in itself destroyed the old creation, but the old creation was still there and when you tried to run out the old creation, its persistency ran under the force and restimulated the force.

You didn't have the old creation at all. All you had was bang! Got the idea?

That's evidently the basic mechanism of this whole universe.

Now, a mind is no different than a universe. It has the same spaces and the same anything in sort, and as a matter of fact this universe, this real universe around you — kind of silly to call it the real universe, the physical universe around you, because the mind's a real universe — it's got these spaces and masses and so forth in it and it's also got postulates in it. And its postulates are things like Ohm's Law and things like gravity and accelera­tion and Boyle's Law and stuff like that, you know.

Things like — oh, what do they call it — the limit of elasticity of materials, and cohesion and adhesion. These are just postulates, you know, that are — boy, they're in there! You know? Everybody agrees on them, the stuff goes on persisting and all that sort of thing.

Well, a mind has a greater variety of these things and is less solid. Has a greater variety of laws. Guys can make any kind of postulates — any, any, any, any kind of postulates. And that's the darnedest thing, the postulates that a thetan will make. You know? Just utterly untrackable.

They are just almost infinite in their variety. And they'll do some of the weirdest things. You know, the little innocent remark by him, some kind like this, it just goes on and persists, and is a basic law of his case.

Well, it gets into his mind just as strongly as Boyle's Law, or expansion laws, or any other darned thing, you know. It's a law! "All goats are black." So he mocks up a goat, he gets a black goat. That's it. "Horses sleep in beds." Any piece of nonsense you can think of. More obvious ones that run into are those that deal with identification, such as, "All women are alike. All men are alike."

If you ever run into a girl who tells you as a man, that "All men are alike," — or as a girl runs into a man that says, "All women are alike," why, that's a good time to get out your microscope and see if you can see that. Because it's very visible. It means a totally jammed bank. And these are the postulates that do it.

But, the postulates basically, that you have trouble with, are those which aberrate association or differentiation. And so we get the rest of the combination of processing.

See, there's another combination beyond the physical universe. Just like the physical universe, we know, more or less, what laws to run out of the physical universe, you see. So, there are all kinds of laws in the mind.

Well, the master ones that give us the most trouble are the identifica­tions there on Axiom 10 level. Axiom 10, cycle of action and the communica­tion formula, these things are all rrrrrff All, more or less, the same thing to the fellow and they're all jammed, mishmashed.

But, of course, beyond that — man, you couldn't predict for a moment what — what nonsense is in his mind as postulates, that have become consid­erations and the other-determinisms he's been with have agreed upon them, you see?

For instance, you get an awful lot of kids raised during a war. They'll get, "The enemy is bad," you know. And they agree on this totally and they say, "All Japs are bad." See, that's — becomes a stable datum!

Well, it's not stable when the war is over. And then they get somewhat dismayed. Everybody's giving the Japs things and people are going to Japan and that sort of thing, and they say, "What's this?" You know?

All kinds of individuation occurs because they have made a statement to themselves that they can't become something. They can't become this thing so when they say they can't become this thing, they debar themselves from a section of thing and cause an individuation from it. And when that is pushed or shoved around in some fashion or they shove it around or develop a few more overts, they blow through on it and become the thing they can't become! And you've got this valence problem.

Well, that's peculiar to the mind and the thetan and not very peculiar to this universe. The postulates mix up into forms and identities and peculiari­ties and package beingnesses which actually are just more postulates. And boy, you can get some of the things, they look so silly. Because they are silly. And you get all kinds of random laws, such as "Anything I become, I there-fore can't be." You know? That makes a game. "If I ever experience any good luck that means something bad is going to happen to me." Basic law. "All beingnesses which are not myself are bad." Yeah, but after a while he says, "Not myself, let me see, myself, I know ... "

Somebody tells him, "You're the hall porter now." So, he knows at once he's dead and bad. Get the idea? All kinds of triggers go off of one kind or another but they're simply forms, association, that sort of thing.

Now, we get off into the special field of machinery and we just get a bunch of new forms and combinations of masses and gimmicks and so forth. And machinery and circuits are machinery and are circuits. And we — as I've said many times, this is not used in a careless form. A circuit is a circuit! It is a set up circuit as it is understood by an electronics man, see. It's a bunch of vias which winds up in a total disassociation from self which talks or which occludes or which does this or which does that or which has some other automatic function it's set up for, just like a wired-up piece of, oh, elec­tronic nonsense of some kind or another.

And machines are machines. Now, they have wheels and gears and all kinds of crisscrosses and lever arms, and so forth, and some of them have stacks and some of them are wired and some of them aren't and they have shapes and sizes and they're covered with metal and they're screwed together with nuts and bolts and they're fitted together with flanges and when we say a machine, we mean a machine! See, we're not thinking of somebody's idea of a machine.

But because some thetan thought them up without further inspection from any other thetan and no building code was ever observed in their construction or manufacture, man, you'll find some weird and wonderful machines!

You'll find a machine which feeds me porridge or something like that, you know. Only it's also taken over consuming women. That's right, because eating porridge and consuming women are practically the same thing. That's the postulate, see.

Ah, there's machines that consume matter and machines that make matter and machines that do this and machines that do and undo and all sorts of things.

Well, just as this universe, the physical universe, has a tremendous num­ber of gaudy bits and pieces of machinery in it, and in space opera days has particularly wonderful pieces of machinery in it — machines that repair machines that repair machines, for instance — all kinds of odds and ends of this character. We get into some kind of a hurdy-gurdy arrangement here of machines which build cars and then the cars run around and service facto­ries which have machines in them, which build machines, and you get machines waiting on machines sort of a thing. And all kinds of great oddities and so forth.

Well, just as you see those in the physical universe at this time, so you'll find all kinds of nonsense of this character in the mind.

Now, when the fellow starts to get irresponsible for creation, he has many roads out. And this is to assign responsibility to some creation of his for which he's taking no responsibility, and after this he says, "I have no slightest liability in creating something. I have no slightest liability in creat­ing postulates because here's a postulate-creating machine." Of course, it just creates any kind of a postulate you want, just like that! Bang! And sure enough, you'll run into such machines. Guy needs this postulate on the spur of the moment, the machine gives him one.

Well, boy, if you think that doesn't make a horrendous lot of super stable data that has nothing to do with anybody anyplace, you ought to see one of these things work.

The fellow has no responsibility for the darn machine and it just starts grinding out postulates, you know. Every time he needs a postulate, that's the trigger that makes the machine go off. You see? And he gets postulates. Sometimes the postulates come out on tape and all kinds of darned foolish­ness. Circuits, circuits. Anytime he needs a song, he thinks, "I'd like to hear some music," circuit goes on, plays him some music.

The basic difference between a machine and a circuit is that a machine is built out of metal and circuits are usually fairly invisible in their construc­tion, or if they are visible in their construction, their construction isn't appar­ently a machine construction at all. It's just like they're robots in biological bodies. A circuit is more a biological sort of a — of a gimmick that the thetan has built up. He's got lots of excuses for it. Sometimes it's built out of wires, sometimes it's a couple of ridges that rub together, it's all kinds of odd stuff, bunch of foolishness I'm talking about.

Well, all these things and all these combos manage, is to do things with-out his having to (he thinks) accept responsibility for the creation of those things. Therefore, he doesn't perish because he creates a postulate.

Now, all you've got to do is have somebody create a postulate, create a postulate, create a postulate, create a postulate and all of a sudden run into death postulates! Because postulates go on the cycle of action, too. See?

He makes postulates, makes postulates, makes postulates, makes postu­lates and after a while, why, he says, "I shouldn't make any more postulates. Therefore every postulate I make will destroy postulates." And he gets all set so then he makes a postulate and bang, he's got a destruction postulate.

And basically military orders will go this route. Generals early in their career win battles, early in their career.

The orders of the day, the orders of the day, the orders of the day just make more and more deathly postulates, more and more deathly postulates. See? They start to slide because they're already dealing in death and they very easily go out the bottom. And all of a sudden you get order of the day saying, "Destroy yourself Company B. Destroy yourself Company G. Destroy yourself Company K."

World War II wasn't so much fought as — that way, as World War I. They had a good time in World War I. They knew nobody could win it and it was a wonderful opportunity to simply put out destructive postulates with no responsibility because nobody took any responsibility for the war. It wasn't going anyplace.

Now, the basic mechanism that we're dealing with here is that postu­lates don't necessarily stay in place on the Confront dichotomy. You get some postulates running off on a Confront dichotomy. The rehabilitation of Operat­ing Thetan, unfortunately for you, undoubtedly will require a rehabilitation of the ability to make postulates without consequence.

So, we get another type of — another type of process, which is almost the same type only you use postulate instead of some other object.

There would be, "What postulate would you be willing to make?" And after a while, why, you'd find that was going — run downhill. The easiest way to do it is, "Make" and "What postulate would you rather not make?"

Then, "What postulate could you confront?" Nobody ever thinks of confront­ing them, you know. And, "What postulate would you dislike confronting?"

You always get the one-two. It's very tricky. It's very tricky. You get the one-two. The postulate that he blows off is the postulate he as-ises with the sec­ond part of the dichotomy. In other words, he creates one, it blows the other one into view; you as-is the other one with the other part of the auditing com­mand. Every time he creates one, why, he'll blow one. And you just keep them as-ised. And eventually he'll balance out and the fellow will be able to make postulates.

That is the basic thing that a thetan has lost the ability to do.

And the process at first glance will appear a bit unreal to you, perhaps, as absolutely vital and necessary and different and strange. But you'll find most people are going so stimulus-response, that you ask them to do any-thing and they promptly start moving things around with forces and masses. They never think of making them with a postulate. That's because they know what would happen if they made it with a postulate. They — just uncomfort­able with a postulate. And the reason it's so uncomfortable is, every time they start to make a postulate they go over to a death postulate and they get tired of postulating suicide. That's all. That's all that's basically wrong with making postulates.

And you'll find very, very, very few people still make postulates. They don't handle anything with postulates. Now, a person can get terribly irre­sponsible with postulates also and you've got to teach somebody that a postu­late requires data. A postulate or a decision requires an agreement or a knowledge of the situation.

Postulates are done in company with understanding. And that's the facility which has to be recovered for the OT. That's why you have to run them all by themselves.

Somebody wrote me the other day, he says, "Any fool can make a deci­sion. It's a wise man that makes a decision in the presence of data. He makes the decision for the situation." See, anybody can make a decision. But to make the decision that is necessary to the situation, is only done in the pres­ence of observation, and so on.

So, a person gets to a point where his postulates are automatic and his machines are feeding him automatic postulates and everything seems to be going in this particular direction. Ha! He gets to a point where, if he handled anything with a postulate, he'd just knock everything off. He — so he knows better than to make postulates. And he gets all kinds of via systems by which he can escape making postulates.

Same process as you had on masses and energies, and so forth, and pos­tulates too, because they'll crop up along the line but sooner or later, you're going to have to run the postulate process on your pc. It's done with the same commands, done with — exactly the same way except you're using that spe­cialized item.

Now, I better mention something else as long as we're on pure data and oddities, and so forth. And one of these is that an individual very often gets himself into a situation that he can't postulate himself out of. He says, "That's impossible because the postulate would then wind up in a death postulate; if I postulate myself out of it, I'll kill myself." That's because his postulates are doing a slip on the cycle of action. So, he never postulates him-self off of theta traps, never postulates himself out of bodies, never — never does anything sensible about it.

He'll stand there and push against a theta trap, see. One of these pole traps. Actually, all a "pole trap" is is a piece of metal or material which absorbs all the overts and pushes them back at the thetan. See, and it's just a reflective mechanism of some kind or another. In other words, they never have any energy in them. None of the real effective ones. Those that simply are full of energy would blow somebody off.

Only those traps which are energized by the thetan are effective. So this thetan has lost the power to postulate. See? He knows what would happen to him if he postulates.

He starts to think, if I postulate, "I will now be separate from and off of this trap," he knows this will come out as, "I will be stuck to this trap forever." See, because the slip on the cycle of action. So he knows the smart thing to do is to push the trap away from him!

Of course, he puts energy into the thing and he's dead. See? Puts energy into it, he — that pulls him into it, you see, but he pushes himself off of it, that pulls him into it, because he's already using energy all reversed and messed up. The more energy he puts into it, of course, it's right directly on his wavelength because it's his energy. That's a wonderfully horrible game.

How did he ever get into traps in the first place? Well, he must have decided that thetans could be caught on traps, or he must himself have erected or put up traps on which thetans could be caught. In other words, he has to have the overt before he gets any motivators.

So, of course, by the time he himself gets onto a trap, he's already an overt — motivator sequence, like mad, so he pushes against the trap, the trap energizes and pulls him into it.

It's not unusual for a thetan to spend eighteen, twenty thousand years on one of these traps. You run it back on some of your pcs and you'll find out. Talk about minus randomity.

And right now you say to your thetan (pc) you say (to your pc), "Put a beam over on the wall." See?

And he says, "All right. Don't care if I do," you know, slap, yaaaa. "I feel so degraded."

Now, that's energy gone out the window. Got the idea? So, there may be some necessity on some cases to rehabilitate energy as well, just purely energy instead of pictures or masses. Got that? So, that may come in on it, too. Because he may feel that if he uses energy he goes into instantaneous degradation. But, similarly, you can use this process or this pattern of proc­ess on anything a thetan creates. Use it on machinery.

"What part of a machine would you be willing to create?"

It would have to be followed by — because you'd get splinters, you'd get bits and pieces, disintegrations and all sorts of darned things. You would now have to flatten this out and square it up with "What part of a machine could you confront? What part of a machine would you dislike confronting?" That would flatten machinery, don't you see.

Circuits same way. If he finally knows what a circuit is you could run circuits out this way. Postulates, force, energy, you could also address this process to spaces but don't try it early on a case.

You could rehabilitate anything a thetan can make or create by running Confront and Create, see, in that order. Running the Confront until it all flattens out and it's all straightened out and it's all okay and everything's fine. Then make him create some more until it all goes to pieces and then make him confront it until it's all okay. And then have him create some more until it all goes to pieces, and you'll find out it'll go less and less to pieces, and he's more and more able to handle it. The next thing you know he's stripped the bottom out from underneath whatever's worrying him. After that it's simply a matter of, he can create what he wants to create and change his considerations about the liabilities of having created it and that's about all there is to be said about it.

Now, somebody's going to come along and say, "Invent a liability for hav­ing created something" is the perfect process.

It's not. Not.

Because you'd have to have him then confront liabilities. Do you see that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

So, you see, anything that he would create has to be confronted to pat it back in place. Got that? Hm?

Now, a demonstration of this, a good demonstration of this — let — let's take a look — let's take a look right now at some item in this room, oh, book-case over there. And it's pretty higgledy-piggledy, not a bad bookcase but it's been around for quite a while.

Now, on a combined basis, there must be an awful lot of combined former creations, many generations of them, that go back to the materiel of the bookcase. Now, let's take it back at once. It goes back to the destruction of a tree. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Hm?

Well, that's — that's simple. Actually from the destruction of a tree, it goes back to growing in soil which was full of destroyed material and picking up this (quote) "material," these bits and pieces and forming them into a tree, so it'd go back to that next destruction level. Huh?

And of course, these things go back to particles and matter which was originated and basically you could say, more or less as a rule, not a hard fixed rule because the thetan can do anything, that bits and pieces of energy flying around, that you use in the physical universe, are disintegrated masses. They are not mocked up themselves usually. They're disintegrations of masses. So that would — the minerals and so forth that were picked up by the tree — minerals are present now in that bookcase, you see, causing its col-oration and all that sort of thing. They, of course, go back to some mass that we wouldn't know about, offhand, which disintegrated from some destruc­tion, which is to say, some counter-force. So it goes back through the counter-force to that mass.

Now, Lord knows what that mass was. But I can already tell you this winds back up into some activity like the planet builders, see, but planets are usually built out of fragments of radioactive and destroyed, burst masses, which are floating around in space. Well, we go back to what burst the big mass, you see, that made those fragments which were reassembled into a planet.

Well, if that's the case and if there was that big a mass around, why, the possibility is that it was assembled out of fragments, too. So, there's back through another counter-creation, a destruction back to another form. And however far this would have to be run back, if you ran that up on a basis of Create-Confront, you found out whatever it was — you ran it back to basic Create-Confront — theoretically, you could disintegrate that bookcase. Do you understand that?

Audience: Yeah.

The funny part of it is, you'd have the power of putting the bookcase there and telling it to persist if you'd gotten back so far that you could as-is the most fundamental part of a bookcase. Do you see that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, now, demonstrating how one of these things worked, the swami of the past — and once in a while people say, "Well, why don't you occasionally lift people's hats up or do something, you know, and so forth? And show the people that Scientology really works, you know." Yeah, that's great, that would just fix everything up, that would. Particularly something like making explosions on a stage. That would really fix things up.

That shows you what? Just what does that demonstrate! That demon­strates that something is sitting there as a vase is just one more step removed into flinders. Which flinders will be picked up in some fashion and made into some new combination, then here we go, here we go, here we go, you see. And we're just that much further up the track which proves abso­lutely nothing.

Now, it'd prove something entirely different if you unmocked that book-case and then put the bookcase there. Well, that's very interesting because nobody would notice you had done anything and would be absolutely certain that you had simply hypnotized them into not seeing the bookcase for a short time. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, the difference would be that you'd have an entirely different book-case sitting there. Probably made out of entirely different materials. It'd — might look exactly the same but it would not be the same bookcase. And it would be running there basically on your postulate that it persisted. Well, let's carry this action way back on the track and find out that was always the postulate you put into things — you nut!

"It will persist!" "I now make the great god Ra!" "Gumph! God that's good. A little heavier pedestal, I made it too light. See, we have it. Ah! 'It will persist!' "

It is. There it is. The fragments of what would persist are still obeying the law "It will persist." Persistence and confrontingness are quite similar. But if you ran into a total stuck on this the way to phrase it would be contin­uous confrontingness solves persistence.

And this gives you one that I knocked your Instructors' ears off with one night over at an apartment in London and they're saying, "Wow! I will tell you, the last ACC ..." Some auditing command would be something on the order of, "What could you continue to confront?" "What could you continue to confront with?" Can you think about that for a moment?

"What could you continue to confront?"

You know, just stand right there and continue to confront? Do you know of anything you could continue to confront?

Male voice: Nothing that I want to.

Hm.

Well, that's why you're here and not stuck on some space station or something of the sort out in space, is you didn't continue to confront some-thing. But that's the basic command which undoes terrific persistence.

"What would you dislike continuing to confront?" of course, would be the opposite side of the dichotomy. Only, I'm afraid the opposite side of the dichotomy would be what would run off with you right now — brrrrrr.

Now, can you think of something that you would dislike continuing to confront?

Hm?

Is that easier?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Well, anyone who fell halfway between and couldn't think of either one, of course, is in a nowhere on the subject. That would be a medium ground.

But, confrontingness works gradually up to continue to confront rather easily, and one's tolerance of time depends on continuance of confronting. Or, what creation would it be safe to make persist? That's not an auditing com­mand because again that's merely more confronting. See, "What creation ... continue to persist, yeah." And of course, nobody these days is willing to make anything continue to persist. They even build skyscrapers over in America now, on the basis they're only supposed to last twenty-five years and then fall down. That's supposed to be their total longevity.

And they used to build shoes, man. They got the sledgehammer and the spikes out and they tanned the leather into solid steel, you know, and they carved it and they beat them and they hammered, and they drrrrr, and so on and they built a pair of shoes. You know? And these days they run them through on a couple of lathes and tack a couple of tack hammers to them and sell them to a lady for fifteen or twenty times the price. And she walks down the street, the heels come off, the soles tear off — not the same degree of per­sistence. And we get this impersistence of things going down scale till you find in some very old race, the fantastically flimsy things that are used in construction. It's fantastic some of the flimsiness used in China, for instance, on construction materials, if you've ever seen these things.

And in Japan — nobody in America, up probably until they defeated Japan, you see, and we all defeated Japan, we probably got the same thing coming over. I noticed we now have new contemporary gardens. I've looked at them years ago in the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, see, the new contemporary garden and all that sort of thing. They probably got paper walls over in America by now. But nobody but the Japanese on an old line like this, and so forth, would think of making a wall out of paper, you know. Terrifically impersistent materials.

Of course, the Chinese, the funny stuff that the Chinese build in — out of paper and out of mud, and so on. The amount of artistry, for instance, that goes into the makeup of an Amoy cat. Have you ever seen an Amoy cat? Well, it's a little tiger, and they have various types of felines and they have bal­anced heads and the heads are shoved through a hole in the body and then they have a balanced tail with a counterbalance inside the body and it all hangs on a little string. And the faintest breath of air hitting one of these Amoy cats will cause the head to go this way and the tail to bounce in some other way. I used to think these things were made in some super, super molds, you know, and it was all done on a machine basis and it must be because there were so many of them around.

And I got very curious about them because I left one sitting in a — next to an open porthole one night when I'd been up along China Coast, many, many years ago. And the sea came in, and when I came back in I — this funny looking cat that I had been packing around, he wasn't there! And I said, "Well, he washed overboard." No, he hadn't washed overboard. He dissolved. There he was lying there, just a little mound of mud — a little mound of mud and yellow paint.

So I took another one of them that I had there, and just dampened him slightly, you know, and he started to disintegrate. They're made out of mud, just nothing but mud. But, they're made by hand, and — most of them and they're painted by hand and there's no operation but basically, what are they making? They're making a mud cat. Nothing to hold the cat together. I don't know how the devil they last on the store shelf much less when they pass into the hands of the first purchaser.

And the impermanence that a race as it grows old gets down to — well, take automobiles. They're not down to a total collapse yet but you look at what they thought they had to put into an automobile in 1910 or 12 and look at what they put into an automobile today. And let's forget about prices or comparable performance or that sort of thing, it was just the heaviness and weightiness of the thing.

And I remember an American design engineer was sacked by a British company about thirty-five or forty years ago because they were making rail-way carriages and the brass rails that were at the top of the carriage tended to overbalance it, and give it too — you know, the tops of the carriages were too heavy. Well, this American designer was working with this British com­pany and he came along and he said, "Well, these — all these brass rails up here at the top, make them hollow, you know, lighten them up and so forth." And they fired him. It just went against the principles of the solidity of Brit­ish manufacturing.

Now, you watch any item go down that road of impermanency and you watch any person go down the road of impermanency and the less perma­nency they're willing to take responsibility for, the more permanency they get on automatic. Right?

Audience: Yes.

So, that is the permanency that you see in a bank and that is the exact mechanism of what that is. Just as you're unwilling to stand and confront something for a hundred thousand years, you see, you'd similarly be unwill­ing to make something that permanent anymore. You know?

Naturally, if you won't take — if you don't instantly and easily span the idea of a total permanency, of infinite permanency, how you going to as-is it in the bank? It won't as-is. So, the bank apparently gets solider and solider, and the dirt in China gets thicker and thicker, and deeper and deeper, you see? And the customs of China become more and more fixed. More — I — oh, these poor commies, oh, these poor commies, oh!

I remember what happened one time in a factory where they had finally succeeded in teaching a Chinese mechanic to use a band saw. They'd made it — Chinese mechanic was very clever, he thought — he knew when he saw a good thing, that band saw. But they taught him with no guard. Safety engi­neer came around and said, "Hey, the guard's off that band saw." So, he got it and he showed it to the fellow. He says, "Where's the guard?" The fellow pulls the guard out and says, "There's — there's the guard off of it." "Put it on and you leave that on the table. That's there to keep you from chopping your hands off and so forth, and you leave that guard there on the table."

The next day he came by and no guard! And he says, "Well, where's the guard that goes on this band saw?" And the mechanic says, "Well, there it is, there it is." Pulled it out and put it on the table and screwed it on and so forth. It's okay.

The guy came by the next day and, "The guard. Where's the guard?" "The guard's under there." And he pulls it out and he puts it on the table and

so on. And this inspector, after about fifteen or twenty weeks of this let it go with no guard. He had simply been worn out by this automatic persistence. And he said, "Well, I just — that's too persistent for me."

And that's true of almost anything in China. The old China hand that rushed out to China, you know, he was going to do the country this way and that and change it all, and mechanize it, and fix it all up and alter all their customs! And-and-and-and-and ... Pretty soon you saw him with his feet on the banister at the club, you know, sipping a drink. Too much persistence for him. He couldn't, himself, span that much idea of persistence, particularly of odd bits and pieces that didn't fit anymore. All the mechanics of the place were still in bits and pieces. Yet, nevertheless, these people managed to do a fairly fantastic job!

I've seen a Chinese workman with a fish bone and a stone and a little stick and a piece of string, drill a hole, as perfect and accurate as anything was ever drilled with a Stanley drill and darned near as fast. He didn't have any nails, so he was using whittled pegs. And he just whittled pegs and so forth. I was very overawed about this. He was building a sort of a little bam­boo pavilion and he was drilling holes and filling them up full of carved pegs and neaten it all up and, boy, he was making quite a job.

I said to the British officer that had this particular job being done, a partic­ular pal of mine, you know, I said to him, "Well, you know these guys really can get something done! You know, this is quite a thing! This is fairly terrific! Look at him building this pavilion and so on. Working like mad and so on."

He says, "Yeah, the hell with him."

I says, "What's a matter with you!" I say, "He's a perfectly good native workman and he's doing a good job and he's building a nice pavilion."

"Yeah," he says, "it's a nice pavilion all right. About the first rainstorm that comes along, why those pegs will swell up, or burst or break, or some-thing of the sort, and stuff will come down, and then he'll have a job of repairing it and so on."

I says, "But look, he hasn't got any tools, he hasn't got anything to work with. And so forth ..."

He says, "He what?"

And I said, "Well, he hasn't got any tools. He hasn't got anything to work — look, he used his fish bone, and little stone and drill, just doing a terrific job of drilling these holes and cutting these pegs out and putting them in."

"Ah!" he says, the British officer said, "Really now!" Went over to the side of the porch and opened the guy's toolbox and there the British embassy had given him a Stanley drill and all the drills and parts and all the ... That was the way it went. God help the communists.

Now, persistence in the bank then requires that you do an awfully good job on Confrontingness. Right?

And if something just failed utterly to surrender, and you just had this pc, and it was absolutely impossible to get rid of this black screen and just nothing was happening, and it was all terrible, and you knew you had the case straightened out and the needle down and nothing on the case and you were auditing it all right and it just keeps on being black-black-black-black-blacker, all splintered-splintered-splintered-splinter-splintered and you couldn't get anything at all. You'd certainly better run in "Continue to confront." He'd have had it then.

And gradually build him up on the length of time he's willing to con­tinue to confront and the postulate of "Confront it forever" would fall out of it. It's possibly a necessary tool in your kit. And that keeps you from continu­ing to confront the pc forever. But continuance of confrontation is definitely a part of all of this because that gives you something vaguely resembling ulti­mate survival and all of this sort of thing is all wound up in that.

Time might have to be handled somewhere on the road to OT but if time were handled directly it would be on continuous confrontingness. There might be some other method of handling time come up. Possibly the old one, "Make some time." But, "Make some time" we know now would have to be followed with, "Confront some time." See? And "Continue to confront" would be the time process. And you'd probably never enter time into it at all. You'd just say, "Continue to confront."

As far as time itself is concerned, time is an idea, it is a postulate, it is an agreement, it's this, it's that, it's the other thing. And it falls out along with almost anything else and probably itself, would not require too much inspection or direct processing. But maybe in some case, maybe you'll run into some case where "Continuous Confront" is about the first thing you have to run.

Some case that you say — if you ran something like this: "What could you be absolutely sure would be here in one minute?" If you get more than a half-hour comm lag on that one, the time button is so far out that you've got to build him up on continuous confrontingness. See?

So, you tell him, "Look around the room." And say, "How long would you be willing to confront that wall?" or something like this. And you could work him up the line where you bammed his confrontingness. Probably do it with room objects, something of this sort.

Now, the flexibility of these processes are enormous. Therefore, I don't want you to lose sight of the basic principles that I've been trying to demon­strate to you.

The basic principles are simply this: that Confront and Create are the two parts of existence that have to be treated on a case level. And that those can be addressed to anything.

But creation is prevented by the thetan by running into the cycle of action over to an apparency of destruction. You never handle, as itself, destruc­tion. You just handle creation, because creation is a brand-new — destruction is a brand-new creation. It's a counter-force.

Whatever you ask the pc to create in a process and that includes make, lie about, think up, invent, see? Any of those things is create. You've got to get him to confront, face, live with anything that you could think of that had anything to do with that, which added up to the same command.

That alone will pat back into place what has been stirred up by the Cre­ate and you'll bring him up to a tolerance of creation without consequence.

You can run this on a dichotomy in either the Create or the Confront and reduce the amount of confusion on the bank or incident to the bank. And that's the way that you'll get somebody out of the soup.

Okay?

Audience: Yes.

Thank you.