Want to talk to you now about R1-6.

We will now take up R1-10. R1-10: Route 1-10, an exteriorization drill or process.

If we had no other process anywhere than "Have preclear hold two back anchor points of the room for at least two minutes by the clock," and we didn't have any other process but that, do you know we'd have more people well? That's one of these important processes; that's one of these interesting, important processes which has quite a lot of history back of it.

Route 1-10 is not solely confined to Route 1. You will find it also over in Route 2. This step is "Have preclear discover things he wouldn't mind occupying the same space with him." Now, that is the idea behind all havingness. You can only have something when you've got a universe or when you've got some space. And to get an individual over the idea of havingness, it's only necessary to ask him many, many times "What wouldn't you mind occupying your same space now? Give me something else that you wouldn't mind occupying your space." He'll tell you air, water, ideas. Anything he tells you, you don't care; you just want the question answered. "What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space with you?" And again, "What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space? What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space?" Now, this is not a short process. You can keep this process up with an individual for a couple of hours, always with benefit. It can be run on some-body inside or outside. When you run it on somebody who is exteriorized, he's liable to have the devil's own time trying to figure out how he could get some-thing to occupy the same space he's occupying, particularly if he's in good shape. But he's got to manage this. He's got to know what this is all about. Really, he will move around and occupy the same space as other objects for a while, and do all sorts of things. You're not interested too much in what he's doing, you just want to give him the process and get him finally into the idea that things can occupy the same space as a thetan.

This is making space. Here we're immediately and directly applying viewpoint of dimension.

What you are knocking to pieces is the basic postulate which makes a universe possible, and you are knocking that postulate to pieces. And this is simply this: the basic postulate is — for any universe which has space and energy — "Two things cannot occupy the same space." Alfred Lord Korzybski did not invent this. It was invented about seventy-four trillion years ago for this universe. "Two things cannot occupy the same space." If you will study general semantics, you will discover that they teachthis and it makes madmen out of them. They teach you "Two things cannotoccupy the same space! Those two are not the same cigarette; they are twodifferent cigarettes, if only because they are not occupying the same space."Nah, booey. The space is a postulate. So if you postulate that they can'toccupy the same space, they can't. If you postulate they can, they can. It's just a matter of you making up your mind about it.

One of the things which a thetan is very afraid of is that he is going to get up against this stuff or put a beam on it — this MEST, you know — and stick. He's afraid this will happen to him. Also, he's lost his ability, to some degree, to make space. And this is a very essential thing — that he make space — because he won't have any space to exteriorize into unless he himself makes space. A person has as much space as he makes, not as much as he sees.

So if we have somebody having difficulty with his language, difficulty with the universe around him, who is an avid student of general semantics — which is taught in every university in the land now, by the way ... They teach students that nobody really knows what anybody else is talking about, because every word means something different to everybody else.

You just assume you've got space and you've got space; if you assume you don't have space, you don't have space. It's as easy as that.

Aha, I'm afraid that "coffee" means coffee. Of course, it can have associative reasonings to it. You could have an association with coffee, but you've still said "coffee." "Coffee," the fellow says, "plus my associations with coffee"; the other fellow says, "Coffee, plus my associations with coffee" — you're still talking about coffee.

But "the two back anchor points of the room" is an old process. It has many, many variations, and amongst those variations would- be "Now, find one corner of the room — upper corner of the room. Now find another upper corner of the room. You got those two? All right. Hold on to them. Now find a third upper corner of the room. Now put your attention on all three. Now find a fourth corner of the room. Put your attention on all four. You got the idea? Find a fifth corner of the room. Put your attention on all five." Sneak up on it. There's a group process in the Auditor's Handbook, printed edition — one of the back group processes in the book — which is just that process. Only you do this for fifteen minutes at a time. You add a corner every fifteen minutes. This just makes the fellow make space and gets him over being afraid of the material universe.

The general semanticist is always thinking in terms of associative lines and masses and definitions and reasons why, you see — significance, significance, significance, significance.

An important part of this is "don't think." The reason why "don't think" is an important part of it is the thetan keeps postulating himself, all the time you're processing him, into various conditions. He could postulate himself into anything or any frame of mind.

Now, I'm not tramping on general semantics. I'm glad general semantics was around. I studied it for ten minutes once, and under a very, very good teacher, Robert Heinlein. He told me all about general semantics, and I was very happy to learn about general semantics. Several general semanticists since have undertaken my education, and they have quit with horror because they get just up to this point — they are not physicists or they have never studied the physical universe — they get up to this point of they say, "Now, you understand that two things cannot possibly occupy the same space." Oh, I'm afraid that we're at a divergence right at this point. That's the way you make a universe solid. That's how these general semanticists get ridges around. That's why they get tongue-tied and go out of communication. They get this repostulated, repostulated, repostulated — that two things can't occupy the same space — and that makes an energy mass, that makes terminals, that makes all sorts of weird things, see?

So, you've said to somebody, "Be three feet back of your head"; you've had him copy things; you've had him copy nothingness; you've remedied this havingness problem with him; you've got all that whipped. Now let's get him a little bit more stable in the immediate environment, and let's let him find out the environment is actually there. And we do this simply by having him locate a couple of the back corners of the room and hold on to them and not think.

That gives you a universe. In addition to this fellow having a physical universe, you're asking him to build a universe again around himself, in his mind.

While a person is exteriorized, he can make and break masses and do all sorts of things just by thinking, you see. So we just tell him not to think; we hold on to the two corners and not think.

Words, to a general semanticist, become lumps of lead. Everything takes on a mass form. It naturally would, because that's how you make mass, isn't it? "Two things cannot occupy the same space," you say. Therefore, by postulate, that terminal is over there and this terminal is here. You have to first say, however, if you're going to get these terminals apart, "Two things can't occupy the same space." You have to say that, see; you have to postulate that. "These two things are apart and they cannot occupy each other's space." This will make them, each one of them, a unit object. We've got two unit objects now, and we've got individuation. See? We say these two things are entirely separate. Each one has a personality. Why? They've got to go on having a personality to the end of time. Why? Because they can't occupy the same space.

Quite important that he doesn't think — and that's all he does. And if you do that for less than two minutes, you're just wasting your time.

This is a very important thing to know in processing, because your fellow who is sitting there having a lot of difficulty — he is a thetan exteriorized, and he's got big masses of energy around him — there's only one common de-nominator to the things he's convinced of. Of course, he's convinced they're energy, convinced there's space and so forth, naturally, but much more important than that postulate is this basic consideration — this basic consideration: He considers that two things cannot occupy the same space.

Now, why do we say just two minutes? Well, two minutes is a long time to a thetan. The equivalent in the body would be two or three hours. See, it works faster while he's exteriorized than when he's inside.

For instance, he does not believe that he and his wife could occupy the same space. She is an individual, he is an individual. Oh, wait a minute. You'd have to be way downstairs in kindergarten not to have gone in some-body else's head and pulled a couple of motor controls, one way or one time or another.

So let's ask this boy to do this stunt. Let's ask him to hold on to the two back corners of the room and sit there and not think. And then let's take him two minutes by your clock, huh? Let's not take him two minutes out of his hat. Because two minutes to most auditors is usually twelve seconds. A minute is a long time when you're sitting in an auditing chair. So really, actually take it two minutes by the clock — long time to the thetan.

Sure, he as a thetan can occupy somebody else's space, but it's only by postulate that his body and his wife's body cannot occupy the same space; that's what makes them two different individuals. You break that postulate down and Lord knows what's going to happen. Actually, you get freedom, be-cause it's the basic restriction.

You'll find out his visio will pick up and other things will occur, but most important, he can find out that he can look that far away from himself with-out everything falling in on him. His body is liable to get somatics, various things are liable to occur. And if things start to occur simply because he's doing this process, why, of course, you know, the natural thing to do would be to go on to the next process just because it's the next process. Is that right or wrong? Huh?

All aberration is, is restriction. And that is the fundamental common denominator of all restriction: Two things cannot occupy the same space.

If anything starts to happen by reason of his holding on to the two back corners of the room — his comm lag goes down, he starts to get dopey, he gets groggy, he gets somatics, he gets some violent perception changes, he's having a hard time fishing for them — any one of these things occurs, that is a communication lag boosted up to the dignity of a process lag. In other words, the process isn't finished yet.

All right, how important is this? Why are we stressing it? Is it an important theory? No. I tell you, I have enough theories ... I have a file in here which is called "Old Cuffs," and there is enough theory and speculation and so forth on those — so much so that we decided to start to photostat them on the backs of the wasted pages of the PABs. You know, just have them shoot an "Old Cuff" at random.

And so, although I say two minutes by the clock, I say that because it usually takes that long for the fellow to forget himself enough to let things start to happen.

Boy, is that going to take some of these boys who figure-figure out in the field and throw them for a loop, because some of these things are not sequitur to anything we're doing — you know, they're just suppositions and so forth.

Now, two minutes by the clock ... And now suppose something really is happening with this fellow — you know, he's er-wrr and he's getting perception changes and so forth. Well, you'd just better do that process until he ceases to get changes — until as long as he's getting a change, you do that process! It's a process all by itself. Savvy? So he gets perception changes. So you do this thing for five hours; this guy is exteriorized and he's still getting changes at the end of five hours. Fine, it obviously was the best process that you could have given him at the moment, because it's the one that's producing all the change.

Theories: nobody will ever have to remedy my havingness in terms of theories. There's no scarcity of them. There are just billions of theories. That's the one thing I'm perfectly willing to agree on — that there could be more theories than there are coyotes. And that's a lot of theories. Any-how...

Well, you know, you ought to be chasing this fellow around over the moon, and you ought to be doing all sorts of things. "And Ron said that he ought to be exercised and he ought to be able to patch up his body and he ought to be able to heal people, and so forth. Well, that's the thing we ought to be doing, then, isn't it?"o, No! It says right in the Auditor's Code: "Run processes flat." Run a process as long as it produces change. If a process is producing no change, why, go on to the next process. Give it a fair trial. Well, a fair trial for "Hold the two back anchor points of the room" — a fair trial for it is two minutes for a thetan exterior. A good trial for it for a person when he's in his body is fifteen or twenty minutes.

When we have this postulate in the bank, a person who firmly believes it, cannot believe that he can exteriorize. Because if he believes two things cannot occupy the same space, then it becomes impossible for him to assume that he is one thing and the body is another thing. Now, do you follow me? So he will have to tell you, if he's sitting in a body, that he is a body. You got that?

You know, you ask the fellow while he's sitting there in a chair, "Hold the two back anchor points of the room." He holds them. And he holds them for fifteen, twenty minutes and then things start to happen. All of a sudden then he's getting whoom! bing. It kind of takes a little while for it to wind up sometimes, so a fair trial exteriorized would be a couple of minutes — well, let's say fifteen minutes for somebody who was still interiorized. See, that would not be a Route 1 process then, would it — if he were still interiorized.

See, "Yeah, I'm right here! And two things can't occupy the same space, so I can't be occupying the same space as a body, can I?" That logical? Well, it sounds logical enough to him so he won't exteriorize. And this is also your common denominator of nonexteriorization.

The difference between Route 1 and Route 2, you know, of course is just the fact a Route 1 is run while a person is exteriorized. You'll notice some Route 1 processes are the same as Route 2. This one, by the way — "Hold the two back anchor points of the room" — also appears in Route 2, done in a different way. Done almost the same way, but it's done for a fellow interiorized.

If you were to take R1-10, as a good process, how would you remedy his interiorization? You just keep asking him this question for hours and hours and hours and hours: "Give me some more things that could occupy the same space you're occupying. Some more things. Some more things. Some more things." And all of a sudden he gets the creepy notion — because it's just a postulate on the track, you see; it's just a consideration like "ice cream is good" or "ice cream is bad"; it's just the same order of magnitude — all of a sudden he gets the sneaky notion that "You know, I'm sitting here occupying the space something else is occupying. But then, of course, I am no mass at all. Well, I am mass, and I don't quite ... But there's something here about this." And the next thing you'll know, he'll be three feet back of his head looking at himself.

So this is the way you'd do it, and you run that as long as he would get a change. If he got no perception change by reason of holding on to the two back anchor points of the room, then there are two possibilities — three possibilities: (1) he went back inside; (2) he wasn't doing the process (you know, he didn't hold on to the two; you told him to and he's sitting there, but he's not doing it — that possibility, you see, occurs); and the other one is that he's in such good shape that merely contacting some MEST doesn't disturb him any. See, so you just pays your money and you takes your chance.

So as an example of the workability of this particular process, the hold-outs (which is to say, the few who would not exteriorize cleanly) in the Advanced Clinical Course in London are reported to have exteriorized.

But listen, if he's still interiorized, if he went back in, he'll come back out again on this process. So you just go on doing the process. Two, if he isn't obeying your orders, then you didn't sound the case — you know, you didn't size this case up; you didn't do a good human evaluation on him before you started to process him. You know? He's not doing what you're telling him to do, what you should be doing with him is Standard Operating Procedure 8-C's Opening Procedure. Good old R2-16 — that's what that fellow needed.

All the holdouts — you know, I think that he had maybe three or four there that were just dead in their heads, right there at the last. He exteriorized this whole unit, by the way. And he got down to R2-22. That was the total processes used — all of R1 and R2-22. That exteriorized everybody in that unit, I think, in the first two weeks of its teaching.

And, by the way, let me go into it right away (I may or may not have mentioned it elsewhere), but the place where you discover whether or not a person should be entered in Route 1 or Route 2 is not "Be three feet back of your head." It's whether or not he's got a comm lag while doing Steps 1, 2 or 3. You're doing Steps 1, 2 or 3, applying your knowledge of human evaluation, this fellow has lots of comm lags, and so forth — don't bother with Route 1, just go on over to Route 2. See, he won't be three feet back of his head. Long comm lags, and that sort of thing, and he's fouled up and he can't give you direct answers and so forth — go to Route 2. Run R2-16, Opening Procedure of 8-C. You see?

Now, the holdouts, the people who were having difficulty, blew on this one: "Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying your same space. Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying your same space. Give me some-thing else that you wouldn't mind occupying your same space." See? And they finally blew out of their heads.

I should have made that clearer there: you're only on Route 1 where the fellow had practically no comm lag. You were able to talk to him, get straight answers, and so forth. And you did this, and all of a sudden you said, "What do you know!" Route 1: "Be three feet back of your head." He probably is, you see.

It's obvious to an individual who is interiorized that he is his body, be-cause he knows two things cannot occupy the same space. That's the first thing you want to learn about that.

All right. So this "Hold the two back anchor points of the room" refers to somebody that's already entered and gone down Route 1, right? All right.

The other thing is, that the only reason the universe can stand out here and the terminals can interchange or anything else, is because the postulate is woven thoroughly into this universe and everyone is convinced of it, indeed — that two things can't occupy the same space.

How long would you do it? Well, you could do it as long as it produced change. You give it two minutes to really make sure that it is.

Now, if it were just a theory, as I told you before, the devil with it. It's not a theory. It happens to have been something which was worked out on a theoretical basis along with eighty-nine other theories that sounded just as logical. But this one happened to work, and on research auditing demonstrated its workability. And in the hands of auditors ever since this was re-leased, this has been a very workable technique and has been responsible for many case recoveries — particularly recovery of the ability to be.

I'll go over that again with you. You have no business being on Route 1 with a person who would have snapped back in his head. If he has bad comm lags and things like that, if you did get him out, he'd just snap back in. Furthermore, he won't obey your auditing commands, he won't do what you're telling him to do anyway, so there wouldn't be any reason to be running him on Route 1.

An individual can't be anything very cleanly if he believes he can't occupy the same space as something.

You understand that you can't walk around back of a thetan, making very sure that he is where he says he is. They're deceitful! And so the best thing for you to do is to size him up by comm lag and then choose your route.

Look, a thetan doesn't have any mass; he doesn't have any wavelength; he doesn't have any position unless he says he has. Well, if this is the case, and if he believed two things can't occupy the same space, then the only thing that he could do to be something, you see, would be in the same space as that something and consider himself absolutely nothing — without quality, personality or anything else.

You could, of course, choose your route by going into Route 1, say, "Be three feet back of your head," and then he couldn't be, so you go on to Route 2. But you've given him a failure, haven't you? And that will stand in the road of his later exteriorization. So don't give him a failure; exteriorize him when he's ready to exteriorize.

So he would be something fixedly, wouldn't he? Boy, would he be obsessed. Once he was in this thing, whatever it was, being it — whether a bed-post or a president; whatever he was — he would certainly be that thing.

Route 2, by the way, run all the way on down — somewhere along the line of Route 2, he's going to blow out of his head anyhow, whether you've told him to or not.

Wouldn't he have an identity, though! He would be a symbol. The definition of a symbol is mass, meaning and mobility. Therefore, he would not be an orientation point. You have to be an orientation point in order to perceive. Just follow that through quickly and you'll see my point.

All right. So we got as far, then, as holding the two back anchor points of the room, and he just seemed to hit a big comm lag at this point, and he's snarled up, and so forth. Well, his behavior right up to this point has demonstrated that he's exteriorized — he didn't have much comm lag and so forth. Actually, the process is just working like mad. That's the only thing that's happening here. So you let it work as long as it works. This is the least "workful" process imaginable.

All right, if this individual believes two things can't occupy the same space, and he is being something, then he won't be able to be anything else.

The only thing really wrong with this process is the auditor always feels that he ought to get in there and pitch, you know? — he ought to kick around things and run a show and keep things popping, one way or the other. And the preclear sitting in the chair — his chair — and the auditor is sitting in his chair, doesn't deliver to us the idea that a great many things are occurring. No lion acts or anything, you know? And the fellow simply sitting there, holding the two back anchor points of the room, minute after minute after minute after minute after minute after ... doesn't seem to be very therapeutic. Well, it's one of the more therapeutic things that you could do, if it is producing change.

You hang a medal on him and tell him he's a hero, and he's it. You say to him, with some holy water, "Your name is John Jones," and, boy, he's it. See, he couldn't be "Bill Smith" suddenly.

So we'd ask the preclear every once in a while, "Have you got them? How is it?" We ask him quietly because we don't want to jar him. This is one of those quiet processes. And we ask him to hold on to them, and ask him how it is and if he's having difficulty with it.

And yet his whole survival depends upon his ability to assume a number of identities! His survival depends upon his versatility, not his fixed beingness. His survival depends upon, not his ability to just call himself by different names, but to be different attributes, because a man has to adjust the environment to him. And if he's going to adjust the environment to him he will have to be able to occupy certain parts of the environment and change them, hm?

And he'll tell you, "Yeah, I'm getting quite a perception change." "You know, there's a lot of locks flying off," he'll say. And you'll get various manifestations. "Yes, I'm remembering a lot of things that ..." You say, "Well, just sit there and don't think, huh?" Of course, this is a lead-pipe cinch — to give him a lot of locks flying off — because the main common denominator of things he's suppressing is that he mustn't think about them. You follow how that would be?

Otherwise, he will stand there as a fixed mass, being adjusted all the time by the environment.

So, if you tell him not to think, all the things that are suppressed in his life will start to fly through the air, and they'll start to come right on up by him. That's a curious thing. You're just as-ising the blocks which keep him from remembering.

A rock is adjusted by the environment: The wind blows across it, erodes it; the rain washes on it; the birds chip pieces out of it; the earthquakes break it in half and the lightning pushes it into dust. That's adjusting to the environment.

Well now, you shouldn't advise him of that. He'll actually eventually get to a point where he actually can sit there and not think. And this will be the first time in his life he ever sat still and didn't think.

Now, an individual who has the idea that two things can't occupy the same space, of course, the second he finds himself in a trap, is the trap — and you never saw a trap get out of a trap, did you? A thetan can get out of a trap, but a trap doesn't get out of a trap.

Freud and fiction writers and other people have long told us that there isn't a single moment of the day or night when associative reasoning isn't taking place. Well, this was the way Freud made his bread and butter. He said it wasn't possible for a person to be quiet and not think. This was beyond his capabilities.

So he believes that he can't be things at will and independently, and change his beingness or grant beingness or receive beingness if he believes that two things cannot occupy the same space.

Actually, a stream of consciousness — which is followed by the very best fiction writers (Dash Hammet and the rest of the boys all do it; I used to be guilty of it, too) .. .

R1-10 is, then, an important process, is it not?

"One thought leads to another thought leads to another thought leads to another thought." The psychologist really turns a shotgun on your chest with that one. He says, "Well, really, all of your thoughts are being motivated and caused by the last thought you thought." Or, "What you saw in the environment, you see, that's what really started you thinking. And that starts this stream of consciousness, and it starts at the beginning of life and it ends at the end of life. And that's stream of consciousness, and that's the way people think." Well, that may be the way some nut that's teaching psychology thinks, but it's not the way people think.

Don't forget that process. Some day you'll be up against it — you'll be up against it with some preclear. He won't exteriorize; he won't do something. Hammer and pound, hammer and pound: "What things wouldn't you mind occupying your space? Some more things you wouldn't mind occupying your space." Don't think you'll do it in five minutes, though. You won't. It will take a lot longer than that. It's a long process, not a short one. And when he's exteriorized, you ask him the same thing, and all of a sudden as a thetan he'll suddenly realize, "Hey! You know, I really can be something." Ah, this will be a wonderful sensation to him. Important process.

So you're telling somebody to sit still and not to think. This is a new, strange experience — if you just wanted to do that, you know — sit still and don't think! He's exteriorized: "Hold on to the two back corners of the room. Sit still and don't think." He would eventually get to a point where he'd as-ised out his main suppressed thoughts, and he would be able to sit there and not think. And it'd be the first time in his life he had ever experienced peace! Up to that time, it's all been the chatter-chatter-chatter, gob-gob, walla-walla of machines. You know? They have critical demons and, you know, all their demons going, and .. .

Okay.

That, by the way . . . the psychologist thinks this associative reasoning is reasoning. It's not. It's demon chatter. People really don't even act on this associative stream of yap-yap that goes through their heads. When you take a bite of food, you don't say to yourself, "Now I am going to bite my food," do you? Okay.

Well, so you get him out of the habit of associative reasoning with this particular process.

Okay.