And this is the second morning lecture of January the 11th, 1954.

Okay. And this is January the 11th. We’ve had a week to get ourselves squared around and catch our breath and find out that it wasn’t too awful and so forth. And so let’s work a little harder and I’m going to spend this morning with you, one way or the other, on exteriorizations.

The reason we’re doubling up this way is because we have a lot of instruction to cover and the instruction itself is of two varieties. One, of course, is basic law and the other is its application. So you find me repeatedly talking about, first, basic laws, theory, and then you find me talking about application. Now, these two things are not today too far apart, so it’s very easy to put these two things together.

I want to take up several things with you very rapidly. One is automaticity, another is randomity, another is Opening Procedure a little bit more expanded, and a couple other items.

Now, it’s about time we got into some basic material. I want to first give you a nice brace of processes which are themselves, very, very productive. And one is ... I want to inform you, over there, I wanted to tell that, you know of course, that I told you earlier, I want to point this up: you know that any process in 8-C can be reduced down to Opening Procedure, done by walking a body around. You realize that, don’t you? You better, because Opening Procedure is a very good process in walking the body around. And for lower-level cases which are evading you, subjective processing is not very productive.

Automaticity is that which the individual sets up as a continuance of happenings, that which an individual sets up as a continuance of happenings without further direct investment of attention. Now, maybe you’ll understand it better if I phrase it that way. You got that? Without further direct attention. A continuance of happenings without further direct attention. That which the individual sets up.

Now, if any of you go getting on roan horses, pintos, dobbins and riding off over the hills and far away on this and interpret it in the fashion that an automaticity is something which is set up for an individual, we understand the US Army, for hire as usual, will

You should realize that subjective processing is very often quite beyond the preclear and very often you will be handling something in Creative Processing or mock-ups or something of the sort and your preclear keeps shifting the subject and you’re having a rough time with communication and a rough time staying in there and he’s having a rough time doing it, you know? And he’s kind of bouncing like we used to call it in Dianetics. Oh no. You’re just running subjective processing on somebody you better not be running subjective processing on. So let’s take a definition there. Subjective processing is that processing which is done in the fellow’s own universe. Objective processing is that processing which is done in the MEST universe or in other people’s universes.

59 furnish a firing squad at very, very low rates. Cost of the bullets, practically. They like the boys to get in practice, because ...

Subjective processing is too introverted for an awful lot of people and you could, theoretically, subjectively process somebody right into the grave. You could do that. And you know what a subjective process is. That’s just something done on a fellow’s own universe. And that’s getting mock-ups and Match Terminaling and moving postulates around and, oh, there’s lots-any of these processes whereby he sits still and . .. Let’s say he’s just sitting in the middle of the room exteriorized and doing mock-ups and this and that (in other words overhauling and manhandling his own universe) or he’s in a body doing mock-ups or Matched Terminals or something of the sort. These things are subjective processes.

Now, you think that’s very bad taste of me to say so. But do you know what you can do? You know what you can do by misinterpreting automaticity? You can extend a case upwards to a couple of hundred hours. Just like that. So it may be bad taste for me to say so, but it’s worse auditing for you to have done it.

Well now, you have to realize that after you go so far down the line with a case, a subjective process fails. There are certain case levels-an awful lot of case levels-where you don’t really gain anything by subjective processing, quite on the contrary, you lose things after a while.

Now, you can say, “Well, that’s just something we don’t have to know too much about and we’ll get by one way or the other on it, and it’ll turn up ...”

Now, any case will stand up to quite a few hours of subjective processing almost regardless of what condition it’s in-almost any case. And that’s what we call a limited technique. It’s limited by the number of hours it can be done.

No, I’m afraid you won’t do that. Because modern technique depends almost entirely upon the definition of (1) communication (2) duplication and (3) automaticity and (4) randomity. And The Factors which we are using are laid out and written in the issue you have of 16-G and which was issued to you, called “The Factors.” And we aren’t using anything else but what’s in The Factors and we haven’t been for some time. If you read The Factors again, you’ll find out there’s a heck of a lot in The Factors that isn’t carried out and worked out to its final, ultimate degree.

Now, Dianetics, almost totally, was a limited technique. It could be done so many hours and then after that, why, you’d hit the peak of improvement and then you’d start to slide off. Many factors were contributing to this, one of the factors would be poor or bad communication auditing.

Now, the listing I gave you there is not in order of importance. I don’t care if you put this in order of importance or not. If you were to put that in order of importance, you’d put duplication first. And one other factor that you would add on to it would be knowingness, lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolingness, eatingness and sexingness.

So, where you have communication difficulty-this is the criteria when not to use a subjective process, is when you’re having bad communication difficulty with the preclear. The preclear keeps asking you what you meant or what you want or he doesn’t know if he could do that or he begins to reminisce or something of the sort and his lines of communication are not the best. The auditor finds himself sitting there trying to get a word in edgewise and trying to get an auditing command through and finds himself arguing with the preclear, one way or the other. Under any of these conditions, subjective processing should be put aside in favor of something which is strictly an objective process.

And another factor which you would add on as very, very important, would be certainty. And another one which you would add on that would be very important would be nothing-something. And you’d also add on a viewpoint of dimension-space.

Now, oddly enough, there are a lot of sitting-still techniques which are objective processes. So let’s not overlook the fact that almost anything you can do can be done with Opening Procedure. Anything that can be done on a subjective process can be done by moving the guy around.

You know, you’re getting awful close to all you have to know. It’s just getting awful close there. There are a few more items scattered around, but the point is that these, known as precise definitions, are quite important to you. And if you know them as precise definitions, you’re an auditor. I’m not saying this is any effort to get you to imbibe and swallow forevermore what poor old Hubbard told you, but I’m just trying in my own mild, innocent - “You better sure as hell had make auditors out of them.”

Now, remember, too, that you can move a thetan around as well as a body. And Opening Procedure broadens markedly the moment you realize this. You exteriorize somebody and then thereafter you’re really doing some form of Opening Procedure, see? You’re moving him around, moving him around the room.

And you can take a thetan-any thetan, exteriorized, is in pretty shaky condition when you first get him out and if you do a lot of Opening Procedure on him, why, you’ll get yourself in pretty good shape.

Now, what our procedure is there, in SOP 8 and SOP 8-C, we are using a very, very positive piece of codification. Now, we’ve furnished a number of bins, in 8-C there, and we just throw techniques into these bins. And when you add up the number and names of the bins, you know, eight of them, why, you’ve pretty well nailed down the eight bins that we’re working with. And the names of those bins are quite important to you. And if you know the names of them, why, you can know them in order or not in order. You will still get by if you know the names of them and what they mean.

Now, you can also exteriorize a thetan—this guy is in pretty good shape; he does good mock-ups, he’s got everything. And then you exteriorize him and he’s apparently in good condition, but he’s not quite sure about the room and about where he is and where he isn’t and all of that sort of thing. And you’re having a little rough time with him there. Well, you’d be a lousy auditor if you didn’t realize that you’ve stepped the tone of the preclear down.

Our main difficulty with an auditor is that he strays before he knows. Nobody gives a damn how far you stray from basic data as long as you’re straying on the highway of basic data. But by golly, if you start straying before you know your basic information and know it so cold that every time we give a quiz you get a hundred and ten on it, now, you can stray then. You can get on your horse and ride far away and you’ll find out some places are dead alleys and other places are okay and so forth.

Well, thetan plus body could operate pretty well-you know, good orientation. He knew where the body was and the body knows where other things are. Now you exteriorize him and he doesn’t know where things are.

But, let’s get these fundamentals down pretty hard. Now, let me tell you, for instance, one of the formulas you’re working with. Now, I’m going to give you, by the way, all the formulas on SOP 8-C as they are worked out. I’m going to have them in your hands here shortly. Because the axioms and formulas on which it’s worked out are more or less what I’ve been talking to you about. They’re just precisely this data.

Well, of course, you’re just now operating a thetan independently without any great dependence upon the body, except for the communication line that he’s getting from the body-and the sooner he jettisons this one, the happier he’ll be, by the way. You just remember that you’re doing a breed of Opening Procedure on this person.

The material that I’ve just listed, however, stands above each and every one of these steps, see? You get this material in the steps and then we combine it in this way and we get a step known as “symbolization,” for instance, or we get a step known as "havingness.”

And you’re really-then you should be able to just understand this. I mean, lights should flash and bells ring on you, right now. This drill of “be in pleasant and be in unpleasant places” is actually moving somebody around, you see. And that’s really the definition of Opening Procedure, is moving somebody around.

Well, we go down, then, for the names of these steps into what is actually second echelon material. But this is the material you use in auditing. The material which I just listed for you and with some additional material, such as: what is time? Time is havingness, in human experience. And what’s energy? Energy is doing, in human experience. And what’s space? Space is beingness, in human experience - when we get into this material below that level, why, we have it moving out of just the field of livingness and get it applied to something very specific, such as auditing.

Now, one of the best techniques you can run on him is just the way it’s laid down there in Opening Procedure, but as a thetan. You exteriorize him and you say, “All right. Now pick a place to go,” instead of just “Be here” and “Be there.” “Now pick a place to go.” “Now make up your mind you’re going to go there.”

But this material, which I’ve just listed to you first off, is actually the woof and warp of livingness. And it applies in all directions. It applies to ants as fast as it applies to coconut trees. And your understanding of existence advances quite markedly when you get a data certainty on this.

Well, the odd part of it is, is you may find this is too tough for him. Boy, we’ve really got something here, haven’t we? This is too tough for him. Well, doggone it, it sure is awful easy when you’re walking the body around the room, isn’t it? There’s nothing to that. And yet we exteriorize him and it’s too tough for him.

You go out and look at a coconut tree and say, “Well, what the devil has communication got to do with this coconut tree? And what’s duplication got to do with this coconut tree? And what’s this coconut tree being and doing and having? And how does that regulate it? And how can I then better predict the course and activity of this coconut tree? And how can I extrapolate what its past must have been?”

Well, that’s why you get into Step la. You clear up a lot of his thinkingness exteriorized. And when you’ve cleared up his thinkingness, exteriorized, why, then you can do some Opening Procedure. And that’s why it says, “Step lb: If exteriorized, send him to pleasant or unpleasant places.”

Why, you’re going into livingness. Then you have no intentions of auditing the coconut tree. Well, maybe you do, but maybe it’s too early in the morning to go into how to audit a coconut tree. Actual truth of the matter is you can audit a coconut tree. But you go back to the machine that makes coconut trees. It’s a timeless floating ridge.

Now, you could just develop that Step lb as Opening Procedure, after you’ve cleared some of his thinkingness up. But if you find it’s too tough for him, why, you drop back a step. And the way you drop back a step is to clear up some of his thinkingness.

Well anyway, now there’s tremendous, tremendous quantities of terribly interesting and fascinating data, terribly interesting, very fascinating, that you can just stray off into and get lost in quicker than scat.

Now, it’s still an objective process to have a thetan, exteriorized, telling you three places where he is not. See, that’s an objective process: “Give me three places where you’re not.” That’s not a subjective process. The difference between a subjective and objective process comes up again on another definition: That which extroverts the attention is an objective process, by definition and that which introverts the attention is a subjective process. So we get extroversion-introversion.

That’s why, principally - not to agree with Johnny Q., the inevitable public, or to make it possible for several fellows who immediately wrote in and told them that Scientology was now acceptable to them because I had divided it into Scientology and Para-Scientology.

Now, Six Steps to Better Beingness, by the way, is designed as a sandwich. It’s an objective and subjective process, extrovert-introvert, step by step. See? Step 1 of Six Steps to Better Beingness is extroversion, Ten Minutes of Nothingness. “Look outside of you and find nothingness,” see? And Step 2 is an introversion-extroversion. At least the last time I looked at it, that was the way it was.

I wrote them back individually and told them that it might be acceptable to them, but they still weren’t acceptable to me. They hadn’t heard of Acceptance Level Processing yet so this made them kind of spinny.

All right. You can design a lot of processes on this basis of extroversion-introversion. And if you give the person as much extroversion as introversion or more extroversion than introversion, you’re going to sail along and your case isn’t going to do a sag.

But anyhow, our problem here is divided into Scientology and Para-Scientology on this order: what’s direct line and what you can find out about a specific sphere of data with direct-line law application.

But if you give this character a lot of introversion and very little extrovertive processing-you know, never call his attention to anything outside himself-he’ll eventually slump. His communication changes will get slower and slower and slower and slower and slower. And when communication changes are slowing, slowing, slowing, slowing, slowing, you just check up with yourself and find out whether or not you aren’t introverting this fellow’s attention, because here we have the whole problem of attention. Just whether or not his attention is going outside or going inside.

Now, I’ll give you an idea of what that would be. We would take Scientology, which would be the set of laws which more or less approximate exactly what I’ve told you earlier in the lecture and that’s Scientology.

Now, all his life the MEST universe and people around him have been keeping themselves in a state of sanctity by simply saying to him continually, “Put your attention on yourself.” Now, you as an auditor can sit there and compound the felony, compound the invalidation.

Well, now we apply it, now we apply it to coconut trees, and we immediately have Para-Scientology. See, the second that you apply the laws of livingness to something that is living or a sphere that exists, you have, then, something which is paralleling laws - paralleling knowingness or paralleling livingness - and we can start bailing out data. And it is no more than this: it’s an effort to get you to distinguish, very sharply, between a law, which is universally applicable, and data. And these are two different bins. Data - oh boy, oh boy.

These people who invalidate themselves, these people who are easily invalidated, have been put-said, “Put your attention on yourself.” Fellow walks into a brick wall and bumps his head. Of course, the brick wall said to him, “Put your attention on yourself, fella.” And this is introversion.

Ever since the Catholic Church reached down into the Catacombs and brought out Aristotle whole cloth about a thousand years ago, so the world could have some science they wouldn’t have to argue about (which is exactly what happened) - ever since that day, everybody’s been data-happy. After this boy Aristotle trained up young Alexander, he got himself a return on his investment in terms of natural philosophy gimmicks, gadgets and preserved elephants on toast being sent back to him from all corners of the world. And he sat there in one of the most superbly, beautifully endowed laboratories (if you want to call it that) imaginable. And had a vast number of slaves in all directions. You know, he was Alexander’s tutor. That paid in, that was worth money.

Now, this universe batters a guy at 360 degrees all the way around and it tends to make him much smaller. All right. If the universe tends to make him much smaller, then you’d better tend to make him much bigger. Which tells you that he has some of the smallnesses to clean up internally, which is his subjective processes, and an awful lot of them to clean up extrovertively. See, he’s got-oh heck, they’re 99 to 1. He’s got a lot more to clean up in the grand sphere than in the petite sphere.

And he didn’t do anything for the young boy particularly. As a matter of fact, Alexander was too much for him. And he sort of threw in his hands in horror and never used them afterwards. But what happened there is he took this tremendous quantity of inflow and he started cataloging, cataloging, cataloging. And if there’s any quicker way for an individual to bury himself or a science, it’s by the system called cataloging.

Now, there have been more philosophies that tried to hit this than you can count. There’s the yang and the yin, there’s the microcosm and macrocosm and so on. All they’re talking about is whether the attention is outward or the attention is inward.

Psychology has the pluperfect nerve to call itself a science and it does that solely on the virtue of the fact that it catalogs. You can call some fellow who is calling himself a scientist, a catalogist, and you will get a rather broader understanding of knowledge itself.

Now, the basic attention-you notice everything goes down to attention, finally. The second you get into flows, you’re into attention. Attention is very important: applause, eating, all the rest of this-attention, attention. What gets wrong with a little kid, you see him around, you can usually break it down to attention, anxiety for. And it’s very easy.

Knowingness isn’t cataloging. Cataloging is simply gathering data. Now, you can gather a lot of data on a case without attaining, yourself, any more real knowingness. You’ve got some data. It’s interesting, it’s fascinating to combine these pieces of the puzzle and so forth. But the knowingness, which stands over to the side of that, is quite something else. It would be as close as you could get to a native, or continuingly and a universally applicable, truth. And that’s the level of knowingness which people should gun for, which is a good common denominator to an awful lot of subjects. And once they get something that’ll go out through an enormous number of subjects and explain this and explain that, they have something very useful.

All right. Well, let’s see this, then, as looking outward or looking inward. And people are trying to make other people look outward at them or not look outward at them and they’re trying to manhandle other people’s attention. The upset of self-determinism is this upset of attention. People try to introvert the attention to keep them from being dangerous.

But they don’t have a datum. They have in essence - crudely, you could call it a mathematical formula. Because it is something which predicts data. And when you look for the data - it predicts that some data is going to exist and when you go and look for the data, by golly, you’ll find it there. And it just keeps doing this.

Now, the basic process on this is just like this and you do this process right now.

Well now, this is what would be the duty or activity of a basic law. The data which it finds is interesting, but is it basic law? No. And any time you want to louse up an entire educational program, when you want to ruin an institution of learning, or when you want to utterly wreck Scientology or anything even vaguely resembling Scientology, all you’ve got to do is confuse and identify those two things and you’re in. There you are. Confuse basic knowingness with data.

Now put your attention on the front wall.

You work a case off of data. And after you’ve got all of this data off this case, you might find it in common in some other case and you might not. But it’s just data. Now, where did you find basic law weaving through the case? Where did you find basic law showing up in the case?

Now put your attention on top of your head.

And if you found what you believed to be an evasion of basic law, why, be very alert. Be perfectly happy to consider the fact that there is such a thing as an evasion to a basic law. Be perfectly willing to consider this. And if you are that, then be doggone sure that you’re willing to look on both sides of it to try to prove the basic law does apply and try to prove that it doesn’t apply. Take both. Don’t be what you might call “slanted” in your data search or slanted in your evaluation of basic law.

Now lift your attention around and put it on the back wall.

You know, there’s many a fellow gets a wonderful theory and he goes out and spends 7 the rest of his life trying to get everybody to agree with it, rather than spend an additional five minutes applying it to find out if it’s right

Now put it on top of your head.

And you’ll discover, in your looking over of a lot of work that has been done in the field of science, that it could have been done much better if the fellow had not been so anxious to be right. That’s really all that’s wrong with your preclear, you see? He’s anxious to be right about his knowingness.

Now put your attention on the floor.

And a fellow starts running out on being right. And he starts to get - gradient scales at work here - and he starts to get more and more anxious about being right, until at last he can only be right. Not about anything, you know, but he happens to say by error that the Moon is made out of blue cheese, whereas he meant to say green cheese. And this of course is something he now has to defend with his life. Why? He said it.

Now put it on top of your head.

His opinion and his rightness are so terribly valuable that he has to hang on to them to the bitter end. Now, you’ll find preclear after preclear defending the most confoundedly stupid assessments of themselves, merely because they have to be right. They’ve said so and now they’ve got to be right. Well, when you get this manifestation into the field of investigation, you get chaos. Because the man who is doing it or the group that is doing it doesn’t bother to go on and look any further, you see? They just sit back and get combative about being right.

Now put it on the ceiling.

The only reason, if there is any reason at all, we got where we did in Scientology and things work the way they work lies in the fact that from early to late in this business I pressed to my bosom some of the material and teachings of Will Durant. And that is one of them. And you will find him talking about that many times. And that is straight whole cloth out of Durant, which is of course, to a large degree, whole cloth out of the entire field of epistemology.

Now put it on top of your head.

I suppose many philosophers have said this from one time to another. Because a good philosopher, and one who is very savvy, understands this instinctively. That he mustn’t, he mustn’t, for the sake of his own ego or for any other reason, color his basic theory in such a way as to promulgate an error. In other words, let’s be as happy to be wrong as to be right, in the field of philosophy. And if you’re as happy to be wrong as to be right, believe me, you’re really researching in an old relaxed frame of mind.

Now do the remaining exercise with your eyes closed.

Oddly enough, I actually haven’t given a damn here for twenty-five years whether I was right or not. That isn’t a pat on the back for me, it’s just trying to explain to you something about the data which you have and the process and the preclear in front of you and the application of that data. I haven’t given a darn. It hasn’t mattered.

Put your attention on the floor.

Because if one was wrong, you always learn something. And if one was right, why, that was fine. And this has been very confusing to people occasionally, because they have come up to me and expected me to feel bad about something I said two years before which now doesn’t appear to be quite the same breed of cat that it was two years before. And they expect me to eat crow or eat dirt or eat them or anything that’s handy and so forth. And I look at them very innocently and say, “Well, that’s right, that’s right, that was wrong, that was completely wrong. And it proved so.” And they try and worry me.

Put it on top of your head.

Well, people try to worry each other about this all the time. All they want to do is stick a guy with his own rightness. And everybody has been around doing that to you and doing it to each other and doing it to your preclear. They stick him with his own rightness. They try to show him that “there is ъ. great virtue in consistency.” Well, I’ll tell you what’s in consistency, there’s death in it, that’s what it is. It’s a fixed rigidity, which in itself allows no change of survival pace. And when you have somebody who is fixed on the subject of being right - you’re trying to change his survival pace as a preclear, you see? And you try to change that pace, well that pace is totally governed, really, by his ability or inability to change. And his pace is fixed, against his best interests and so forth, only to the degree that he is trying to assert his own rightness.

Now put somebody else’s attention on the floor.

So when we get into the field of fixation of survival pace, what is a fixed survival pace, we get immediately into what is a fixed rightness and we get in immediately into, actually, basic investigation in Dianetics and Scientology.

Now put their attention on their face.

So we’ve had a lot of variation here for three years. Actually, through no fault of mine or anybody else, we have a rather clear - cut curve. There’s very little that is off curve. That’s surprising! I mean, it’s merely surprising. It’s not congratulatory or anything of the sort. It’s surprising that a fellow could go along for that long and be that consistent without trying to even vaguely be consistent or give a damn whether he’s consistent or not. That’s amazing. And the reason that curve is that way is simply because the fellow didn’t give a damn whether he was right or wrong on the theory, he only wanted the theory to work.

Now put their attention on the floor.

People came around and expected you to be - “I - I - expected you,” for instance, “to take all of your pride out of inventing something or discovering something” and so on. Well, boy, that is the other thing that an individual shouldn’t do, is depend upon a piece of philosophic material for his own personal pride and aggrandizement. Ah, that’s horrible! Because that gets him right into the line of having to be right, you see? And here he goes!

Now put it on their face.

Well, I don’t take any pride in this particular - you would be amazed and you probably would not believe me when I tell you that it really doesn’t matter a damn to me, one way or the other, whether I ever invented Dianetics or the “science of front wheel spokes.” It couldn’t matter less. It has been of benefit, it has been of benefit to me personally because, as I say, I’ve dug myself out of a couple of graves with the stuff. And I’m tremendously interested in it and I’m very happy about it.

All right. Throw them away. And get two other people. And have one of these put the other’s attention on the ceiling.

But this isn’t depending on it for one’s pride. If you want to know, you’d be surprised what I personally am proud of that I have done, so on. For instance, I’m very proud of yesterday. I took a four-hundred pound motorbike cross-country, Arizona desert, see, burying it to its hubs and so forth, and got me and it in one piece back home again and that’s incredible. I’m trying to find out what these fellows do out here and why they don’t live long. And it’s an interesting piece of stuff. I feel very happy.

And then on the person’s own face.

And yet last night I cracked a case that was hanging fire for a long time on getting a new little tiny scrap of theory assembled. And I’m not proud of that. I’m a little bit proud of having helped somebody, but it hasn’t anything to do with this other. It is a very, very severe regimen which an individual must lay down about such a thing. And he has to lay it down very early in his work. And the work is as good as he lays it down, it’s no better. And that is, he mustn’t take his pride out of it, he mustn’t depend upon that work for his feeling of accomplishment in this life and he mustn’t depend upon his rightness to be bolstered and his self-conceit to be bolstered by the work. He just has to delete himself, as a personality, markedly out of the whole picture. And when he does that, then he of course doesn’t care whether he’s right or wrong and so we get a consistent curve.

And then on the ceiling.

Now, the only thing that ever warps a curve is the only thing that ever warps a preclear: dependency. He begins to depend on this or that or something and the next thing you know, why, he’s fine. Now, I don’t know, there might be a society where a man depended upon his wrongness. You see, theoretically you could have a society where a man depended upon his wrongness, like a robber society or something of the sort. He’s sufficiently wrong or he makes enough mistakes or something so that his fellows think well of him. You see how there might be such a society?

And then on the face. Now throw that away.

Well, when an individual begins to depend upon his rightness all the way down the track - like a bank cashier, you know, he depends upon his honesty and he sells his honesty. He’s got all this green stuff going through his hands and, well, he gets employed more and gets to spend more time behind a cage because he is honest.

And you put your attention on the floor.

And then he begins to believe, at last, that there is some sort of native virtue, some innate, built-in automaticity in Man at large which makes him honest or dishonest and this has an ethical value which is transcendental or something.

Now put it on the top of your head.

And we go back to 1792 when philosophy stopped in full flight - it just stopped. There was a smoking of brakes and everybody looked with complete white face at the work of the Great Chinaman of Konigsberg, Immanuel Kant. And believe me, he couldn’t.

Now put your attention on your inner world.

But his work is so fabulous in its complete twisted up, burrowed in, spun down, backward - sentenced way, that actually he stabilized, of all things, philosophy - the definition of which is unstable thought. Now, he stabilized it. He wrote the “laws” of philosophy. Today, you go down to a university to take philosophy and do you know that the sons of bitches teachyws philosophy? Can you imagine anybody teaching anybody philosophy? How could you teach anybody philosophy? And you get ahold of one of these fellows later and they’re a philosopher. And you say, “Okay. Philosophize something.” And they quote!

Now put it on the walls of the room.

You don’t hire one of these boys to solve a few problems in aesthetics or something for you. You don’t hire them to do anything except quote to another class on the subject of philosophy. But in essence, the only, only reason there would ever be to have a Doctor of Philosophy would be somebody who could philosophize. Even on that, it would be perfectly proper.

Now put it on the inner world.

And yet, in America, a philosopher is somebody who cracks witticisms on a store porch. Well, this was what proceeded from Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Because what? He stabilized something which shouldn’t have been stabilized. Because he didn’t know from nothing.

Now put it on the walls of the room.

This fellow and his ilk of his period were trying to die so hard that they had the colossal nerve to lay across the whole field of Western thinking this barricade: “Anything worth knowing is beyond the realm and ability of the human being to know.” And it didn’t loosen up till Herbert Spencer came along and says, “Well, ahem, I’m sorry folks, but I believe in Kant too and so forth and so we’ll only break this down a little bit. We’ll say, well, there’s the knowable and the unknowable.” Well, that was where I came in this picture: knowable and unknowable. Okay. It’s busted in half at least. Then what’s knowable and what’s unknowable?

Okay. Now grab ahold of the two back anchor points of the room.

Well, I’ll let you in on something. There isn’t anything unknowable today. But we at least, with Herbert Spencer, got some method just of that: a compartmentation by which we could break down this problem of the knowable and the unknowable. And so we get, actually, a basic law about thinkingness. If you take any problem and break it into its component parts and classify by its parts and solve one of the parts, you’ll find that that solution is native to the whole problem. It’s a tremendously interesting way of diagnosing a case.

Okay. Present time.

Let’s break the case down into eight parts, eight dynamics. And we’ll find out what’s Ю native to one of these dynamics will be slightly native to all of them. We’ll find a consistency, then, on all eight dynamics. So if we take any dynamic and we just work hard on this one dynamic, why, we’ll get enough clues to unravel an awful lot of case.

End of session.

We’ll find a trace of this through every dynamic. So let’s just break a life down into these eight component parts and, with these eight compartments, let’s find at least some entrance to the problem. In other words, like Herbert Spencer did, let’s at least bust the case in half. Instead of trying to look at a wholeness sitting in front of us - an unsolvable, impenetrable, utterly integrated wholeness which permits no entrance and forbids all approach and resolution and won’t look at any of the things that he must look at in order to get well, and you can’t find out what he isn’t looking at because he is carefully telling you that he is looking at anything that he isn’t looking at, in various ways, and he’s a complex beast. So if we just break him into eight parts, why, we will find quickly what’s knowable and what’s unknowable about that case.

Now you see what I mean by attention, hm? Become very clear to you?

Every case is a complete picture of livingness. Every case is a complete picture of Ц epistemology. Every case is a complete picture of aesthetics and data. Wonderful to think about this and if you were to think about it very hard without any solution, it would paralyze you. I mean, you can just. . . “What? We’re going to take this human being to pieces? Oh, no. No, no, no, no. We ... Gosh! In the first place, there’s a certain privacy and an individuality which we must preserve. And there are certain things which we mustn’t touch, one way or the other. Well, what are we going to do?”

Now, that’s all we mean by extroversion-introversion. And you must realize that some of these processes put a person’s attention madly on the inner world and some of them put them on the outside world. Now, when you tell somebody, “Give me three places where you are not,” you jolly well put his attention on the exterior world, don’t you?

Oh boy. You could think to yourself on this for a long time if you didn’t have two things: one, a pattern which will work it out for you anyhow, but the other, really more important to you as this group (and if you’ve been trained by me and you haven’t got this slant, I’m ashamed of you), is you can take the problem apart into component parts, any set of component parts, really, and find out that by solving one of the little parts, you’ve solved slightly the whole part. And you’ve at least got the pattern for some of the other or all of the other parts.

And if you just let him say, “Well, all right. Boston, New York, San Francisco.”

Let’s break this case down into arts and sciences. And let’s break the case down into those exact divisions which are laid down in the curriculum catalog of a university. You get how, apparently how far afield we are right now? All right. We make a university out of this case. And then we break him down into all the arts and sciences and so forth and, not educationally but from a standpoint of behavior, find out what he’s doing in each department.

And you say, “Give me three more places where you’re not.”

Now, this is a very, very crude, silly way to go about it, but we just reach out on this basic law of let’s compartment the individual and compartment the case and let’s just yank in a pattern of knowingness (a university is supposed to be a pattern of knowingness) and let’s just take this pattern of knowingness and look down and find out how he stands on chemistry.

And he says, “Oh, North Pole, South Pole and the Moon.”

And, all right, the Department of Chemistry. Let’s look over and let’s see ... chemistry? What’s he have the most to do with chemically? Well, that’s food. All right.

Exteriorization: Theory and Demonstration

We say, “All right, how do you feel about food?”

And you say, “Now, give me three more places where somebody else isn’t.”

And the fellow says, “Food? That stuff? Uuugh!"

And he says, “Oh, here, there” and so on and so on-he’s getting it. Like hell he is! Because the process isn’t being done. What’s the process?

You say, “Well, that’s the way he feels about food. There’s chemistry for you. Let’s see, now, if he feels that way chemically, then he won’t be converting anything.” And you say, “Do you take Ex-Lax often?” And you’re right. This stuff is ugh! He can’t touch this.

This is covert; most auditing is. The process involved here is making that fellow look in the direction of, and find out whether or not he is there. And when he does this skip, jump, zip, zip, he isn’t extroverting, and that’s all you’re trying to make him do. You’re trying to make him kind of look in a different distance and kind of look at Chicago and sort of look at the South Pole and get an idea where that South Pole is.

So he - food? Let’s see now. All right. “Now how do you feel about cosmetics and that sort of thing?” “Oh, terrible. You can’t touch them, so forth. And you have to have very carefully prepared creams and so forth before you could even begin to shave or something.” Chemistry.

You also can make him look for the South Pole and then change the location of the South Pole. There’s a big variation on that. Because as long as you make him look toward where the South Pole actually is, you’re making him agree with the universe, and this one we must avoid wherever possible.

All right. We have the immediate index of reach and withdraw for this character. We just entered it in one department.

Then you say, “All right. Now, let’s get whether or not you’re at the South Pole.”

Now, let’s go into the field of art. Let’s go into art and we find he’s terribly interesting in the field of art. He finds that they shouldn’t do it. He finds that art, well, he can go in for it, but he knew a young artist once and the fellow was obsessive on the subject, you know? He just kept doing it and doing it and so on.

And “Okay. Okay. I’m not at the South Pole,” he says.

Hm. We really don’t have to go too much further on this. This case feels that if he gets going in any particular direction he won’t be able to stop, so he doesn’t dare start or something on that order.

“All right. Now, put the South Pole over in the middle of France and get whether you’re not in the South Pole now.”

In other words, we could just go right through the university catalog, silly as it may sound, and we would find out everything there is to know about this case as long as we’re dealing with the basic knowingness about livingness.

Nothing. Just making him less dependent. Just weaving in to the technique another technique, which is simply this: the MEST universe has been telling him where directions are for an awful long time, and it’s about time he told the MEST universe where directions are.

See, here’s an application of it. It’s applied on any kind of a pattern. And here we’re going to deal with communication and duplication. We’re just going to ask the questions native to that.

So he says, “The South Pole is northwest of here.”

Communication. He said in the field of eatingness, “Nooo!” Don’t communicate, huh? Get that out there and so on. So he can’t duplicate food or attention, so this is a very interesting case right off the bat.

Now, if he can work this up to a point of where he’ll get that and he’ll get complete belief on that-he’s totally convinced, as far as he’s concerned. He’s totally satisfied that the South Pole is just northwest of Brooklyn-why, he’s perfectly happy. As a matter of fact, he’ll get happier and happier and happier about it.

But we have a simpler way of taking it apart than by a university catalog although, as I say, we can use any system of compartmentation. We’ve got the eight dynamics. One of the very, very innocent, sweet, calm, kindly and covert methods of attacking the case is to take some dynamic that he evidently isn’t very interested in. You know, we’ll discuss the problem of God with him. He’s not very interested in it. Modern world, fellow with a scientific bent, taught in high school where all is science, all is science. There’s God too, but we can’t eat as long as we peddle God anymore, so they teach science. I mean, it’s just about that rationale.

You say, “All right. Now, where is your childhood home?”

And so we examine God on the subject and he says, “Well... well... um ... God ... Well, I don’t know. There are a lot of people ...” We’re on our way. Everywhere is nowhere for this boy. I mean, it’s a fact. We’re investigating immediately a dynamic. So his standard, polite, social patter is disarmed.

And he looks around and he finally spots it and he gets it due west. And by the way, this technique is a little bit advanced. You understand, you run this on somebody who’s pretty low-toned and he’ll go zzzz.

Now this fellow, right away, right away - you sit down, auditor, and he sits down and you say, “Well, how do you feel today?” And he says, “I feel all right. I mean, I get along all right. And how are you? And how’s the kids? And ...” You’re into the groove. You’re auditing the social patter ridge, see? You don’t know anything about a comm lag. Now, let’s swing off onto a specific subject and let’s investigate one that he isn’t accustomed to talking about - God. “Well, live and let live, I always say. I don’t know, but it seems to me” and so forth. And you say, “Oh, no. My God, another VI. Heh-heh!”

In the first place, the test is, is does he know which direction these things are rather instinctively from where he’s sitting? And if he knows which directions they are from where he is sitting, why, then another proposition is indicated. But if he doesn’t even vaguely know whether that hometown is out in the next block or not or whether it’s north or south or-he’s all disoriented and so forth-you’re just going to disorient him further.

And up to that time you didn’t suspect it. But that’s because you’ve actually attacked the problem on a compartmentation basis. You haven’t made him unaware or something of the sort. You started taking the problem to pieces. And your preclear is a universe. And a universe has so many parts. And it’s got the parts that we talk about as the parts of knowingness. And it’s not a very peculiar thing that this keeps applying to preclear after preclear, simply because we’re perfectly content to talk about knowingness and, then, knowing the basic theory of knowingness, turn around and apply it to a specific thing to get data and to rearrange data and to change lookingness and thinkingness. See? We take this set of basic laws and basic extrapolations, just as I’ve given them to you here, and we’re now applying this to get data and to change data and to effect a shift. And we can effect that shift as long as we know our knowingness pretty well - what’s a basic experience - and then we apply it over to something that’s going to be a bin of data.

But there’s a lot of adaptions for this. You make him tell the MEST universe where it’s located, rather than the reverse. And it’s still an extroverted technique merely because he’s looking out. And that’s your total definition: he’s looking out instead of looking in.

And we’re as successful as we follow those steps. NoZ as successful as we suddenly look at somebody and think that at that moment we have to become a boy genius or something of the sort and know instinctively and feel instinctively and so on. Or confronted this horrible thing, another human being, and we’re going to do something for him and we’re going to worry about him, one way or the other.

Now, you see the difference between these two techniques?

No, that would be the wrong way to go about it. The right way to go about it is to know first what you know. You have a good data certainty. In other words, this basic knowingness, when applied, will turn up data for you and will rearrange data and it’ll change data.

All right. Now, I’m going to give you another little two-minute run here. All right. You all set?

You know the basic laws and so forth and, knowing this, you know about communication, you know about reach and withdraw, you know about agreements, you know about these various factors that go to make up the woof and warp of livingness. And you turn around, if you know those well, boy, you can just sit on your hands as preclear after preclear just solve, solve, solve, solve.

Female voice: Uh-huh.

Well, there’s dozens of ways to apply them and I’m giving you one of them. Take the preclear, as a problem, cold. And take the eight dynamics and slice him into eight dynamics. And he won’t talk about Dynamic One for the good and adequate reason it’s not polite to talk about Dynamic One. You’re running into a circuit the second you start to talk about himself. He’s not supposed to, society has educated him. Furthermore, he’s bad enough off that he’s to some degree playing the “only one” anyway. And so he’s sort of moved out and you know One, the First Dynamic, pretty well by just taking a guess at the average individual of his society. And we could describe him to a T, really, with a few sentences - what he’s supposed to do and not to do. We’re getting the basic agreement on which this case exists. But let’s get up to the Second Dynamic.

Now put your attention on your body.

Now, if we’re out in Hollywood, it’d be unsafe to open a case on the Second Dynamic because it would explode. But let’s get a little bit further from our social chatter and let’s move over into kids. Second Dynamic and sex. Well, Second Dynamic is sex all right, but it’s also children. Let’s talk about children. However, that has its liability because there’s a certain social response that is expected of him about children. So he’s liable to sidestep that one slightly and you’re still talking slightly about a circuit.

Put it on the walls of the room.

Now, hardly anybody in this society, at this time, really talks very much about groups. There’s very little social chatter on that subject. He’ll talk about the Republicans and Democrats a little bit these days but not very much. They have fallen off the Third Dynamic. But believe me, what’s wrong with the Third Dynamic is what’s wrong with the First Dynamic to a large degree. We take the problem apart, we find out that there is something about each one of these dynamics that has a good chance of being - you know, it doesn’t have to be wrong with every other dynamic, but there’s a good chance of it being wrong with the rest of the dynamics, too.

On your body.

And so we can undercut this case and suddenly find an awful lot about this fellow just by drifting off from that First and Second, drifting into at least the Third. And if you drift into the Fourth or the Fifth, you’ll learn many more interesting things about the case, but they will be native to the First. They have a good chance of being quite native to the First Dynamic.

On the walls of the room.

So you ought to know your stuff well enough so that if you simply start auditing the case and you run into some basic departures that are fascinating, you know darn well where these things are going to go and whither they drift in terms of this fellow’s aberration or his inability to exteriorize or something of the sort.

Now put your attention on your body and find no body.

We find out that he believes that “Well, ‘share the wealth’ is the best political philosophy. Ought to cut all this money up, you know, and give it to everybody in equal parts . . .” We’re looking at poverty orientation. Economy. Well, let’s just start in - just for kicks, just having found this out - let’s just start wasting things. So after we’ve wasted a couple of universes full of oranges, we find out he can have one.

On the walls of the room and find no walls.

Socialism is a very low-strata agreement. And this fellow’s pretty bogged down in agreement so we’re going to have to break the crust someplace. Social agreement is his problem. We just find that out by talking to him on evidently the (whichever way you want to call it), the Third or the Fourth Dynamic - actually, it’s the Fourth Dynamic - it wouldn’t take very long to find out an awful lot about this fellow, would it? But you’d have to know and be able to integrate something. This fellow says, “Well personally, in the standpoint of politics and so on, I actually believe in Pelvinism.”

Attention on your body and find no body.

You never heard of Pelvinism. And you say, “Well, what’s this? What is that?” Well, he’s very happy to explain it to you. It’s explained on the basis that there is no law whatsoever but the law of the family. And after you’ve integrated the law of the family... You expect this guy to exteriorize? What’s he doing? You’ve gone just that far and now you know. He’s trying to hold a family together. His whole goal is togetherness and you want him to be three feet back of his head. See? Those other fellows share the wealth, he’s going to be buttered all over the Universe - his basic agreement and so on.

Exteriorization: Theory and Demonstration

Well, you don’t have to really learn to think like that, but if you’ll see your way through enough fogs to think like that as you look at the case, you’re on your way with a preclear. They just won’t stop you. That’s all.

Attention on the walls and find no walls.

As far as techniques are concerned, there are certain, definite, positive techniques. And some are infinitely more workable than others, I assure you. The main difference of techniques is not the artistry involved with them but their workability. And some techniques are very good and some are, you know, all right, but they’re just slow.

Attention on your body. .. and find the body in a different place and no body there.

And some fellow complained, who has been trained in 1952, that we are not now using the techniques in which he was trained. Well, all right. That’s okay. It doesn’t mean that his techniques are any the worse off or they become less workable by common agreement or something. It just means that we’re trying to teach him the fastest techniques we know in the interests of more preclears solved in less time and so on. So a person shouldn’t feel upset about that.

On the walls of the room and find them at a different distance and find no walls there.

Well, our problem here and in instruction, and your problem in instructing people, will be along this line of trying to get them to see the difference between basic livingness and data-basic law and data, data, data.

On your body in a different place and find no body.

Because data is, oh boy. You try to instruct somebody using data only, without any basic integrating laws back of it, without anything from which they can figure out their data from, and you just go into a memory course, that’s all. Has him sit down and commit everything to their memory.

On the walls of the room at a different place and find no walls.

Whereas, if you give him basic law, you have to give him as well this: this is that from which we figure out - predict - data. Let’s take communication. Let’s find out that communication - a perfect communication is a duplication from cause to effect. A perfect duplication. We find the thetan, of course, would be very unhappy if he had to duplicate everything, so we find out that he’s unwilling to duplicate an awful lot of things.

Now put your attention on your body and find no body.

Okay. So we find out that he is very low on the Second Dynamic. We know this about communication and we find out he’s very low on the Second Dynamic. He doesn’t want anything to do with sexual relationships. Or if he does, why, he feels he wouldn’t be able to do anything about it anyhow.

Attention on the walls and find no walls.

Well, what do we do about this? Well, communication - that’s essentially a very MESTy sort of communication. All right, let’s take a look at it and see what the score is and we find out that he’s running no desire. There must have been something on the other end of the communication line which he’s unwilling to duplicate, which of course was first no desire and then he ran into somebody who had desire and so we’ve got him on two ends of a communication line and they aren’t matching, which adds up to a maybe.

On your body and find no body.

He won’t duplicate, so that’ll hang him with a maybe. And there’s probably somebody in the room with him right at that minute. I mean, he’s probably got somebody standing in front of him, somebody of the opposite sex. If this is a girl you’re auditing, it’ll be some male will be standing in the room right with them.

On the walls and find no walls.

What’s a maybe? A maybe is an unduplicated communication. See? So you’ve got both ends of this comm line. One end of the comm line is no desire, he’s on that. And the other end of the comm line is desire.

Now put your attention on your body and find a body.

Well, now that turns around the other way. At one time or another, he had a comm line which went the other way. He was on the end of it as desire and there was no desire on the other end of it. And then he’s also got the comm line where he had no desire and something else had no desire, which was a good, perfect communication which isn’t aberrative. And we’ve also got where he desired and the other end of the comm line desired but that isn’t aberrative either.

On the walls of the room and find some walls.

The one we’ll find hung up is where he has no desire and the other end of the line has desire. If he’s no desire, then he must be hung in one where the other end of the line is desire. And we inquire into this and he kind of twists his toes and he feels embarrassed to tell you about this, because you’re a opposite-sex auditor and mmm-mmm-zuzzz-zuzz-zu and so on and so on and ...

Attention on your body and find a body.

Well it turns out, actually, that he hated to mention this, but his mother was a nymphomaniac and he spent the early years of his life ducking her sexual advances. Otherwise there’s nothing aberrative in his case! See?

On the walls and find walls.

Well now, when you get the Second Dynamic and a desire - no desire (in other words, an unduplicated communication on a subject which is entirely a duplication subject), you run into something that’s very interesting, which disentangled makes a tremendous change in the case. Take long to disentangle it? No, you’ve got lots of techniques with which to disentangle it. What I’m talking about now is diagnosis or assessment, see?

О Now get the nearest tactile or pressure to you that you can contact there.

And we get down to another little thing that actually merits a basic communication law and that is that a communication line which is in suspense is a line which isn’t duplicating properly. The more MEST they put in the line, why, the less they duplicate, too.

ОAll right. Okay.

Any communication line which is in suspense with the case - you know, he has a circuit. Let’s put this a little further now. “Any communication line that’s in suspense isn’t duplicating properly.” He’s got a circuit. And every once in a while this voice says to him, “Oh, tsk, tsk, what a fool you are.” You know, he’s just got this silly voice. And there it is.

ОEnd of session.

Well, what is it? Well, it’s just an improper duplication. He resists duplicating this. And we get right off into automaticity. Then an automaticity has a communication line on the preclear, doesn’t it? And it’s a very strange communication line because an automaticity always becomes a randomity.

Feel groggy? All right. Grab the two back anchor points of the room.

Any automaticity becomes a randomity of the preclear eventually. So it means that you’ve got a sort of a communication line, the kind of a communication line that’d go across no man’s land. If you could see a picture of randomity as a no man’s land, with the enemy on the opposite side from the preclear, and the enemy is his randomity, you’ve got a pretty clear visual picture about what’s happening here. And a communication line that runs from no man’s land - across no man’s land from the enemy to the preclear is of course a very involved communication.

Now, if you’re not really touching these two back anchor points of the room, reach in from the outside of the room and touch them.

In wartime they have a very hard time getting people to do this sort of thing, you know? Getting messages across the lines. And this gets very involved, it goes various tracks and goes through various countries and, two countries are at war, it even goes to this: they find some other country half the world away to mediate between them. They’re shooting at each other all the time and communicating like mad, you might say, but there isn’t any rationale or thought can go on the communication line.

Okay. End of session.

See, a communication line doesn’t have to have thought on it to be a communication line, by the way. Just don’t get your definitions that precise. A communication line is simply a communication line. A fellow walks up to you and punches you in the nose and keeps on walking down the street. He communicated with you.

Now, you see this point a little better about extroversion-introversion? That’s all I’m trying to demonstrate to you. Hm? See that real clear?

All right. So we have this problem of this little circuit saying to him he’s a fool. Well, he’s had something he’s been unwilling to be. Any randomity is something a person isn’t supposed to be in order to keep the game going. He wouldn’t keep the game going if he became the randomity.

Now, you can extrovert on nothingness and extrovert on somethingness and introvert on nothingness and introvert on somethingness. So we’ve added “something” and “nothing” here to our process. See that?

So it tells you that all you have to do is swap ends on the communication line, which is for him to tell himself what a fool he is. Tell himself that a few times and - we don’t care if he identifies it or recognizes it or gets happy about it or unhappy about it. The way we handle this circuit and blow the circuit out of existence is just have him say these very words to himself and set himself up there.

Now, did any of you get a little perception jump while we were doing this?

Now, what have we done? We’ve just swapped the lines on the communication, that’s all. We just swapped ends. We had him be the other thing. And by making him be the enemy, it ceased to be an enemy. So we get beingness and communication and duplication and automaticity all in one operation. See those component parts?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, now I hope you’re getting a very happy understanding of this because it’s really very easy to understand. And you’re going to be overreaching it rather than underreaching it.

Well, we’re using mainline material, you might say, and so therefore you can always expect, in a majority of cases, you get a perception jump on such things.

Now, you see how all those things can tie in together there? Okay? Why don’t you take a ten-minute break now and we’ll go on into some exteriorization on this same thing.

Now, you understand that I haven’t given you here a process to be processed particularly on preclears. It isn’t necessarily a process that you would use on some preclear or wouldn’t use. I’ve given it to you to demonstrate the directions of attention. But you can use it on preclears. This is not something we call “Process 865-humph.” And the reason we don’t is because it’s too mainline, it’s too much theory to have a number. It’s just straight theory application. That’s just straight theory: extrovert-introvert attention.

And once you started giving everything that came out of straight theory a name or a number, this would become an inexhaustible series. You’ve got lots of them the second you’re on that groove. You’ve just got too many of them.

Now, look how many ways we can do this.

All right. Now, get your favorite hate in front of you.

Now look straight through it.

Now get it in front of you, elsewhere, and look straight through it to something beyond it.

Did it disappear?

Female voice: Uh-uh.

Well, you look straight through it, now.

All right. Let’s get it somewhere else and look straight through it to something on the other side or nothing on the other side of it, but look at something beyond it.

Did it disappear?

Female voice: Briefly. And then it came back.

Briefly and comes back.

Well, put it out there again and look through it again.

Okay. Throw it aside.

Now put it out there again and have it look straight through you and find nothing.

Throw it away. And put it out in front of you and have it look straight through you and find nothing now.

And throw it aside. And have it look through you now.

Now throw it away.

Now put your attention on the back of the room and find no wall there.

Attention on the body and find no body there.

Now find a body there.

And put your attention on the two back anchor points of the room.

And give me some places where you are not.

Okay. End of session.

Well, some of you might have had difficulty looking through this and one or two might not have been able to get something there.

Well, let me show you that hate is “stopped lookingness” and that to see at all, you have to stop lookingness. The whole trick of perception is stopping your lookingness or stopping your smellingness at a certain thing, you see, at a certain distance. That’s quite a trick. And there is the soul of perception, just in those few sentences. That is perception.

Now, you wonder why somebody goes blind or can’t see as a thetan. Well, confound it, he stopped his lookingness, long enough and often enough, to where he has an automaticity that stops his lookingness. And believe me, it finally stops it on blackness or no-seeingness. And that’s all there is to lack of perception. There isn’t anything more difficult than that about fellows who can’t see.

Now, I’ll give you an example.

Look at the front wall of this room here.

Now try and tell me that you didn’t let your lookingness stop at the front wall.

Audience: Yeah.

Well, what do you suppose happens to somebody that stops his lookingness for 76 trillion years? He never concentrates on starting his lookingness. He gets to a point after a while where he expects his attention to be attracted. In other words, his lookingness becomes an effect.

And as soon as it does, it will collapse. He ceases to be cause, he becomes an effect and the communication line puts him on the “E” end for perception. Unless he’s on the “C” end of the communication line, the Cause end of the communication line, he can’t see as a thetan, or he sees something haywire. You see that?

Seeing something haywire is worse than not seeing because he’s got an automaticity there, an additional automaticity, that puts up something else to stop his lookingness. It’ll put up new pictures. See, it’ll stop his lookingness. Now, he’s stopping his lookingness.

Now, you can run, and turn on and turn off perceptions like mad just by running this as an automaticity. Now, I can go over this again. I’m very patient. I’ll tell you again how you solve an automaticity.

Anything that is happening to the preclear, evidently without his consent, you make the preclear do. This at once makes him fethe other thing and makes him cause where he has been an effect. It reverses the communication line and makes him another beingness. You see that now? The law governing it is, anything the preclear is doing that’s not under his control is remedied by having him do it.

This fellow has an eye twitch-this is the most flagrant case I have on record. An auditor who knew this had a person come to him with an eye twitch. You know, the fellow is going like this, the way they do-you know, a tic. This is the easiest thing in the world to solve. His auditor knew this.

He processed the case for a couple of hours, and the fellow went away with his eye twitch. And I noticed the fellow going down the stairs and I said, “What the hell is this all about?” Fellow came in to have his eye twitch removed. That was all he was interested in.

And although it’s not particularly good auditing simply to dive in at some obvious point, neither is it bad auditing. Somebody comes in, you know, and he wants to be missing his eye twitch.

So I said to this auditor, “Why didn’t you remove the eye twitch?”

And the auditor didn’t take the dodge of “Well, I was just going forward toward Theta Clearing, the way we’re supposed to do.” He didn’t even take that road out. He says, “I-well, really,” he said, “I tried to track it down, and I-I-I’m sure it’s in birth.” Heh-heh-heh-heh.

So I says, “Oh my God.”

I said, “How about Sunday morning coming in and I’ll give you a stack of tapes and you can go all over it again.”

Well, he did it with great benefit. He came back to me with the brightest face you ever saw and he says, “You know what?” He says, “The eye twitch was an automaticity, wasn’t it?”

“Good.” Well, we had made our point.

How did he solve the eye twitch? By making the guy twitch his eye, of course. This is Q and A, this is all such things. There’s nothing to that. That’s just that. You just. ..

He would have had the guy sit there and twitch his eye fast and twitch it slow and decide to twitch it and decide not to twitch it and decide to twitch it and decide not to twitch it-and he even could have mocked-up somebody and had the preclear make his eye twitch. And then he could have had an eye twitch and find out who it was acceptable to or he could have done a lot of things with this eye twitch, see, without going into birth. And it was about a ten-minute or fifteen-minute job to turn off this eye twitch.

This, by the way, is the big one that in a completely alien field to us, psychiatry, if you can turn off a tic-they call it tic dolorosa. And if you can turn off tic dolorosa, my God, those guys break out the altar cloth and bow down before Buddha. They do, just bing because that is something it says in all their textbooks just can’t be done. Well, we’re really getting there when we can do this.

Now, there’s all kinds of automaticities and sometimes it takes quite a little while to Ц solve them. I told you about this fellow with his blush. But an auditor that wouldn’t recognize an eye twitch wouldn’t recognize automaticity.

Well, so this preclear gets a dog, see. And the auditor sits there and says, “Give us a dog now.”

And the preclear gets a dog.

And the auditor says, “All right. Now put the dog behind you.” “Now move it across the room.” “Now put it on the roof.” “Now put it someplace else.” “Now do this, now do that with it” and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

And if the session ran off just the way I said and you were instructing this auditor, you would say, “What’s the matter? Aren’t you interested in solving the case?” Because you didn’t ask him what the dog was doing. You didn’t nag him. You didn’t say, “All right. Now, you got the dog? All right. Now move the dog up to the corner of the room.”

Okay. He did that. The preclear says, happily, “Yes.”

The auditor isn’t auditing, really, who doesn’t say, “Now just how did you do that?”

To hell with how many times you ask him that. Sure, it keys-in all of his automaticities and everything, to ask him how he does something and so forth. So what? You can solve that now, so you don’t have to be afraid of turning the guy on and off.

So he says, “Well, yeah, I just put the dog out in front of me and moved him up to the corner of the room.”

And you say, “That’s all right, then.” You’re just going to drop the subject-oh no, you’re not.

And you say, “And what did the dog do?”

“Oh, well, that’s beside the point. He went out that door and in this door and across and jumped over the light fixtures. Oh, but I got him up here in this corner of this room.”

Now, you can or can’t-it doesn’t matter whether you do or not, particularly-handle every automaticity that comes up, but you sure better know what’s happening on this case. And if this is what happened and your object is to cure this guy of something or other or your object is to square him around and square his mock-ups around and get him under control, then you have the dog do the same course, more or less, that the dog did automatically.

And if the preclear can’t accomplish this, you at least alter the course of the automaticity. You let the dog fly around the room and give it a kick once in a while or something of this sort to change its course slightly, until at last he can get it under control. Can you see that?

And if it doesn’t come immediately under control in something on the order of fifteen, twenty, thirty seconds of this sort of thing, bing I mean, you’re just into a much deeper, more basic automaticity. You’re not down to basic-basic on such a chain. And if your purpose is to chase automaticity, then chase it.

But you just get the guy to do what he’s doing, that’s all, only you make him do it, see? Now that, in essence, is putting him under his own direction. And his case is off and his abilities are off, only where they happen without his consent.

This fellow says, “All I get out of life is just-I know, it’s just-[sniff] just bad luck. I-I build a service station and it burns down. And I-I-I-I-I marry this girl and she runs off with my partner. And I-I-I-I-I-I have a baby and the baby turns out to be green with purple spots. And I-I-I-I-I-I get-I go down to the store and I get a ten-dollar bill and it turns out to be a one-dollar bill. And this is just the way life goes.”

Well, really, honestly, he’s not doing it to himself, but it’s very peculiar that it keeps happening with such consistency. And anything that happens with consistency you’d better add up as survival pace. And this is an automaticity. He’s trying to change his luck or some such thing. Well, how do you make him change his luck? Just handle it as an automaticity.

Well, you can handle this up on a Creative Processing basis. You can handle it with ease if he can be creatively processed. And then you have him be bad luck. And you have him curse himself into bad luck. And you can do such things as have him put his hat on the desk and then turn around and covertly knock it off as he turns and then curse a devil or a demon or something for having knocked it off or blame you for knocking it off.

Now, I ran one guy like this who always had bad luck, he said, on just this basis. I mean, he put his hat on the corner of the desk and then had him turn in such a way as to knock it off and then curse me for it. And I had him do this several times and all of a sudden he says-big light dawns-he says, “You know,” he says, “that’s really what I do.” He said, “How did you know that?” he says, “I-that,” so on.

“Yeah,” he says, “these things happen” and so forth. And he’s-“Gee,” he says, “you know, I kind of remember when the service station burned down, I-you know, I know that linseed oil rags and so forth, laid in the pile, and I carefully kept that pile of linseed oil rags alongside of the barrel of naphtha.”

And he said, “Eventually, it caught on fire.” He says, “By golly. You know,” he says, “sometimes a fellow’s left hand doesn’t know what his right hand is doing. Hm! I wonder how many other things I’m doing like this?”

Well, he got quite spooked, so he had to be processed a little bit more-on what? On putting his hat on the desk and knocking it off covertly and then blaming me for it. And then blaming the chair for it. And then changing his mind and blaming the corners of the room for it. And then blaming his shoes for it. And then finally blaming himself for it, bitterly. And then, finally, just doing it. His luck changed.

A man sows the seeds of his own luck, there is no question about this. It also is true that strange and peculiar things can happen to somebody every once in a while without being a complete automaticity. Strange things do happen. But when they get consistent, uh-uh, he’s got it set, he’s got it rigged.

Now, you see something about processing. What the preclear is doing automatically, you make him do it. And you can have him do anything. Any automaticity can be worked out with automatic processing and there’s where your-Opening Procedure rather-there’s where your ingenuity may come in.

Now, let’s take havingness and work it with the body or work it with the guy exteriorized. Now, actually Burke was doing this the other day and he was plowing around with it and he was having very good luck. It doesn’t exceed our definitions and is a process which is a very interesting process, particularly the way he was doing it.

He had somebody pick up a couch, both ends of it, and then step back from it and feel degraded. And then pick it up and get “Oh, all this lovely mass, it’s all mine,” and then step back from it and feel degraded.

And he went on picking out other pieces of stuff in the room. And the fellow went from the couch, in backing up and feeling degraded, down to a match head. The guy finally was perfectly content to pick up a match head and feel that and exteriorize from the match head, that is to say, and you know, back up from it, and feel degraded. And the fellow’s concept about mass and havingness was quite changed.

Now, the case that is difficult to exteriorize has mass trouble and every time the case tries to exteriorize, their knowingness goes to zero. They exteriorize, but their knowingness goes to zero for an instant and they come back in and they don’t know about it.

Now, there’s many a preclear that you’ve exteriorized that you ask him at the end of the session, after he’s reinteriorized-you say, “Well, now, how did you get along while you were exteriorized?”

And the fellow tells you, “I don’t know that I was out.”

Well, while he was out, he was perfectly certain he was out. Well, you kicked back in this automaticity of having a body, which is mass, and it blots out his knowingness. And so we get a knowingness-diminution problem. See that? His knowingness goes down while he’s inside the body. And that’s the way it really is.

Degrading-just because one steps out, you know, exteriorizes from mass-you know, you exteriorize somebody from some mass and he feels degraded, is the inversion. That’s inverted. The original on the track, the earlier moment, is feeling degraded because he’s gotten into some. So you have to run it both ways to get both ends of the communication line.

Now, what is an inversion? An inversion is a swapped communication line. Things swapped ends, that’s all. So when the fellow outflows, he inflows. That’s an inversion. You know, you say, “Put some emotion in the wall” and he can feel the emotion hitting him hard in the face but not going into the wall. He’s getting it backwards. You know, when you tell him to put something out there, it hits him here. Well, that’s just a turned-around communication line.

There’s a demonstration process-not a good process, but it’s a demonstration process-whereby you just make the guy be two ends of the communication line. You just swap a communication line in front of him. You just have him mock-up or have a piece of string in front of him and call it a communication line (it’s just this literal) and have him be on one end of it and then on the other end of it. And you’ll just take a fellow with a yardstick or something and make him reverse the yardstick in front of his face. He doesn’t know anything about communication lines. He starts feeling mighty funny, mighty soon, because communication lines are actually lines. And most people are on the line, not at C or E. They consider themselves particles. They’re symbols, particles, they are a piece of mass.

All right. Let’s take a look now at hate in this universe and you’ll see what I’m driving at. Hate, or any ridge-and all of them contain, to some degree or another, hate-is necessary to stop somebody’s perception. An individual gets so he doesn’t like things very well and that’s what he feels is wrong with him. He doesn’t like living. He hates it or he’s in apathy about it. Well, apathy is a ridge, hate is a ridge, boredom is a ridge. And you’ve got a whole series of ridges there that are various emotions and the central pinpoint emotion is hate.

So he looks at that wall over there and he stops his lookingness at the wall. And after he’s looked at the wall enough, by golly, he doesn’t feel good about life. He doesn’t feel good about life at all. Well, what’s the point here? He’s actually dramatizing one of these undesirable emotions, by looking at a wall. So long as he expects the wall to attract his attention, he wants to be the effect of the wall, then he winds up by having to stop his looking. And he winds up blind after a million years or two.

Well, now, there’s nothing wrong with looking at walls. One of these drills which puts his attention out on the walls of the room, for instance, simply shows him that he can look at the wall without going blind. And this is something new, he’s trying to . . . And so a lot of people get an awful lot better just by walking over and patting a wall. They can perceive a wall and they’re not struck dead. They feel if they really saw the wall that they really would go blind. Well, now, the truth of the matter is, they have to stop their looking to see. You have to stop smelling to smell. You have to stop hearing to hear; you have to stop sound to hear. That should be quite obvious to you. You have to stop perceiving to perceive. And so we get on the handsomest set of maybes you ever saw.

Now, you as an auditor, knowing this, should be able to turn on almost anybody’s perception. How do you get him to do it? Well, you have him see things and look through them, of course. And then have something else on the other side look through things at him.

The most reliable process is that process which specializes in nothing, in looking throughnesses and in nothings, because the only machines that are actually going to cause you a lot of trouble are the unmockers. Two kinds of machinery, the mock and the unmock. Two kinds of automaticities, mock-up; unmock. And the poor fellow who has decided never to unmock anything anymore, of course, is getting everything unmocked automatically because he’s simply selected that automaticity out for his randomity.

You understand that? The fellow who decides that he’s going to live and let it all be there and he’s going to preserve everything and he’s not going to waste things ... The one big booby trap in Lao-tzu’s The Way, by the way-the Tao, is economy; everybody must practice economy. Oh boy. That means you’re going to save everything, heh-heh. Just let’s all slit our throats. Because the second you say that, then you choose out for your randomity the unmockers.

All the machines you ever set up within your beingness to make things disappear are chosen out by you as your randomity, as your enemy. If you’re having trouble understanding randomity, just substitute enemy for it and you’ve got a better understanding of it, if a less exact definition.

So what happens? If he wants to make everything survive and persist forever, he has immediately canceled out and not taken any further responsibility for all those things which he has that automatically destroy things. So he’s set up all of his unmockers as his enemy. He’s got a lot of unmockers, believe me. He’s got just as many unmockers as he has mockers-gadgets, machinery to get rid of things which he has set up.

Now, he’s got a machine (nearly everybody has a machine) that says, “Well, no-if I mock-up something and forget about it, this will unmock it.” You know, he’s left this mock-up outside the cave or something and he runs over it one day. And he bumps into it or another mock-up bumps into it and he decides this is cataclysmic, that his memory is not reliable or something. And he decides for the sake of the game to set up a little machine that, after he has forgotten about a mock-up, it will be unmocked. And that’s an unmocker.

Now, life goes along and a lot of things get destroyed and he decides that everything has got to persist now. He’s just chosen out that automaticity-you see, an automaticity isn’t necessarily a randomity until you really make it so. And then the fellow says all of a sudden one day, “Everything is going to persist now. We’re going to save everything and everything is going to continue. And we’re not going to change things and ...” Oh boy. At that moment, all of his unmockers become his enemy.

So he tries to put up a mock-up and, of course, it disappears. And he says, “Oh, my, my, the gods are afflicting me,” with his belly full of rotten whale. “The gods are afflicting me because they’re unmocking all of my mock-ups.”

That’s what we call a God trick, by the way-unmocking somebody’s mock-ups. They say, “What? Your mock-ups are being unmocked? Oh, you poor fellow. I guess God has got it in for you.” One thetan does it to another. He goes around and knocks the other guy’s mock-ups kicking, you know, or steals them or something of this sort. And then he sympathizes with him for having lost them and tells this other fellow how afflicted the other fellow is. The God trick. They dramatize that in churches and so forth. Well, you see that trick, by the way? You’d better know it in passing just as a glance; never mention it again: the God trick.

You run into some thetan, he’s got some nice mock-ups there and so you eat them up or make them disappear or something and then he hasn’t his attention on them. And then you say, “You poor fellow, you poor fellow. God is afflicting you. I heard of a fellow whose mock-ups disappeared like this and he found out later that he had offended the great deity Spazwaz. And Spazwaz, you know, occupies all space and eats up mock-ups.”

And the other fellow said, “Oh, woe is me.”

He now has a hidden influence. And the hidden influence and the invisible barrier are dramatized by people who wear glasses. Also by anybody who uses eyeballs to look through. You know, he never looks at the eyeballs. He looks through them all the time and tries to pretend he’s not looking through an eyeball. And after a while, of course, he has this wonderful and interesting thing occur. His attention inevitably falls on the eyeball because it’s become such a strain to continue to overlook the eyeball.

So you get the invisible barrier. But the invisible barrier and the fact that it can exist rather gives a fellow the idea that something else can exist, which is to say, a hidden influence. So he looks for deeper significances beyond everything. He never takes anything on the flat plane out there, where it’s completely visible, he looks for some deeper significance.

Now, the fellow who has unmocking machines going which unmock all of his mock-ups, and which mock-up blackness so that he won’t have to look at the mock-ups and so forth, has gotten into this situation: Everything is unmocking around him. So he says, “Some hidden influence is doing this to me.” And you as an auditor are sitting there auditing him and he keeps expecting you to mysteriously vanquish and banish this item called an unmocker. He expects you to solve the hidden influence that’s making his life go haywire. You see that? Hm?

Note: This lecture and demonstration is continued on the next disc.

•DEMONSTRATION

What’s the hidden influence? The hidden influence is an automaticity that he has selected out for his randomity. A fellow who is trying to survive and persist only and never destroy has, of course, selected out all of his unmockers as his randomity. So they, of course, are quite active.

Now, he feeds them energy. He doesn’t give them direct attention. You notice in the earlier lecture I said “direct attention.” An automaticity is never otherwise than given some kind of attention and it’ll drain a guy dry of every energy he can put out or gather up or do anything of the sort. It’ll just drain him dry. It’s a vampire mechanism. .

He says, “I’m not giving this unmocker any attention. I’m not! I don’t want to unmock my mock-ups. I like mock-ups.” See that? And yet by conduit and circuit and around Robin Hood’s barn and over the hills and far away, he is feeding a terrific amount of energy to that unmocker. Of course, he’s really not using energy at all, but his attention, by relay systems, is going to it-by an associative system, is going around here and actually empowering this thing which is destroying him.

A person is only destroyed by that which he himself creates. And this is a fundamental law. This isn’t just a philosophic observation, as it might well be. The only ethical crime is to deny yourself. I pondered that a long time and finally automaticity and randomities and case solutions suddenly turned it up as a fact. Because you go back and dig Mama out of the grave and have her come up here and straighten him out. No, sir. By your auditing of his foibles, he straightened out, which told you immediately the only mistake he ever made was to deny himself.

So he sets up an automaticity and then he says it isn’t his. That’s self-denial and denial of self, see? And then he’s a victim. Whose victim? His own victim. But he’s feeding this stuff covertly around the other way. So the fellow who is making things disappear is, of course, unmocking-madly.

Now, let’s get into another phase of this very rapidly and that is that this unmocking machinery-all of this gimmick stuff and so on-is based on the fact that there’s more validity to nothing than there is to something any day of the week.

Processing a nothingness is actually more important to an auditor than processing a somethingness. If you had your choice between processing a nothingness and somethingness, you’d better process the nothingness. It’s better to process the space around the mock-up and duplicate it than it is the mock-up. That’s just a little general rule.

Of course you’ll run into the guy’s thirst for havingness and various other things, but you’ll get further in the long run if you concentrate on nothingness than on somethingness, because the truth of the matter is, is functionally it’s all composed out of nothingnesses. The amount of substance in the universe, even to a nuclear physicist, if all reduced down, wouldn’t be much of a challenge to the head of a pin. It’s composed of space. Do you see that?

So you process nothingnesses, you’re processing the better part of the universe. And you process somethingnesses and you’re just confirming this guy’s search for something, and he’ll search for something for a long time.

And now we want to turn on perception. All right, perception is stopped lookingness, isn’t it?

All right. You can turn on the damnedest feelings of weakness in a preclear. You can just make him sicker than a pup processing nothingnesses, because his whole career he has been going on trying to find something. See that? His whole career is based upon finding something, isn’t it? Amounting to something, being something, and never running into a nothingness of food-you know, having food and having money and so forth and his nothingnesses he chooses out on the bad side of the ledger. He wants no sickness. He’d be a hell of a lot better off if he just started out at the beginning saying he wanted no money. He would now be drowning in the stuff. Inverted universe, you see. But he’s never really gone on a “no” basis of anything.

For instance, the medical profession doesn’t even vaguely go out for “no sickness.” They’d all starve and they know it very well. Their gags and stories they tell on each other, and to each other, are for the most part based on this sort of thing.

The only aberrative experience, for instance, Susie had in the hospital, was three doctors coming in about six, eight hours after she’d delivered and having a big confab-and talking about this terrific appendectomy that found this beautiful girl all rotten inside. And they held this conversation on, with a beautiful glee of insanity going on the thing. They instinctively were doing exactly what they would do in order to aberrate somebody and get somebody loused up and make somebody sick.

That was the only pain she held in suspension, was a pain in her side, and she couldn’t understand where this pain in the side came from. And she was sufficiently blotto, you see, that some of this conversation went through. Because she resisted the presence of people to some degree, the way anybody will who’s had an experience, you see? And simply the resistance to people would key this in and would suddenly get her confused and mixed up with something else. You know, it’s happened to-it probably spun most preclears you run into.

But I ran this condition simply by getting the nothingness of doctors and getting an abundant nothingness of doctors. And we found out that getting an abundant nothingness of doctors was quite a job-to get enough nothingnesses of doctors.

All right. Now if you’ve noticed, every once in a while your preclear will see something-his perceptions will start to turn on and then all of a sudden they’ll go off. And almost all of you had the experience of getting somebody’s perceptions pretty good and then having him shut them off willfully and viciously and just to spite you. Well that isn’t what he did. That isn’t what he did. He ran into an automatic flinch. And you put that down, make it a technical term, an automatic flinch, and it’ll suddenly describe to you what happens when this happens.

This fellow is doing an automatic flinch from hate. He’s doing an automatic flinch from hot stoves. He’s doing an automatic flinch from things that will get him into trouble. And he’s set this up as automaticity. He’s set an automaticity up “that will get me out of trouble before I get mired in too deep,” see. “If I walk into this theta trap, why, this automaticity will get me the hell out of that theta trap before I can get trapped,” see? And that’s an automatic flinch. And when you do an automatic flinch too often, of course, the fact that you-just seeing a wall is stopping lookingness, you see that an automatic flinch is a shut-off of lookingness.

Every once in a while you will have the experience of a preclear will suddenly get this beautiful, solid, three-dimensional mock-up and go ping! Off it goes! He’s scared.

The manifestation of the flinch is so thoroughly installed that the second he sets something up that is solid, that he sets up, he flinches from it because he knows, as well as he knows his own name (probably much better than he knows his own name), that he is the one who gets himself into trouble. So he sets up something to flinch from it. And he sets up something, the automatic flinch sets in and the mock-up disappears and off goes his perceptions. But it isn’t something he’s doing consciously or willfully.

What’s happened there is an automaticity is turned on and the fact that he flinches is of course a dispersal in reverse. You get that? There’s a dispersal around the mock-up, so he believes then he is afraid of it, merely because he pulls out so fast. And fear is pulling out, so he’s scared. So you look in vain for any deeper significance to these manifestations. The fellow sees something and it scares him. He does an automatic flinch.

Now when a person sees something that is new, surprising or that he doesn’t understand, he does an automatic flinch. It’s an automaticity. So one of the things you can do is to go around and have him look-this is Opening Procedure in a body or exteriorized-have him go around and do this.

Have him go around and look at the ashtray and then suddenly say, “UM! no, no, no, no.” And go around and look at a corner of the room and say, “UM! no, no, no, no.” And do this damn fool automatic flinch, see. And you do it in its various forms, such as automatically letting go of something. You have him close his eyes and put something in his hands and have him let go of it before he can recognize it. See? And that’s an automatic flinch. He’s gotten to the point where he won’t even look at something. And the other thing is to make him look through things.

And now I will give you a little tip here which we would call-you know it’s quite remarkable, somebody says, “Scientology is a religion and that’s going to be the end of this, and Scientology is-so on and so on.” It’s very, very silly. For the good reason that we’ve invaded the entire field of livingness. So of course there is the religion of Scientology. There is the science of Scientology. And you could get into almost anything.

Well here’s, really, Elizabeth Arden Scientology. Now you want some Elizabeth Arden Scientology?

Female voice: Uh-huh.

Well, I wish I had a bunch of dime store mirrors here for you to practice on the next hour because you’d see something fabulous about this; but most of you girls have got mirrors.

All right, take a mirror out if you’ve got one there.

Got them? Tell me when you’ve got your mirrors.

Okay.

Now, just look in this mirror (and by the way we could make eighteen thousand billion dollars, I mean, just like a breeze by selling magic mirrors), [laughter]

Now, you look in this mirror, [laughter]

Female voice: Ooh! Automatic flinch, [laughter]''''

Yeah, automatic flinch.

All right. Now look in this mirror. (You can actually run out the automatic flinch this way. I’ll show you that one first.) Look at it and flinch, [laughter]

Female voice: I did. [laughter]''''

Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter]

That’s right.

Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter]

Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter]

Look at it again and flinch.

Female voice: Oh, God!

Good. Look at it again and flinch.

Audience: [sighs]''''

Look at it again and flinch.

Audience: [sighs]''''

All right. That’s the first part of the exercise.

All right. Now the other one is much, much better and this is the one that we would use-for broadly.

Now you look in that mirror and see there your ideal self. Don’t see your MEST self at all, see. See there your ideal self.

Female voice: Oh!

Don’t pay any attention whatsoever to the image, just look at the image and actually see in its place your ideal self.

Now do another flinch.

Okay. Now look at it now and look at it very fixedly and see your ideal self. Don’t pay any attention to your MEST vision of you at all, just see your ideal self in that mirror.

Audience: [various reactions]''''

Just see your ideal self in it.

Male voice: Has to be put there.

All right, put it there.

Male voice: What is it?

Just whatever you have to do to see your ideal self, just get the total fact that you’re looking right straight at a mirror image of your MEST body’s face, but see your ideal self at any depth you want to in the mirror.

All right. Now you guys practice it too. You see how to do this?

Female voice:. . . did your muscles really pick up?

Um-hm.

Female voice: Sure.

Oh, sure.

Female voice: Yeah, we get ourface lifted-faces lifted, [laughter]

This is Elizabeth Arden Scientology, [laughter] Elizabeth Arden, very, very old and very knocked apart, lives right here in Phoenix at this time, by the way. If some of you were to get hold of her and just give her that as a prescription, you would turn her on again.

All right. What does this do basically?

Female voice: Breaks agreement.

That’s right. It breaks the agreement with the MEST universe on appearance.

Oh yeah, sure, sure. You look at things that aren’t mirrors and assume they are mirrors. Male voice: You mean this is the next. . .

Female voice: You mean this is the next step?

Yeah, this is the next step, is look at things that aren’t mirrors and assume they’re mirrors and see your ideal self. See that’s really busting it with the MEST universe. But the other is plenty good.

Now the rest of the trick-yeah, I’ll just mention it briefly, it kicks you out of past bodies and that’s how valuable that technique is. See it’s a lot of fun to your preclear. You see how much fun that is?

Female voice: Yeah.

Well, that’s real painless processing.

But don’t be too amazed if you were to have him on an E-Meter and to see almost immediately the theta bop, which indicates a guy stuck in a body someplace on the track, see that theta bop turn on. Because he’s got his track collapsed back to the point when he had what he considered an ideal body.

And we get into the problem of processing a beautiful woman. And that’s a real tough problem, processing a beautiful woman-trying to exteriorize her. You get a woman that’s even vaguely close to pretty or who has found that her beauty has given her conquests with men, something like that, and you start processing her and you start exteriorizing her-no, no, no! Somebody’s liable to steal this mock-up and all kinds of other things are liable to occur there.

And you start to exteriorize them, they start to get frantic, something like this. Or they’ll find fault with you. They’ll decide that they are a body and they’ll dodge around. You have to put the various emotions, which turn up as you try to exteriorize them, in the various walls and put them in false walls, that is walls that are out further or in closer than actual walls.

And the other part of this is, of course, is looking throughness. And if you look at something you validate its distance and therefore you validate hate. And when you look through things you validate love.

Female voice: Hm.

You validate love.

Did you ever notice a fellow who is angry-here’s a little manifestation of it-а fellow who is angry is always saying, “Look at me.”

Female voice: Yeah.

Yeah. And then they try to call it down on the track by saying, “He looked straight through me as though I wasn’t there.” And this is supposed to be something very, very sad.

Now, the man is always falling in love with the woman he puts there. And the woman is always falling in love with the man that she puts there. And they very, very seldom fall in love with the person who is standing there. And this leads to a great deal of emotional disturbance and divorce courts. Because we run into granting beingness at this point. They grant beingness to this other person.

It’s quite effective, this granting of beingness. I have seen a harlot turn into a chaste woman with a tremendous personability, quite the lady, simply because somebody had granted her beingness to such a degree. And then this busted up and so forth and, boy, she went appetite over tin cup down the slot again. And I’ve seen some bum that wouldn’t work and wouldn’t do anything in life, turn into quite a beaver and be a terrific guy for the length of time that he was married to some woman who was granting him beingness. And so we run that little manifestation out with this mirror trick. And it’s done with mirrors to get a lot of this stuff up, and that is the most direct procedure which I know, by the way.

Now you’ll get a flip-flop on this mirror. The guy will interiorize into the body, which he’s seeing in the mirror, if you make him concentrate on that body. So you want to watch for this. If the guy flip-flops he’s just seeing his own face there.

There’s a theoretical psychotic technique you could use in an institution, that you would put up a series of mirrors so the fellow would see himself Match-Terminaled in profile.

Real tricky, huh? And he would actually run out some o£ his worser characteristics. You just sit him in a box.

Now that is so far superior to electric shock or anything they are doing today that it would appear to be a major miracle to psychiatry. Just a couple of mirrors. We’ll get some of the boys together someday and build some kind of a coffin arrangement on this before this Unit is over. We get some time and we’ll test this out and I’ll show you how it’s done and show you how one is made.

There are about four methods of treating psychotics today, all of which obviate auditing of psychotics. And if you’ve seen a Scientologist get into bad condition, it’s generally been because he’s had to audit a psychotic.

I had a letter from a very pathetic lady who was auditing a young man and was doing all right in Dianetics for a couple of years and then started to audit this case, only she didn’t add it up this way. The world sort of caved in on her and of course this fellow won’t really kill her, but he keeps saying this all the time. He’s lived with her now for eight months and she’s in real difficulty and so forth. She’s been auditing a psycho.

Well, she goes into communication with a psycho and of course she’s unwilling to be the other end of the line. And an auditor who is operating under that much pressure on this comm line, who himself is not in excellent condition, of course can sooner or later expect to be fouled up. Which tells you why medicine and psychiatry haven’t got a chance as professions. A man in those professions hasn’t got a chance as long as he is without a remedy for what is happening to him, which is the C and E communication line. See, and he has no remedy for the С, E communication line.

Now, how would you audit a psychiatrist? Well, actually you wouldn’t audit him with a subjective technique, you’d audit him with Opening Procedure-real carefully.

Now one other tip about Opening Procedure. It works with great ease as long as 7 you pinpoint positions. You see that. And we’ll call this pinpointing. And an auditor omitting pinpointing is not solving the main condition which is the trouble with some of his preclears and that is they’re (quote) ‘‘buttered all over the universe.” And it’s this pinpointing itself which brings in an enormous amount of certainty. And as long as I’m rolling on this I’ll give you the other one, just to bog you down, as a variation on Goals Processing. It’s a plus and minus, that is to say, “What can you do?” and “What can’t you do?” in brackets. And the others to others, of course, is “What can’t somebody do to somebody else?” and "Give me some things somebody can do to you now” and “Something somebody can’t do to you now.” “Get somebody else now, give me three things which he can’t do to you” and “Three things which he can do to you.”

And “Get somebody else out there now and give me three things which you can’t do to that person” and “Three things which you can do to that person.”

And “Get two other people out there, now get three things the first can’t do to the second” and now “Three things which the first can do to the second.”

“Now get three things which you can do to yourself, three things which you can’t do to yourself.”

“And somebody else, three things which he can do to himself, herself and three things which he can’t do.” All right.

Now, that is an extension of Goals Processing and this, beware-beware your certainty on this, because people who are in bad condition believe anything could be done to them by anybody. There is the first time we have crossed terminals very neatly with Goals Processing, with brackets and with-well, there’s something very important there, is the solution-direct solution of justice.

And you’ll find there’s an hour tape in the Second Clinical Unit on the subject of justice. I’m not going to repeat the subject, it’s just that justice is important to people, very important. So, the solution of justice is solved by this little process I just gave you. And this is a process all by itself. It is unfortunately a subjective process, but it can be used objectively, just to say, a la Opening Procedure. “Now do some things which you can do,” and that’s as far as it goes on Opening Procedure, and actually is all that is necessary to process some cases, to break them up above the psycho line.

And you say, “Now give me a couple of things-tell me something that you can do in this room.” And a person who is pretty bad off is liable to sit there for ten, fifteen, twenty minutes. They can do what you tell them to do, but something that they can do-to ask them to actually invent something that they can do. They might have regularly jumped off the bed and flown around the room and done all sorts of weird things, you see, but these were things they were doing rather than things they can do.

Now, by the way, you run an automatic flinch on some people, you’ll turn them weak as jelly. Now, you get an automatic flinch from a nothingness of Earth. An automatic flinch from a nothingness of Earth, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it. Not the best process in the world but it certainly produces some effects.

Well, Reach and Withdraw Processing is to a large degree successful simply because it processes out the automatic flinch. You get them to reach and withdraw from dangerous things.

And the other thing that-“things you can do and things you can’t do” is a pattern of course to many of the other processes which we have, so you run it also on this basis: “Give me some things you can’t get away from” and it crosses with the automatic flinch. “Some things you can get away from.” You don’t run that one double, by the way, you just run that one as it is. Run “can” and “can’t do,” and you would just get “things you can get away from at this moment.”

For instance, look around the room right now and give me some things you can get away from.

Give me three things you can get away from.

Male voice: Now why isn ’t it done?

Hm?

Male voice: Why notask can’t?

Because it isn’t the truth.

Male voice: Why not thought? I just can’t. . .

Things you can and can’t do is the truth. But it isn’t the truth that you can’t get away from something.

Male voice: Never. Yeah.

You could always get away from anything.

Oh yeah. I’d better put that in here as a little footnote to this morning’s dissertation. Don’t let me catch you processing contrary to truth. You see it isn’t true that you can do anything you want in this society. As soon as you say “in this society,” it ceases to be the truth that you can do anything you want. It ceases to be a society if it runs completely without arbitraries and without restrictions or limits, see.

And so you say, “you can and can’t.” “Things that you can do at this moment,” “Things you can’t do at this moment.” There’d be consequences to many things that you did. For instance, if you were to run out in the street and tear all your clothes off, you would find consequences for the act. So can and can’t is perfectly proper. But let’s say things you can’t get away from. There isn’t any such animal. And you’re actually telling a lie when you process with the preclear. So you keep these things on the highest level of truth that you can keep them on, that’s all.

You run “Three places where you are not.” Well, hell, you can run that endlessly because, believe me, fellow, you’re not anyplace. You get that? You can be anyplace you want to decide you are, but you have to decide before you’re there or your auditor has to decide you’re there and tell you to be there-tell you you can be there. See?

If this were not true, your lot would be in a horrible situation. Your case would be unsolvable and this race and everything else about it would be unsolvable, if you were anywhere, actually, finitely in the MEST universe. Because the MEST universe is a communication trap where all spaces are consecutive to all spaces. Where associative logic is a fait accompli, where everything is in communication with everything else. You are trapped in space. If you were in it, you would be trapped. But that’s true of any trap. You are trapped only if you are in it. And if you aren’t anywhere, of course, you can’t be trapped.

Now the thetan solves this by materializing nothing. He even goes that far. He’s so careful he won’t even materialize a mock-up. He won’t do anything that really tells him he’s trapped.

It’s a big trap, this universe. Some of your cases will come up with a sudden horror on this. A lot of your cases-any case that’s down around V, VI, you can expect him to come through a terror, horror band at the realization that he is in the MEST universe and is trapped here. And this is a gigantic trap. It’s a gigantic trap composed of black space, just to be gruesome. And if you were in it, your case would be unsolvable. But you’re not in it, so you can go on forever saying, “Give me three places where you’re not,” “Three places where somebody else is not.” Well, it’s just the truth. They’re not anyplace. An object-you can give me three places where that object isn’t. Well, you assume the object is there merely because it’s there by postulate. It’s there, that object is there. And three places, however, where objects are not, well, that’s all right, there is a place where it is. So you’re telling the truth consistently even there. You see that? You’re telling the truth.

Well, now a fellow asking this question, “Three places where you couldn’t be in the future.” Oh-oh-oh-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. Process won’t hold, won’t do anything for the preclear because it isn’t processing toward truth. There isn’t anyplace in the future where he can’t be. He could be anyplace in the future. Where he iw/Zbe in the future is a different thing. So you say, “All right, give me three places in the future where you won’t be tomorrow,” “Give me three places where you won’t be tomorrow.” Oh, he can give you thousands of places where he won’t be tomorrow. But there is a place where he will (according to his own agreement) be tomorrow.

And you can pick up a fellow’s prediction and knowingness level on this process alone-where he won’t be: present, past and future, in that order. Present, past, future is the proper order. The proper order is яо/past, present and future; it’s not a consecutive thing. And you solve a case like that-he can give you some places where he’s not in the present and he all of a sudden bogs on places where he’s not in the past. He has a creepy feeling he’s all over the past. You just give him some more places where he’s not in the future and then you go to past again and you’ll find some places in the past where he’s not. All right.

He can find some places in the past where he’s not, but he can’t find any places in the future where he won’t be. You just give him some more places where he isn’t in the past and that solves the future. You got that one? The proper order is present, past, future and that’s why it’s that way in 8-C. It isn’t there by accident.

Do you get that now? If the fellow-all right, let’s say this preclear can’t find where he’s not in the past. He doesn’t get this immediately. Well, you just give him some more “where he isn’t in the present.” You see how easy that is? Where he isn’t in the present and then you get the future. And he can’t find places where he’s not in the future and he’s having a hard time with that, just get some more where he’s not in the past. And you’ll find out very shortly that he’ll be able to find places where he’s not in the future. Present, past, future, that is the order. Okay?

We have covered, as usual, quite a little bit of ground, but you will find out very readily that we are practically covering the same ground every day and covering it with a different coat and a different hat and a different application level. And the thing that is-you’re varying on, is application. That is being given to you in an advancing line and you’re being given a little more advanced methods of application of this material every day. But you aren’t being varied on your basic theory. And you’ve gotten this basic theory practically every day, over and over and over and over and over. But you should, sooner or later, begin to distinguish between these two things very, very readily. And you should be able to take basic theory and get all the processes you want out of it. What I give you here are tested processes which are very good.

By the way, did the auditor who used this “places where you won’t be in the future,” did he get that this morning? An auditor has been asking a preclear that, “places where you couldn’t be in the future.” Process toward truth and you win. And process toward falsehoods and you lose.

Male voice: Are all subjective techniques limited?

Mm-hm. All of them, because they treat one universe. You’re going to wake up with a terrific shock one of these days, while being processed, to the fact that the other universe is not only in existence, but is habitable by you-the other fellow’s universe.

Right now, you know that you can inhabit, to some degree, some kind of an arrangement you call your own universe and you don’t consider that very sharp probably, but it’s there. And then you know there’s the MEST universe because we process that. And the other fellow’s universe is something to you which is, to a large degree at this moment, I am sure, conceptual. It doesn’t have dimension and so forth.

And one of these days you’re going to wake up with a terrible shock. You’re going to do Change of Universe Processing on somebody after he’s exteriorized, and out he’s going to go. And you say, “All right. Be your own universe, be the MEST universe, be somebody else’s universe.” And at that moment his case will bust into flinders.

“Be somebody else’s universe.” And he’ll ponder it for a moment and he’ll-round and. ..

“Well I got an idea, let’s see, I’ll mock one up.” The schnook.

And you say, “No. Find somebody else’s universe and be it.”

“Well, where do I look for one?”

“Well, just go on and look for one.”

“And well, how about somebody’s head? How about that?”

“That’ll do for a starter.”

And he gets into a few people’s heads and all of a sudden, there is one. What do you know? And then you just change processing, Change of Space. Change him from universe to universe to universe to universe to universe to universe, his own, the MEST, another fellow’s; his own, the MEST, another fellow’s; his own, the MEST, another fellow’s. Bing bing bing bing bing bing bing bing bing bing bing and, boy, things start to bust all over the place.

And he, all of a sudden, says, “Well there’s one universe I can’t inhabit and that’s my father’s universe. I won’t inhabit it! You can’t make me.” Just do some more Change Processing. All of a sudden he says, “Well he had one too, so what. It’s not a very good one. Moldy.” And he’ll get off of that and all of a sudden one day he’ll find Pop’s universe, bing he’s got it. And after that he has no familial difficulties. If you don’t solve this one with the preclear all the way down the line, by the way, he’ll keep on having interpersonal relationship difficulties.

That process is completely unlimited. The MEST process is only partly unlimited. Which is to say-you could call it an unlimited process if you want. But, what did you think to a guy about-after what I’ve told you this morning, if you kept a fellow looking at walls, huh? Just supposing you just kept a fellow looking at walls, hour after hour after hour after hour-feeling walls, looking at walls, being in walls, being in MEST universe space, just hour after hour after hour after hour and you never shifted it out. Well, you would be validating hate. Emotionally you would be validating apathy, ridges, hate-anything solid.

The MEST universe is a game, is a game, is a game, is a game composed of barriers, and the barriers are space, objects (such as walls or any other object) and time. And these are the barriers of the MEST universe, of which the most serious is time. And that is the game.

And a fellow gets to thinking after a while that he has barriers in his thinkingness. And you give some fellow this process of “Give me three things which you can’t do now,” and you start to knock out the barriers of thinkingness. And that is, by the way, a terrific process. All right.

Now, in your Group Processing today, and for the rest of this week, let’s do as good a job as we can on standardized Group Processes, rather than using on the group ... That’s a little bit tough on your Group Auditor, but remember this: Your preclears have been getting variations in their auditing sessions and the Group Process is there to pull them up and stabilize them. So let’s give them a predictability, which is the total message, a predictability in that Group Auditing session. Just have fun at it and everything, but let’s give them a good, solid predictability because they haven’t had one in their auditing session in many cases. Okay?

All right. And the Group Processes, of course, we have several of them. We have Short 8, we have Six Steps to Better Beingness and we have 8-C Group, which is listed right on your list there.

Now I pull on the group here, occasionally, processes for demonstration, just to drive home the point and give you a look at something, rather than a process which is very therapeutic.

I dare say there’s a couple of you feel worse for my having processed you this morning. It’s Very possible, merely because I didn’t carry it on very far, you see. You start processing nothingness of bodies and nothingness of walls, you’re just as likely as not to have some preclear in a group suddenly chuck his cookies. That’s death and dynamite.

Okay. Any questions? Yes?

Male voice: Holding onto corners won’t restimulate that 8-C? Or how is it that he can hold on forever?

Oddly enough, the guy is so bad off that you’re asking to do that, almost any kind of condition he’s in, that it’s way upscale. The MEST universe, in good contact with, is way upscale. It is so high above scale for most pcs that it’s-when, they cross the barrier, that is to say get to a point where they can tolerate the MEST universe, gee, they’re in wonderful shape.

So as a consequence it is, as I said, a limited technique in it’s furthest reductio adabsurdum, but is so fitting for your pc that you could do easily ten times as many hours of auditing on one pc of making him hold the corners of the room as you’re ever going to put in on any pc. So for all intents and purposes you have an unlimited technique.

Now you can do automatic flinches from the MEST universe with a fantastic success. You can get automatic flinches from the back corners of the room.

Now get ahold of the back corners of the room. Now get ahold of them very securely now. Now make up your mind when you’re going to flinch and flinch.

Now let’s get ahold of two corners of this stove and make up your mind when you’re going to flinch, and flinch.

Now let’s contact a sound somewhere around and make up your mind when you’re going to flinch, and flinch.

Hear that car out there? All right, make up your mind when you’re going to flinch, and flinch from that sound.

All right.

Now, there’s another process can be done only at night, which is a Group Process. You get three pieces of blackness within a radius of a mile which you wouldn’t want to be or wouldn’t want to be in. You can do it in the daytime too, but you find most preclears are not inventive enough to discover it.

And then you get three lights that you’d not like to have shining on you right now. And you go back and forth this way in a bracket. You get some lights in a Group Process. You get some patches of darkness, some pieces of darkness, just back and forth, back and forth.

You get how that would be? And by the way it turns on mock-ups like mad.

Okay. Any more questions?

Female voice: Is duplication of WEST objectsan . ..

Second female voice: No. It’s supposed to be an introversion.

A duplication of the MEST objects?

Female voice: Oh, no, pardon me. That’s the second step.

No, that’s an extroversion because you actually have the power to materialize a MEST object.

Female voice: Well, nothingness is extroversion and then the second step is supposed to be introversion. That’s the way I understood it. Introversion-extroversion.

Mm-hm. “Looking in” is introversion.

Female voice: Oh. And the first step is introversion? The nothingness?

No, that’s an extroversion.

Female voice: Extroversion-well then, the second step . . .

Is the second one duplication?

Female voice: Yes. Of MEST objects.

Well, your second one goes into a subjective technique immediately that you carry it forward the way you’re supposed to, because you’ll find him out of the room. I won’t let them duplicate things in the room very long. I have them duplicate things out of the room. And they are really-nine-tenths of your people are simply getting facsimiles outside the room and duplicating them and they’re not outside the room. And the way that technique is done it amounts to an introversion on your technique.

Now take a look at the building next door, now get a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Okay. Let go of it and take a look at the building across the street and net a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

And let go of that and look at the Westward Ho Hotel and get a duplicate of it

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Okay. Now look at the Westward Hotel below you and get a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Now let go of that.

Take a look at Phoenix and get a duplicate of Phoenix.

Let go of that.

All your techniques-that’s good, let’s be where you were if this exteriorized you.

By the way, did anybody exteriorize on that suddenly? That’s a very nice covert method of exteriorization. It could be carried on for quite a little while with tremendous results. And it’d be gradually, as most any technique does-I hate to say this because it disqualifies our basic definition somewhat and I don’t want to confuse you, but almost any introverted

Exteriorization: Theory and Demonstration technique turns eventually into an extroverted technique. By the way, that’s a test o£ a good technique. Will this technique if carried out long enough turn from an introversion to an extroversion? Will it turn an introversion to an extroversion?

Your thetan is cause and is happy as long as he’s cause and therefore is happy as long as he’s extroverting. You could say extroverting is being cause.

Now, the son of a gun, he never thinks about himself, he never remembers to sleep or eat or do anything of the sort at all, he just goes on entrepreneuring. And here he goes and people keep telling him he’s going to cave in, so he does some day, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that as long as he’s an entrepreneur he’s just going like a house afire. It’s only when he runs into too many people telling him to slow down and agrees too many times with too many of his own automaticities to slow down.

See, it’s people agreeing with your automaticities that cave you in about people. The people themselves have no power to cave you in. Nobody has got any power to cave you in, but they sure can use your own automaticities on you by agreeing with them. And so they put them out into the mass production basis.

They agree with them and that makes you right to have that automaticity, you see, so you throw it in action. They make you put your attention on your own automaticities and that kindles them. But if you didn’t have them in the first place, you couldn’t do it. If you didn’t have the automaticity to go off and loaf, nobody could sympathize with you effectively on how tired you were. See, if your basic goal wasn’t to make a lot of money and quit, if you didn’t have that as a basic automaticity, then nobody could make you do it.

People cannot make you do anything. This works out by test. People can’t make you do anything that you do not have a basic automaticity about, that you put there yourself. That’s why they can say with some little shadow of truth, "Well, you did it and it’s your fault and you’re to blame and you’re bad cause.” See, I mean that’s how they could add this up, because you know sneakingly that it is, it’s true.

Any other questions? Learn anything this morning?

Female voice: Oh, I’ll say.

Audience: Yeah.

Well now, on processing, how about you guys concentrating on exteriorization and after lunch I’m going to take up some methods of and give you an example. So, let’s go have a bite to eat.