[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Thank you.

Want to talk to you now about the coordination of processes or classes of processes. There are several classes of processes which do not ordinarily cross very much. However, one is additive to the next, and you could put them in a sequential chain. They could be placed in a chain, a gradient scale, or any way you wanted to arrange them, but that would to some degree be false, because these classes of processes, each one, take up, really, another aspect of existence.

Well, the subject of this lecture should be randomity. But actually, I intended to talk a little bit more about teaching processes and the handling of groups – that you as Scientologists should be interested in.

Now, I'm not going to give you a list of these classes; I'm going to talk to you about the most important ones. The first we know as mechanical, and the second we know as postulate processes. Those are two very broad classifications, and you mustn't get these two confused. They are two different classes of processes. We won't do an A=A=A on them and say postulates go into the mechanics and the mechanics go into the postulates because the mechanical processes that have to do with space, energy, masses, and so forth, are all dependent in the first place on postulates, so therefore they're the same processes. They are not. You got the idea?

First and foremost, we will examine the first threshold that anyone has to cross when handling groups or attempting to teach large numbers of people. That threshold is known as stage fright. Embarrassment. That's the first thing, and that is a threshold which has to be crossed by anyone sometime in his career. It is a fascinating phenomenon for everyone except the person who has it.

Now, as I say, you can put one of these on a gradient scale to the other: You say mechanical processes are always junior, then, to postulate processes. But the funny part of it is that you have to process mechanical processes as mechanical processes, and you have to process postulate processes as postulate processes. You see this clearly?

It's very remarkable, the instances of stage fright I have seen, but none of these made near as much impression on me as instances of stage fright I have experienced myself. These made a considerable impression on me. I remember very well in the field of radio, of overcoming the mike consciousness right here in Washington, going to the university. I had a fifteen-minute program every day. And it was fascinating, as time went on, how accustomed I became to handling that mike and going on, good weather and bad – mostly bad here in Washington.

The two broad classifications, then, stem immediately from the first few Axioms, and they break down into those two enormous classes.

And years later I was going to the Geller Theater Workshop in Hollywood, after the war. And I walked in, and was going through all the class – everything was going along fine, smoothly, pleasantly. I was learning to say "How now brown cow?" along with the young starlets and so forth. I was studying acting, was what I was doing, to find out how to make actors, because it seemed to me that there was an answer to the mind and to training in the field of acting. I felt that acting was a sort of a synthetic living. And what you could know about it as a synthetic thing you might then be able to apply to life and so understand life a little better.

Now, the moment that we take up these, we are taking up the actual anatomy of substance of the universe and life within it. The substance of the universe is just first and foremost idea and thing. There are ideas; there are things. See? Now, you call space a thing. You might as well; it's a manufactured item. It's mechanical. It's a mechanic, you might say.

I, by the way, didn't finish up there at all. I got vastly fascinated with other things. And I was a writer, not an actor, anyway, you see. And I became very enamored with other fields of action, and became particularly enamored with processing the young actors who were going there. And actually, to the last days I was in Los Angeles, these kids used to come up from there saying "I hear you can do something for me." And I usually did, one way or the other. I'd square them away on this subject.

There's the whole category of particles which could be considered one different from the next, as on the periodic chart. But in view of the fact that the periodic chart doesn't even begin to cover the number of actual atoms, molecules, types of gas, invisible particles and so on, it just doesn't even begin to stretch. In the first place, it is only on this planet that it ends below a hundred. It's only on this planet. You realize there's a star, which is a companion star to Sirius, one teaspoonful of the substance of which would weigh one ton on Earth? Well, what element is that, if you please? You see, we're immediately outside the periodic chart.

But I walked in one day to their radio workshop with the rest of the class and there was a microphone. There it stood – pure, innocent and chromium plated – attached to exactly nothing. It didn't even go out to a monitor station outside the room. It was simply a dummy mike, and people were supposed to stand there and practice plays, and so on, reading, and how you handle paper, and how you talk, and so on.

Now, therefore, it is not true that we can carefully and neatly say, „This is all the atoms there are. This is all the molecules there are,“ and just let it go at that. There is no sense in trying to completely classify particles. Why? Because each set of particles is simply another set of postulated particles, and there could be a complete infinity of these, don't you see?

And it came my turn, and I stood up in front of this mike and all of a sudden, boy, that mike had more motion in it, and so did I, than I would ordinarily care to experience. Brrrrrr! And I c-c-c- couldn't talk! Fabulous! The thing was a dummy mike. I went back and I sat down and I said, "That thing is a dummy mike! I've handled one of these things for years!" Tuhh! Coo!

So therefore, you take the particles where you find them and that's it. Don't ever be surprised to find a different kind of mass or a different kind of particle, because they are on a postulate basis — originally. Look at our gradient scale here. They can be postulated but they are in existence. They are. They do exist.

Well, as the days went by, I got all right again. But it made an impression on me. I had actually experienced stage fright, which was very interesting – on a dummy mike! And I assayed one day to know more about this. Now, the only time I myself pick up stage fright in front of audiences is when they get up to a certain size. Up to about twenty-five hundred, strictly cucumber. Above twenty-five hundred, well, "My God, there's a lot of people out there."

You just might as well say, „Well, all right. They all come from postulate, therefore it's very easy to handle them because they're just all idea“; and we're off onto a Mary Baker Eddy. You see? And she couldn't have done worse. I mean, as fine a woman as this was, she actually couldn't have done worse with her conclusion. Her conclusion was that if it's all so actual and painful, it better not exist — so all is infinite mind, don't you see — and never took that into category, so it never went south with anything.

And then a famous English actress started clobbering me in recent months to say something about stage fright. What was it all about? She called it "first-night nerves." She said, "Every actor on the first night has nerves." And she attributed it to the fact that they didn't know how the play was going to go; and they didn't know what was going to happen; and there was tremendous uncertainty; and they were watching themselves every moment in an unaccustomed scene, which would become an accustomed scene after a few nights, and so they would lose their upset. This is the theory on which man has worked and it is wrong. It is not the theory. It is not what is behind stage fright.

Now, this is all very well. I'm not criticizing Mary Baker Eddy, because she was simply falling into a track which had, oddly enough, a tremendous amount of truth in it. You see, it's perfectly true: All is infinite mind. I mean, it's the truest thing you ever heard of. See? I mean, there's no falsehood there. But it unfortunately doesn't allow for the fact that infinite mind gives us at once infinite matter; and if you try to not-is everything, you've had it. In other words, you go through. You don't say, „It ain't“; you say, „It is.“

The essence of stage fright is simply this: It is the unwillingness to confront a mass. It is a "can't have" on the mass. That is all. That's all it is. And to prove that, it is only necessary to change one's mind or run a process in the direction of having that mass to instantly cure stage fright. It cures just like that. Remedy of Havingness. Why is it "first- night nerves"? Why, after fifteen years off the air, do I step up to a dummy microphone and get the shakes?

You have to admit the actuality in order to obtain a communication. We get to this as a very tremendously sweeping law in processing. The preclear has to admit an actuality in order to get into communication. And if he cannot admit it as an actuality, then he cannot get into communication with it, and so he will remain communication-shy of this particular item, and it will continue to communicate at him on a cause-distance-effect, don't you see?

That's because for fifteen years I didn't have something which I had. It's the fifteen years of not having the microphone which make you shake the moment you have one, because you already had one and it didn't worry you. The first time you had it, you hadn't had it, don't you see? So there was no period there of not-havingness to overcome with some sudden havingness. But we go on, then, for a short time and have one a few years, and then all of a sudden we run this long span of no havingness on a microphone. The next time we meet one, snap!

So when we say „All is infinite mind, you can just skip the rest of it,“ we are pulling a tremendous blunder in processing, because we are saying it is not then necessary to communicate with all these things which you put into existence to communicate with. And if you abandon this amount of communication the end product is insanity.

The instant we get one, it's an important item; it is an important havingness. We are trying to have it all at once. It is motionless. There it is. It is obtainable, and available, obviously, but we try to get fifteen-years worth out of one second of microphone. And there isn't fifteen years worth in the microphone. You got that? There is only one performance worth.

All right. We're not raising the devil with Mary Baker Eddy. She had a fine, hard time of it. She made a very gallant fight, and we are actually indebted to her for the tremendous push-back she gave the world of medicine. But we mustn't, in our gratitude, fall into the same snare.

All right. Now, let's take that audience. If you'd never had an audience, no audience would give you a quiver. If you'd never had one, you would never experience stage fright. You would be graceful and aesthetic and carry off the role like an old trooper. But having had an audience over a period of time, then not having an audience for a period of time, the next audience we get is going to make us go mnnnunyaaaa!

It's very easy for somebody you're teaching to fall into that snare, and I tell you this as future Instructors. You're going to have people in your midst that are endowed with this philosophy that in view of the fact that it's all postulated, it isn't. Now look! If it's postulated, it is! Who are we invalidating? See? If it's postulated, it is.

Why? During that one presentation, we are trying to get the entire no-havingness of audiences filled full during that period, because they're important. You see, it's an important havingness to have an audience. That's an important havingness. And it was a not-havingness over a period of time, and the no-havingness of it makes it a shiver. Now, this is a basic mechanic. There are considerations above this, but I am telling you the mechanic so that you can understand it as a principle which can be utilized in the curing and overcoming of embarrassment – both on the part of your preclears and on your part if you don't like to confront an audience.

Now, if it is true that you must get rid of all of it, whole- track-psychiatry style, then you better postulate all of it. The way you undo mass is to undo the postulate of mass. The way you undo a particle is to undo the postulate of the particle. The way you undo space is to undo the postulate of space. Do you see that? But this will be found, in essence, to be pretty doggoned stratospheric for most of your preclears.

Now here, in essence, is Remedy of Havingness on audiences as the cure. That is the only cure there is that is a good, reliable, standard cure. It's a good cure.

So therefore, we have to have this class of processes which simply admit the existence of MEST and accustom them to its actuality. Do you see that? They can't see that they postulated it; they have to accept it just as it is. And you get them to accept it as it is — that is a wall; that is a floor; that is a ceiling — and we get quite a gain, quite a gain. It's quite interesting what 8-C will do for numerous cases — what straight locational processing will do for numerous cases.

Have them mock up audiences, go and find audiences, don't you see? Find out what part of audiences they can have, what part of audiences they can dispense with. Go take them to a movie theater and stand back in the aisle someplace toward the back and have them point out the backs of audiences. That's perfectly all right. It's still mass – back or front. Make somebody go and talk to some people someplace. That, in essence, is having an audience. But making a person go and talk to a bunch of people gives him two things to do at once: both perform and have. And it's one too many for most people who have had, and then haven't had.

Now, these are processes which admit fully the mechanics of existence and so we must consider that as a full class of processes. It is a full class. You don't have to say anything to him at all about how he postulated the stuff and how he agreed with it and how he helped out with the whole thing. You don't have to say a thing. He'll find this out eventually as you process him.

If you experience embarrassment because of an audience, it is because you have been without one for a long time; not because audiences customarily, in the last few lives you've led, leaped over the footlights and tore you to ribbons; not necessarily because you confuse every audience you see with a jury of twelve good men and true, who want to hang you for stealing that horse. It isn't necessarily true that you confuse things at all. It's just that you've been a couple of hundred years without a good audience! And therefore, you try to remedy a couple of hundred years worth of no-audience with an audience. And it scatters them all over the track. Really! They go tzzzzz! from your point of view.

Now, it is quite a strain on a case to run postulate processes. It is such a strain that running postulate processes — Change the Idea, and so on — on a lowscale case is routinely unsuccessful. It reduces the havingness.

They are evidently much more critical. Their critical level is tremendously exaggerated by any person who is giving a performance in front of an audience. He thinks their critical level is something fantastic. Well, I'll agree with you, it's something fantastic, but it's not that bad.

What is this mechanism of reduction of havingness? It is the simple mechanism which I spoke to you about just a couple of minutes ago. You say it isn't when it is. In other words, you get a second-postulate situation in the thetan. He postulated it into existence, it is still in existence, he hasn't undone the postulate which put it into existence, and now he says it isn't in existence. And he's made a liar out of himself, meaning he has denied himself, which is the only thing he can do that is terribly aberrative. Do you see that? So that if we bypass all of these mechanical processes, sweepingly, we wind up with a reduction of havingness. It is, but it isn't.

I've seldom seen audiences file in, to an ordinary entertainment production at least, with Tommy guns held under the overcoat. You know? Seldom. Very few. And yet a lot of people who get up and try to perform or talk in front of an audience certainly seem to be convinced that the very least that is under those overcoats is Tommy guns.

Now, in the field of postulates this just makes a liar out of him, that's all. I mean, it's just as simple as that. It invalidates him.

Now, as you reduce havingness, you heighten critical level. As the havingness goes down, critical level goes up. So as havingness goes down on audiences, one's belief in their critical level goes up, as well as one's own critical level of the audience. And to talk to an audience you mustn't have a high critical level of the audience, let me assure you. You have to be in communication with them. And if you have a high critical level of any audience to whom you are speaking, you are not going to communicate with them at all. And as a result, you're going to have difficulties.

Now, you will find preclears who just ache to be invalidated. They invalidate themselves all the time, and so on. They've got this obsessively. They said, „There is a lighter. Now, I don't see any lighter.“ They said, „My postulates don't work,“ didn't they? They said, „There's a wall. I don't see a wall. There is no wall there at all.“ This is the same statement as „My postulates don't work. When I build a wall by postulate, I thereafter have no evidence that a wall has been built. So therefore, I cannot build a wall, and I am not capable of building walls, and there I am, weak.“ What made him weak? The fact that he said he was by the statement, „There is a wall. Now, I see no wall.“ Do you see that?

If you haven't had audiences for a couple of hundred years – ever since you stepped out of the Swan Theater, or something of this sort... Maybe you were awfully good at Hamlet once; maybe you were one of the most terrific Othellos that ever trod the boards, but you haven't done it for a long time – that is, you haven't had for a long time on the subject of audiences. And one day you go out to do Othello and, boy, do you lay eggs!

Now, if he wanted to get rid of the wall, it would really be necessary for him to say, „There is a wall.“ He could run out his having said „There is a wall,“ and this, then, would make the wall disappear. And this would only tell him, then, „I can put a wall there, and I can take a wall away.“ But the course that leads to complete disaster is this other course: He says, „There is a wall. I don't see any wall.“

Several things can happen. But you think that their critical level of you is much greater than it is. And you think at the same time, that your performance is much worse than it is. And you also suppose that their demands are much greater than they are. Maybe you got this idea out of a Roman arena. That's a discouraging place to have audiences. But wherever you see bad performance you simply have a case of no havingness of audiences and theaters.

Now, he has to be able to see a wall, and you've moved him up just that height. Reduction of havingness is this process: „There's a wall. I don't see any wall,“ „Here's an engram bank. I don't see any bank,“ and we get this odd manifestation of a jumbled-up havingness denied.

You can cure the first-night nerves or the mike fright with subjective processes by which simply someone mocks up audiences and shoves them in, audiences and throws them away, microphones and shove them in, microphones and throw them away. There is nothing to this. It is one of our most elementary processes and it works. Works very satisfactorily.

Now, the person feels that he should have and then he says, „I don't have to have anything. I don't want it.“ You see, it's a clutter of postulates. But you start running nothing but ideas on somebody, you get in trouble. Nothing but ideas. No masses, no particles, no spaces. And the only reason for this is that he has put the masses, particles and spaces into existence as an actuality, and by your complete ignoring of them — you ignore his ignoring of them — you get a bunch of things which are there but aren't.

But people get so bad off in having an audience that they can't have one even when they have one. So what do we do then? We have people waste audiences.

Now, I talked to you about the dwindling spiral of reality, where it went down from postulate to agreement to terminals to communication lines to no lines. Well, the funny part of it is as you start to run reality upstairs again, you have to exert an idea in the direction of, first, there are lines.

The total reason for the existence of Hollywood and the cinema today is entirely attributable to the fact that nobody can have a show. Look it over. Do you think a bunch of shadows playing on a screen with no substance is an adequate show? Well, that is wasting the production, don't you see? That's a waste of production. I tell you it's a waste of production because people go downhill on going to shows and after a while don't go to shows.

Well now, you'll also run into the phenomenon of his saying, „There are no lines.“ What a clumsy tangle. Now, don't be amazed, as you start to process somebody, to have him totally packed in solid all of a sudden, because that's what he's been doing. Stuff has been appearing around him and he says, „Oh, it doesn't exist.“ He postulated it into existence, then he says, „It doesn't exist.“ See? „I'll think about that tomorrow,“ you know, „That's nothing. Doesn't exist.“ In other words, each one of these statements is „I won't go into communication with it.“ See? It doesn't exist; I won't go into communication with it — same thing. Well now, if he made it and now he's unwilling to go into communication with it, he's really in the soup.

It must demonstrate, then, that it's not an adequate havingness for the amount of motion contained in the presentation. They have gotten to a point of no-show, to a point where they have no show, so that they can have no show, don't you see?

So communication undoes the whole level of postulate processes, but postulates do not necessarily do so. Do you follow this? You got communication here as the tool which works best on postulate processes. Nevertheless, I'm going to give you some of the beefiest postulate processes there are.

Now, we've reduced the screen... First it went up. Hollywood asserted itself. It got big enough to be seen, with VistaScreen, VistaVision, BroadView. What are some of those? Cinerama, CineScope, "Cinemope." There are a whole bunch of them. They got big, you know. And then they got fifteen different varieties of color. And the actors got to be 115 – that's the stopping point of this is when the actors get to be 115 feet high. What are they trying to do? They're trying to remedy somebody's havingness. They're trying to put up enough mass there to keep the people coming. They are trying to say, "Look, they may be only one molecule or one photon thick, but they're awfully tall!"

Project: to turn on somebody's mock-ups so clearly and so brilliantly that he won't possibly be able to even flinch. He himself will be flabbergasted. It's rather easy to do. The worst of the cases have to be given a Subjective Remedy of Havingness. You have to have him mock up black spaces and black masses or something and push them in. Remedy his havingness with these blacknesses in order to clear the field up a little bit. But maybe that isn't even necessary, because the process I am going to give you is a quickie, it's impermanent, and he will be upset by it, but it's a process you have to know.

And the audiences have turned aside – not being able to have a show – to a point where they look on a little seventeen-inch screen or a twenty-one-inch screen which isn't even in color these days. And they don't even look at it, they simply go to sleep. The fellow says, "I slept a good show the other night on TV. Did you snore it?"

You have the preclear get the idea of putting up a mock-up or a facsimile the size of the wall before him, and then have him get the idea... This is just get the idea, you see; just postulates; nothing but. Now, you don't ask him to do it; he just gets the idea of doing it, see? And then he says, „Well, tsk! that'd spoil the game,“ and not do it.

Now, it must be – if people are wasting shows to this degree – conversely, somebody must be wasting audiences, too. And certainly this is the truth. The Hollywood actor wastes audiences and wastes them and wastes them. You never saw a poorer audience than cameramen. I've talked to them and they didn't notice what was happening during the scene at all. But they knew how many feet they ran. They knew what the light reading of the scene was. But they couldn't tell you who the actors were unless they read it on their card.

Have you got this sequence? Let's get this sequence well. You have him get the idea of putting up a mock-up the size of that wall, have him hurriedly get the idea that it would spoil the game, and have him quickly stop and not do it. It's devastating! Run on a case that is quite high it is a very powerful process. Run on a case that should have been run on mechanics, it still works but it's one of the most deadly things you can do to him. All of a sudden he has staring him in the face something he has so often postulated mustn't exist — a facsimile, a picture, a mock-up — that he is flabbergasted. And you are doing something which appears to him to be just witchcraft, that's all. Because the facsimile he will begin to put up there, the mock-up he will begin to put up there, whichever he does, will be so deep, so massive, so brilliant and so big, it'll be quite upsetting. You simply run the cycle of postulates which ran him into not putting up things. Got that? That's just the one-two-three. Got those now?

The assistant director is a very bad audience. No mass! He's the furtive little fellow that runs around when the heavier director tells him to, you see. And the director, he's only looking for bad acting or bad positioning, so he's no audience. He doesn't see any of the good stuff. Man, are those people wasting audiences, and they go mad in the process of doing so. They do! They just go mad in the process of acting before nobody.

I don't tell you not to do this. Do it all you please. Isn't going to kill him any. It's certainly going to stun a few preclears, because even on a black case it has some chance of happening. But the kind thing to do to a black case is to give him a Subjective Remedy of Havingness first to get rid of the blackness and then do it.

If you were around a movie colony any length of time, I can assure you that your services would be pulled in that direction. Because they have lots of preclears for you that nobody had better find out about.

It's just those three steps. I'll go over them again. You tell him this; this is just your palaver:

Now, here we have, then, the disappearance of show. We're seeing it happen. We're trying to have people sit in front of the camera... I mean, pardon me, the TV set – I mean, the Fac One thing... We're trying to have them sit there for twenty-eight hours of the day in order to remedy the fact that there aren't three minutes worth of show. There is no mass in there. They can't have any mass; there's no mass involved.

„All right now. I want you to get the idea of putting up a mock- up the size of that wall. Now get the idea that would spoil the game and not do it.“

The very thing to do, if you wanted to kill all entertainment in the country, would be to take all mass out of entertainment. You'd kill it. So therefore, the very thing to do on your part – the very thing to do to take all confrontingness out of you – is to have nothing ever to confront.

And that's all there is to it. Then you tell him again, „Now get the idea of putting up a mock-up the size of the wall. Now get the idea that would spoil the game and don't do it.“ One-two- three, one-two-three, one-two-three. Just like that. Over and over and over again.

Well, one of the ways you move up into this on a gradient scale is simply go to a lot of live theater for a while, or go to a lot of lectures, so forth. It's amazing. There are still things going on. Playing to somewhat empty halls, but these things are still going on in the society. Get yourself a few tickets and slide in and listen to what people are talking about. You'd be utterly fascinated. They're seldom very good. People go to see them; they listen to them. And just note carefully whether or not anybody in the theater audience picks up any tin cans or rotten eggs or anything. Just note carefully, by the end of the production, how many people have leaped over the footlights with a knife in their hands.

Now, at the end of an hour or two, he will be getting these fantastically huge, overwhelming mock-ups. That's for sure. You never saw such brilliance and clarity in your life. If you, in Dianetics, wanted to turn on somebody's facsimiles so he could see them and run them, then this would have done it.

Now, you will note – you will note, in such a wise – that there is still a lot of presentation going on. There are still people talking to people; there are still people listening to people. Of course, I know it's getting in to the minority, and a small percentage of the world indulges in such a thing. But the funny part of it is, that it is that way, not because the excellence of production has dropped, but because people have run out of havingness on production.

That's why I say these days I couldn't be interested less in research; can do things like this.

Remember, this country for a long time was a backwoods country. One drove up and down the streets of Philadelphia hoping that his wagon would not sink to the hub during the next block. The streets of Washington have only been paved for a short period of time. Itinerant players tried to remedy the havingness of the country, but it wasn't very easy to do. We went for a long, long period with no show to amount to anything. We were a lot, a tremendous lot, of wilderness.

Now, this has a companion postulate process:

It's an amazing thing that you don't find the older countries of Europe fallen away to no-show to the degree that countries that are newly emerged are without show. You can understand, of course, that the Casino de Paris in Paris would of course be fairly jammed, particularly during tourist season, in view of the stage productions which they have. It isn't the costumes that people go to see; it's the lack of them.

„Now get the idea of putting a mock-up in the center of the room that everybody could see. Now get the idea that would spoil the game and stop it.“ The one-two-three again.

And, by the way, the Casino de Paris is noted for its tremendously beautiful costumes – the most overdressed place you ever saw in your life. The amount of show given at the Casino to an audience which numbers thousands and thousands of people – it's big, that's a big place – is rather fantastic. A lot of poor people go to the cinema, but anybody with any money still goes to shows. In other words, there is still theater and people haven't completely flattened out on this entirely as a country at large. But we're still climbing the hump.

„Get the idea of putting up a mock-up in the center of the room that everybody could see. Now get the idea that would spoil the game and stop it.“

I'm not telling you that people just normally dwindling-spiral and run out of show. I tell you they get used to not having any show – as we've had for the last couple hundred years over on this side – and they kind of try to work up to it. They try to get in to at least see the TV set once in a while, you know. They work up to it on a gradient scale somehow or another. There is hope! But it's all on a subject of havingness, no matter which way these aspects play. Do you see that?

Now, those are run, first one, then the other. In other words, you have to flatten the one where he puts up the facsimile or the mock-up the size of the wall before you enter in upon this other one. It has been found to be more successful if it is done in that sequence.

Now, you think that nobody would come and listen to you talk. Bah! It's not true. It's not true at all. As a matter of fact, you and your experiences, with your individual viewpoint and with your knowledge and command of the subject of the mind, would probably have no difficulty whatsoever talking to any audience that could be mustered of whatever kind in America. Unless, of course, you were running a bzzzzzz! every time you saw an audience! And then they would realize that you couldn't confront them, and they don't want, then, to confront you. Got it?

Now, I have never run a preclear to a point where the mock-up did appear with total solidity in the middle of the room — on this same process. Never have. But I have run one to the point where a shimmer appeared, which some other people, coming into the room a short time afterwards and sitting down, noticed and wondered what it was. There was a shimmer in the middle of the room.

So, handling groups is being willing to have, so that one can confront. Groups of people are people. They are essentially audiences. They are something to have. And you, to them, are something to have. And so with that communication possible and made possible because of a mutual ability to have, we have such a thing as stage presence. We have such a thing as audience interest, don't you see?

Now, we're straight on the highway of putting a universe together when we can do that with a postulate process. But don't think for a moment that it doesn't upset your preclear, because he becomes convinced that it'll spoil the game, and sure enough it would. Sure enough it would. That's absolute truth.

I would love to tell you that it's your aesthetics, just the way you hold the pinkie, the beautiful gesture with which you undulate, the way you describe things. I would love to tell you, as they do in theater workshops, that it's your command of English, your proper accent, the way you pronounce "formidable."

„All right. Let's get the idea of putting up a stack of a million dollars worth of one-dollar bills in the middle of the room. Now let's get the idea that would spoil the game and not do it.“ („Stop it“ or „not do it“ interchangeable; „stop“ sometimes upsets him.) And he'll pull out of that in a very short space of time with wild protests. „What you're trying to do is just ruin the economics of the country,“ he's liable to tell you, because he shortly becomes aware of the fact that it is within his capability to put that stack of bills there that would be perfectly passable bills! He sees himself ruining the construction trade, ruining the whole of the contracts and business of the planet builders, completely wrecking the genetic line. What would be the use of having the genetic line if every time you wanted a body you simply mocked one up? And then everybody did this, and we would have a game without limitations which would not then, of course, be a game because there wouldn't be any barriers in it.

But it doesn't happen to be true. Those are all significances which hang on to the fact of actual havingness. The reason it is difficult to study acting is because one does it without an audience. It's very interesting.

That's a rather fabulous pair of processes.

The ways and means of remedying your havingness on groups, in its crudest, rudest and most elementary form, is simply to get a bunch of people and talk to them. Grab yourself sort of by the back of the neck this way and say, "Good evening," and note carefully that they are still there. That's rude and crude. But there are other ways of going about this – much smoother, more positive ways of going about this.

Now, you can figure-figure on these processes if you want to and undercut them in some fashion or another and do other things with them. Yes, they advance a case, but they don't put a person in a frame of mind where he can live in this universe. That is the singular limitation we are confronting. In fact, it puts him in quite a different frame of mind: that it's impossible to do so, particularly with a fellow on the loose like you, an auditor. Because sooner or later you're liable to start in on this and start mocking up Ford cars from one end of the street to the other, and that would ruin the economics of the automobile business and that would ruin this and that would wreck that, and he begins to find out he has a stake in this universe — which is the important postulate recovery. Nothing else is important about the process, really, except that one. He does have a stake in this universe.

And one of those ways is this whole subject of confrontingness coupled with the subject of havingness. Havingness is the easiest to talk about or deliver, as far as a process is concerned: Mock up audiences. Mock up audiences in motion. Mock up audiences and have the preclear push them in. Mock them up and throw them away. Mock them up and let them remain. Mock them up and push them in. Mock them up and throw them away. Mock them up and let them remain. Just straight Creative Processing.

You never saw a man get down and scream until you've run this process for several hours on a preclear. It's just over his dead body!

All right, you say, somebody has an entirely black field; he can't possibly do mock-ups. All right, that's fine. Have him mock up audiences in total blackness and push them in. You see that? You know, this idea of having a... when you shut your eyes, never being able to see a mock-up but seeing only blackness and so forth – that belongs, you know, as a problem, back to about '52 or '53. It doesn't belong to now. It really doesn't. Just "Mock up a black mass and push it in, a black mass and throw it away" gives us quite adequately a clearing of this. Fellow goes anaten and lots of other things happen. But you can do it with good auditing.

„All right. I'll do it again.“

It simply is addressed by addressing it. Also in confrontingness, you can have somebody mock himself up confronting blackness, and all sorts of interesting things happen. He finds himself standing on the bridge of spaceships, going through space with little asteroids pattering merrily through the windscreen.

I've seen them sweat, so on. People who a few minutes before would have said, „Well, now...“ Oh, I mean pardon me, a day or so before would have said easily, very easily, „Oh, well. The destruction of this universe would be a very good thing. Very, very good thing. Yeah, nothing wrong with that because — get it out of the road — because it's the thing that's victimizing all of us.“

But the subject of havingness is essentially the subject of willingness to confront or willingness to be something that you're willing to have confront.

And then you run him on this other process, and he finds out he doesn't want to get rid of it, and as a matter of fact is liable — and not in all cases — but is very liable to accuse you of being a destroyer par excellence.

In essence, then, people must become possessible to you if you're going to handle and talk to groups. It must be possible for you to possess people.

Now, those are the two most powerful postulate processes of which I have any acquaintance, because they do not necessarily change a case but they certainly upset one!

Now, let me assure you that the race at large runs on the idea of no invasion of privacy. Got that clearly? This is a well- established fact – individuation. People feel they must individuate. The whole idea of individuation, or falling away from the race at large, is the story of disenfranchisement from the game. As one is kicked out of the game he believes that he had better individuate just a little further, he had better be just a little bit different. A fellow who can play a game doesn't have to be different.

Now, we've fooled around with this quite a bit. Years ago we had Concept Therapy. Somebody down in Texas (a traitor to the state by the way), turned this out just as Concept Therapy, and he's been fooling around with it ever since. And they've had their various vicissitudes. But Concept Therapy is one of the limited therapies. The only thing wrong with it is havingness; it throws havingness down. You directly make somebody change his mind. You run the positive and the negative in order to get out the maybes. A maybe is composed of the positive and the negative. We remember all this. This is years ago — Scientology 8-80. It's true and there's nothing wrong with it except one thing: It doesn't work well on people who are still getting acquainted with the mechanics of existence. You get that? So it's one of these real high-toned processes. A fellow would have to have a Remedy of Havingness from A to Izzard. He'd just have to have a Remedy of Havingness the like of which you never heard of, on any subject under the moon, stars and sun. He'd have to be able to accept and reject anything and everything on the whole planet Earth and the surrounding galaxy, too. And then Concept Therapy would work without liability.

Listen to some of our modern, very popular comics, and listen to them say the same thing over and over again. It's quite fascinating. It'd be a great loss, for instance, with any of these boys if they lost a couple of their pat tricks. You've seen these many, many times, yet you laugh at them. It's the familiarity of them, it is the ARC, the repetition contained in them which makes them acceptable.

But why do we have a therapy, since a thetan can do this anyhow, and if you get him up to that state, he can always simply change his mind? Remember there are certain things he doesn't want to change his mind about, and the first two processes I gave you are those things. He doesn't want to actually get into a frame of mind whereby the whole universe is invalidated and he has no game left of any kind whatsoever.

So do you have to be new and different and come on the stage with fifteen lions – fifteen? No, you don't even have to have anything to say. It's the most fabulous thing you ever heard of.

Now, we could work this out in various ways so that it became more workable and we got around these odds and ends, but it's too high for the usual case that you run into. That case has to be run on mechanics.

One time, many years ago, I was doing some high-school theatricals, and we had a whole scene for which there was no fill, and we all of a sudden had a blank spot on the program, you see. The characters that were supposed to go through that particular skit just hadn't appeared. They'd evidently backed out at the last moment. I went on the stage and sat down and ate a piece of pie and a sandwich.

So, the two major classes. You get somebody exteriorized in present time, he'll run on all the postulate processes you ever wanted to do. And you can do the first two on him with great success; he'd love them. But he'll tell you after a while, „You know, you're trying to ruin the universe if we keep this up much longer!“ He gets quite convinced of that.

Of course, I admit there was novelty in this since there was no piece of pie and no sandwich. But I didn't say a word for twelve minutes. And that's an awful long time to be on a stage doing nothing and saying nothing, except eat this piece of pie. I did not even eat it spectacularly! I just ate it – and the audience sat there and watched me eat this piece of pie and then eat this sandwich, and rolled in the aisles.

So mechanics do fit into the realm of existence. It is no good to be a physicist, and reject all masses.

There was only one original bit in it. When I was through with the pie plate I did throw it – non-extant – offscene and have somebody back there drop a couple of dishpans. But otherwise, I didn't look at the audience, talk to them or apparently communicate with them. There is evidently a tremendous willingness, then, on the part of an audience to communicate. This is what that proved to me. I just kind of knew that I'd get away with it. I was cocky in those days.

Now, I want to call to your attention an omission in the first ten Axioms. There is an omission in those Axioms. One of those Axioms says that the particles, grouped, become masses. Do you know that? Well, masses also become masses simply by being mocked up as masses. Got that? So there's a little added clause in that, and you'll see the proper correction on it one of these days. It's already been done.

But there are many instances of this kind. You really don't have to have much to say or to be terribly original. The one thing which you must not be, however, is nervous. Above all things, you must belong there as much as they belong there. At least that much. When you start to exceed this, you start to command the audience. You see that? You belong there more, a little bit more, than they belong there. This is delivered by your certainty and your appearance. You are simply there and you look like you're there. And you look like you're there because you know you should be there. Don't you see? It's very esoteric.

Now, when we started to keep walls from going away, it became apparent at once that our people had been misguided by the field of physics; and the whole subject, in paying some attention to physics, had itself been misguided. So we just took physics out of Scientology. The one thing that seems to run out when you keep walls and masses from going away is simply this: molecules, atoms. They're a swindle. A wall is a wall! It's solid! How come it's solid? Well, because it was postulated as being solid. Ground is ground. Mass is mass. And in view of the fact that nobody has ever seen one of those molecules or atoms, it of course gets into the realm of invisible particles, which the physicist is terrified of.

Now, Scientology at this time is doing very well across the world. If it were doing just a little bit better, there would be things not happening which are happening at this moment on the major scene of nations. Of that, I assure you. We do have the ear of more people than you would suspect. There are more people listening. Today, Scientology is accepted in a state of rather frigid wariness by the professions which it is supplanting. They are no longer scoffing at it. They get down to the point of saying "Oh, Hubbard died yesterday," or "The whole subject is uh... uh... Where did you hear about it?" We have conducted a personal survey of such people; we know.

You would never get into such terror in your life as you would get into running a physicist on making the air of the room solid without seeing that it had to become so. There's real terror on that for these boys. The invisible particle; they're haunted!

Also, it's quite amazing how many people you run into who have vaguely heard of it. Now, if you run into one in a hundred on the face of earth, this is quite amazing, quite amazing. Because we're not doing the standard American Medical Association advertising campaign. We're not doing any of these things.

Actually the whole field of disease depends on these invisible particles. Radiation for its reaction on the body depends upon its invisibility. Invisible, invisible, invisible, invisible.

In other words, we're doing, in a small way, all right. But one of these days, one of these days, somebody about your shape and size as an individual is going to have to stand up and talk, because they won't let you sit there. You got the idea?

Well, you see, it's closest cousin to being a thetan. It can produce an effect but it can't be seen. Well, that's disease germs and so on. Somebody invented a microscope and found out there were little wigglety-wiggles and animalcules and things like that and this convinced him. But he never asked this: Did they exist as live forms or did the body make them? That's a hell of a thing to throw at a... Do the diseases exist as a separate protoplasm line, chasing endlessly through time (the way they teach you in biology) or does one body scent the postulate from another body that it is making glumwums, and it starts making glumwums, too?

A military organization, which at this moment is engaged in a very large and bloody war, has just interrupted its comm lines to me, as far as I am concerned. But before this unfortunate incident occurred, I was engaged in writing their manual on mental health.

Now, the question is, is do glumwums make glumwums? This is an interesting question. I'm just asking it as a question. I'm not giving you any data here. I don't have any real evidence — in spite of the fact that they say glumwums can be cultured, I don't have any real evidence that they're real glumwums. I think they're just glumwums that stimulate the body into making glumwums. I don't know that a body can be affected by some other body's glumwums beyond seeing the other body has glumwums and wanting to be duplicative and nice about it, of course, mocks up glumwums.

You don't think we get around? It's quite fascinating. Wherever you look, we are more capable of penetrating and we are doing a better job of penetrating than before.

See, this whole subject is very interesting. In other words, is the entirety of disease autogenic by the disease or is it simply a generative function of the body, restimulated by the existence of such a pattern in another body? This is one of these fascinating questions. You could go round and round about it. But if you did go round and round about it, you might suddenly come up with the answer to disease!

You see, we have the know-how. We do have the know-how. Even if you, in your experience and so forth, were only able to bring calmness or sobriety to one alcoholic in the case of three or four hours of processing – if that was all you could do, you see, by running a little bit of 8-C, just make him feel better – you're still doing more than anyone else has ever done in the field of the mind.

You see, glumwums are supposed to be very, very chewish. They chew, you know, on everything, you know? They do! They just gnaw everything up and swallow it up and spit it out. But how come they don't chew up some bodies? Do they have some kind of a guild law — hm? — that bacteria must not eat bodies that have 862 more cells per cubic centimeter than other bodies? Or... It gets too complicated if you go that way.

But the other day, over at the HGC, we raised somebody's IQ, I think, forty-four points. Forty-four points! It's not possible. We did it. We do it rather usually.

So you find some bodies will always escape in an epidemic, and yet all of these bodies are made out of meat, and the most fastidious cuisinarian in the Solomon Isles would not be able to detect the difference of taste between one of these bodies and another, but one of these bodies is susceptible to glumwums and the other body isn't.

And what is more promising: with indoctrination into good auditing procedure, and with a better understanding of techniques, and better codifications to deliver an understanding to auditors, and with their better use of them with better procedure, we are getting better and better and better results. And somewhere along the line, we'll have to quit or we will become far, far too popular.

I don't care how new the disease is. It suddenly springs forth from the Middle East and chews up everybody in England — the Plague! Well, how come everybody in England didn't die of the plague? Well, they should have! Or were there some bodies around that didn't think they ought to generate them?

You can't sit and know all we know forever. You see, you just can't do it. It isn't true that people will try to shoot you down. Only the weaker-minded will, and they're always bad shots.

It normally requires a fear of the illness before the bacteria will bite. Now, we know that in Dianetics and Scientology.

No, one of these days – one of these days, let's face it – you're going to have to face it.

Um! So if somebody is very afraid, he is liable to be very agreeable. This is the principle that's used in international relations by France, England and other countries.

I was scared a few weeks ago. I had a piece of paper put in front of me that moved me back about an inch in the chair. You know, thud! You know – quickly recovering my aplomb and saying, "Oh, yes, yes. Carry on," and all that sort of thing, and – rrrrrrrrr!

I wonder if this just isn't one of these things where some bodies make glumwums and some don't. You put some glumwums into body A and body A says, „Ah! Eeek!“ and immediately makes some. You put some glumwums into body B and it says, „Ho-hum,“ and doesn't bother to make any and therefore it gets a sign hung on it saying „Immune.“

A discussion was taking place of what we would use for training quarters in a certain country for 250 thousand men. And the size hadn't come home to me at all until a choice of bases was under discussion. And they had a spare infantry-training school which had been closed down since the war. And it turned out that it wasn't big enough for the task we were going to have to accomplish in about three years. A whole infantry-training school isn't big enough to handle a quarter of a million men, who would only be run through the school, you see, at a few at a time.

You see, if you came way downscale about disease, you would consider at once that it was a thing, wouldn't you? It would become a thing.

But, let's take 250 thousand men and divide it by thirty-six. Can you do that? A third of a quarter of a million. How many men is it? How many people is that? How long you going to train them so as to resist brainwashing, be able to handle enemy propaganda, be able to withstand the rigors of modern war? How long? Well, I wouldn't attempt it in under three or four months. How many people is that over a period?

Actually barbaric races always develop into a visible god any poorly understood phenomenon. They always give it a visibility. They build it a house and put it on a pedestal. They give it mass, in other words. If they don't understand something well, then they'll symbolize it in mass. Just like medicos and other barbaric peoples: They don't understand anything about the brain so they give it — they give thought mass, and yet there is no evidence that any part of the brain performs any real function in the process of thought. There really is no evidence to this effect.

Well, the training school would have had to have been enlarged because it wasn't big enough to hold the number of people which would have had to have been trained at one time. And I had no more chance of laying my hands on enough Instructors to run that school than a man in the moon, even though I'd reached out for every auditor in the world today. And that's only a quarter of a million men. You don't train thousands of people at a time without personal contact.

I know we've heard about people with bullets in their brains and they then couldn't perform certain functions. Well, we had one not too long ago in the HGC; and when we got through with him, in spite of the fact that he hadn't gotten any brain back, he'd gotten all the functions back, and they hadn't transferred over to something else, either.

If anybody has a long memory, do you remember Los Angeles? Now, how many people was that? How many people was that? And the tremendous amount of randomity, of course, might have been occurring from lack of know-how in terms of organization, but it was an awful lot of randomity. There was a lot of motion there which wasn't under good control at all. We still learned something.

So it doesn't look to me — it doesn't look to me any more than somebody has manufactured a terminal to match up the postulate when the body starts making glumwums. Do you see that? And it fits in with more of our way of thinking, if we really conceive this, this way. It's by agreement. „I get sick; you get sick. Okay? Fine.“ Tu-huh! And yet there is such an agreement.

But are we going to do a first-class, Los Angeles sort of a job on a project of training 250 thousand men? No, then it takes everybody everywhere to pitch in on that job. Fantastic as it may seem, it would take everybody everywhere. And of course, a lot of people can't come. They've got their sectors nailed down. So we just have to multiply everybody by four, you see, that is there. And we say, "You're four people today. This is your class, that five hundred people over there that are milling in a small circle."

Now, this goes down into a terminal and the terminal is a glumwum. This is an agreement gone solid. But what is an agreement? An agreement is a postulate gotten lonely.

Now, we're not embarking on that tomorrow. We're not embarking on such projects immediately in all directions. But the time to learn to confront groups is now. The time to train groups is now, because the very best you could do is simply stand up and train men to train groups, which men know nothing about your subject at all.

Now when the glumwum disappears, we have the phenomenon of the solid communication line. In other words, the glumwum is a thing now, and so we say it's a solid communication line of some sort or another, but the terminal is invisible. See that? An invisibility of terminal then occurs. You've got just the Reality Scale falling south here. And then pretty soon even the communication line disappears.

It makes a sad look when you look it over. The thoroughness of the training would be very un-thorough indeed, under present circumstances. The handling of groups, though – the handling of groups definitely includes the handling of a large group of students under lecture. Don't think that you wouldn't have to handle them just like you would an audience of any kind. They won't learn a thing unless you do.

Now, let's look at that. Let's look at that, because this particular civilization has not yet attained that depth of depravity. The terminal is no longer visible. Just how you get glumwums is not clearly discerned because it's very hard to isolate all carriers. But they still isolate some carriers, don't they? They can still do that, in spite of the fact that the terminal is invisible. So we have come to a point of a substitute terminal. We call it a carrier or a host. In other words, we can find the host but we can't find the thing easily.

All right. Now, completely aside from some large project which is now put up on the shelf because the army involved is shooting, you have a sphere of activity yourself in which you can talk. Your ability to talk is one thing. Your ability to confront a group is another. And under that heading is your ability to handle and control them. And here's the funny thing: If you can handle and control them, the amount of effort you have to put into the talk is very slight indeed. Strain comes on instruction only when you can't handle and control the people to whom you're talking.

Now, the more electronic microscopes they invent, why, the greater difficulty they have trying to find glumwums. This is for sure.

Now, the odd part of it is, an audience is perfectly willing to be handled and controlled. Very willing; tremendous willingness. All you have to do is run good 8-C on them, and they think this is gorgeous. You just talk to them with good 8-C. Talk to them complicatedly enough, too. But you talk with good 8-C. You don't say, "Now we'll take up the problem of all of these airplanes. Now, how many of you boys have studied your lessons about submarines? Well now, that's very, very good. By the way, at 2:15 we all stand to for baggage inspection." This isn't running good 8-C on a group and they don't like it.

I made one of these microscopes, by the way, in 1932, which was a very successful microscope. The first one used the principle of ultraviolet light, which I recognized was registerable on a sensitized plate — photomicrography, in other words. And therefore, you could see smaller. We had already gotten to the microscope's limit on light, and you had to get a tinier wave of light in order to see smaller things, you see? So I went — got smart here, one way or the other; got lazy or curious or something of the sort — and went south into ultraviolet light against photographic plates. Very interesting. Interesting phenomena. Using a very, very, very fine-grain emulsion, and I couldn't see any difference myself. Although I'd gone south, it didn't seem that we had really wound up anywhere. I got some cultured slides — some slides of various cultures of this and that and so on — and looked at them. And they were definable; they were discernible and so on.

So, handling, controlling a group has a great deal to do with the ARC you can maintain with a group. And every Scientologist should, on his own initiative, put himself into a better havingness in terms of audience. Don't start crossing the first stage-fright period with your first real audience. You get the idea? Cross it first – either on the gradient scale of simply going out and talking to the Boy Scouts Troop 10 or remedying it in an auditing session. Any way you care to go about it, you actually should practice up a little bit on being able to handle and control a group of people. It would do you worlds of good. Make you feel good; make you feel real good.

And the next year got even more curious, and we had something that would bombard a screen with very, very tiny particles that they have now assigned very interesting names to — alpha, gamma, Eisenhower, all kinds of names to these menaces — and anyhow, I found out the same thing that Yale spent, I think, two and a half million dollars finding out about eight or ten years later.

Now, actually, in handling groups and so forth, I, of course, myself, am a little shy. I like to be amongst friends. I do. I like to be amongst friends. I do not like to talk to hostile groups. I really do not.

They've had these big electronic microscopes — they fill a room! I don't know why they had to build them so they fill a room, because all they are, in essence, is some sort of a screen on which a particle, directed in straight line, will register. The particle, of course, sees something by detouring around it. So you just have magnetic plates that keep the particles going in straight lines, and where they encounter something, why, they leave a pattern on the screen. That's about the whole of it.

And I'm mean, too, when I do. You never saw such a change in a man in your life as when I have to talk to a hostile group. I immediately go off onto an entirely different line of stagecraft. It's tough! It's tough! They're there challengingly. They are willing to listen, but they already have been told how bad it is. They're sure you're not going to say anything interesting. But they're going to suffer through it somehow so that they can get on with the dessert or something. I get mean about that time, and I do bad things. I seldom give bad reports on myself, but that is actually an instance when I do.

And two or three times they've had measles all beautifully categorized. They've had beautiful pictures of measles. Only they keep coming up with different pictures. And you can't take a slide and throw it into one of these machines and say, „Ah! Measles.“ You say, „Now we'll inject it into something and see if it gets measles, and that was measles, and we've collected another picture of measles.“ It's not a certainty.

I hypnotized, one time, the staff of St. Elizabeth's. Told them they'd heard a good speech and left the stage. They all came around afterwards saying, "What a good speech that was you gave!" That was a mean thing to do. That was certainly backing out of it, wasn't it? But it was in the early career of Dianetics and I felt very much like backing out of it. I was preceded by someone who told all of them how bad it was over "Ron-ward."

It's like electrocardiographs. Have you ever seen one of these things? Well, somebody spends four or five years studying the patterns of these in order to detect whether or not somebody has heart trouble. Look! Anytime you've got to spend three, four, five years studying a meter to find out how to read it, you'd better invent a new meter. Either that or the meter isn't registering anything.

They might afterwards have suspected my knowledge of the mind, but certainly not my knowledge of hypnotism. It's very easy to hypnotize groups.

It's like Rorschach. You spend four years to get so you can interpret a Rorschach. Well, any time anybody can take kid inkblots that were invented back about 1860 — you drop a blot of ink on a piece of paper and then you smash another piece of paper down over the top of it. That's the first game. And you get an inkblot. And now the kiddies look at it and they say, „What is it?“ and they guess what it is; because it makes a strange pattern. Now you take a white card and you drop some ink, then, in the middle of this, and fold it good and tight. Squish, you know? And then you bring it out like that, and you look at the resulting pattern.

Another time, I talked to a group of people that couldn't have cared less about hearing anyone. But it was on their schedule that there was twenty minutes going to be devoted to a speaker, and at the last moment they hadn't been able to find any, so they got me. This is the sort of a position, you see, which is optimum – optimum. Well, I found out that in view of the fact that they couldn't care less, I might as well make them care more, and I became a bad boy at once and started insulting them. It's all I could do. I at least got their attention.

Now, that is a Rorschach inkblot! Was originally a child's game, and still is! Somebody goes to the university or some other pathological area and he studies for four years to learn how to interpret these things. And if anybody, however, has ever gotten a hold of the textbook, he can interpret in any way, shape or form that he cares to. And that's what makes it such a handy test, is it doesn't depend in the least upon the person being tested.

I was rather amazed afterwards – I was rather amazed afterwards... Actually I was rather insulting. I talked about their particular activities and not about mine at all. Never said a word about my activities, but said tremendously about theirs. And they hadn't been very nice to me when I had come in, you see, and I taught them better. I went down the list of their faults, one after the other, castigated them rather roundly, sarcastically and impudently. And afterwards, two of them came around and congratulated me for having given the only sincere speech they had ever heard there.

You always want several tests like this around. They lend to the authoritative atmosphere, you see? Requires super experts in that case.

I suppose that one has a havingness on hostile groups as far as that's concerned. But the truth be told, I've never had any group be hostile long. Their hostility rather has a tendency to blow up to the degree that you find them on the Tone Scale. And you talk to them on their position of the Tone Scale and they will very quickly realize that you are real.

Actually, the responses on Rorschach are supposed to be very standard from one type of insanity to another type, or one insane person to the next, or something like this and so on. Actually, there's the wildest response you ever heard of. And it doesn't coordinate against other types of tests, which makes it, of course, at once suspect. You take all the people in several insane asylums and you give them the test, and you take several people in a university and you give them the test, and you get what the difference is. And if the difference is undetectable you give it to several people out in the public and see if there's any difference again. Empirical findings.

Now, this isn't necessarily a trick. One simply falls into it. He inspects the situation and he talks. So actually there is no such thing as a bad audience – unless, of course, it is a group that wants to hang you. But of course, they are not technically an audience. The type of entertainment they want doesn't include you alive. So even then there's a saving grace. But there is no really bad audience.

All these tests do from our standpoint, by the way, is measure change.

A man should be able to control almost any kind of an audience. Very few petitioners ever believe that the United States government could be an audience. But there was a chap one time who wrote... Did you ever read the story of The Man Without a Country? All about Philip Nolan? Well, the author of that, one time, wrote a petition for the Customs House – if I remember rightly – on raising pay or doing something of the sort. And he wrote it so well and it was so beautifully expressed, and it was so seldom anything like that had ever been sent to the government at large, that they raised everybody's pay. Even the government could be an audience. Now, that's a fantastic thing. In other words, there is no limit whatsoever to the direction you can appeal or to the level you can appeal.

That's a little bit off the subject. The subject is that we simply are dealing with the field of detection. Now, what is this detection? What are we detecting? We are detecting a terminal which has become invisible.

People used to criticize George Wichelow over in London – rather broke his morale down – for going out in Hyde Park and lecturing alongside of the communists and lecturing elsewhere. But the funny part of it was, he has his regular group. He's over in Jersey now, and he's not lecturing in Hyde Park anymore – people miss him. There are an awful lot of people drifted by there. As a matter of fact, we were mentioned in two or three leading newspapers, along with other groups that were seen lecturing in Hyde Park.

Now, if you'll notice, people wear glasses when they can no longer see small objects. Then they'll wear glasses to see the small object. Don't you see? Well, there is nothing wrong with wearing glasses. You're just boosting up the sight ratio. After a while people wear microscopes. Got the idea?

But the point is that even this level of audience and that type of talking was effective. It doesn't matter what kind of an audience you get together. It doesn't matter particularly how big they are or how small they are. It really doesn't matter how interesting you are or uninteresting you are. The point of the matter is, all you have to do is say something to them. And just do this, and you find out you get along splendidly. But you find out that by not doing it you are apt to someday find yourself confronting an audience, not having had any havingness on audiences for a long time, with the result: stage fright, tongue- tiedness, and so on. I'm not backing up a horrible fate for you, but I am telling you for true that you should talk.

What is a pair of glasses? You notice eyes are supposed to deteriorate; the glasses have to be thicker and thicker and more and more powerful in order to see these objects more clearly, you see? Well, this is just the symptom of something going out of terminal. It's going out of the class of terminal into the class of visible comm line. You take anybody with glasses and have him mock up beams to the object, and he'll find out he can do that. If his glasses fit him at all he can always get beams between himself and objects rather easily, of course, given a clear field. You want to worry for him a little bit if he has to do it forty or fifty times before he gets a beam, because he's running upscale from no beam. Got the idea?

Now, the whole world is trying to tell you as an individual that you should never talk. There are two crimes in this universe. One is thereness and the other is communicatingness. Both are attempted to be punished. People attempt to punish both of these things. Thereness and communicatingness. The only two things that you can do wrong are to communicate and to be there. All crimes fall into that category. The law uniformly makes you prove that you weren't there. If you can prove you weren't there, why, they immediately exonerate you. That's thereness.

All right. Now, the invisible terminal is a vast study and an important one, because it is the lowest rung of the field of mechanics. And we apparently have come back to postulates, only we haven't.

Now, we take the whole subject of communicatingness. I don't care whether you did it by words or by bullets or with a knife or something, the only thing anybody ever objects to is communicatinguess apparently. This is the way the world runs, apparently.

I want to call your attention to this rather strongly. We apparently have come back to postulates because we can't see it. It does exist but we cannot perceive it, therefore it's invisible. It can render an effect upon us, that is obvious, and yet we cannot perceive it beyond its effect. We can still perceive the effect area but not the cause area at all. Terminal gone.

Two crimes: thereness and communicatingness. There are only two ways for a man to get well: thereness and communicatingness.

Now, doesn't that look like a postulate? It certainly does. It certainly looks like a postulate; and you will find more people, then, classifying postulates in that band rather than in their proper band.

Now, you, by succumbing to the law against being there and the law against communicating, are aiding and abetting your own demise. You are being a partner to the crime of your own extinction. So, if you can be discouraged in doing either of these two things, you can be made ill. That's for sure. Only those things to which you cannot or dare not communicate can affect you. Fantastic, but true.

„Thetans are fearsome things. They fly around in the air and throw postulates at you.“ See? „Anytime we get sick it's because of the ghosts and devils.“ See? Actually, it's just an invisible terminal that was set up there God knows when. Just held in place endlessly.

Now, if you yourself feel that you cannot communicate to groups and cannot hold them, you will become the victim of groups. And because life is a third-dynamic activity – not a first-dynamic activity – part of living consists of confronting groups. And when you cut and ran, or let the shakes deter you from shaking, you of course are being a partner to your own demise.

How many of these things are there? Duhhh! How many terminals have become invisible, per any given preclear? A few.

So then, it actually doesn't come down to a basis of you should do this for dear old Scientology, see. It actually comes down to a basis you should do it because in the past I am sure that you have done an audience or two in. I'm sure you have. Otherwise you wouldn't be shy of them today, if you are. Now, of course, many of you are not at all audience shy, and that is very fine. That's very fine. You should practice, however, once in a while.

Well, let me tell you something very interesting: A thetan originally didn't think it was a good house unless all the light in it came out of the objects. We're using an entirely different system here. The light shines on the wall and then shines back. The wall reflects, or reflexes, you see? Well, this is different than the object emanating, and once upon a time a nice object was one which emanated. But how does an object emanate? Well, it has to glow, of course, and we get the whole phenomena of gamma and so on.

One of the most interesting activities in which a person can engage is the instruction of his fellow man, in making his life a bit better and in making the world a better place in which to live. In fact, I would go so far as to say I don't know of any other activity. But that's just my stupidity. I have had some past acquaintances who tell me that destroying the whole world from pole to pole is an interesting activity, too. They have told me this.

Well, now. These terminals have disappeared. One doesn't see these around very often, but one knew they were around and one knew they were scarce and one knew therefore that they were dangerous, and so one reacts to gamma.

Well, the total win for destroying the world from pole to pole will consist of not needing a fire in the future with which to fry eggs on earth. You won't need a fire to fry eggs on earth after the boys have got it all neatly dusted off, but you won't have any eggs, either! So these blessings are not always blessings.

Now, we can explain this very easily. It's a matter of lost terminal, invisible influence, hidden influence — anything you want to call it there; hidden influence is what we normally call it in Scientology — but it simply means the terminal is invisible.

It does seem to me that making the world a better place in which to live, maintaining people's interest in existence, keeping the game going, helping your fellow man – these things seem to be very worthwhile activities, and I know as long as I engage in them and keep my attention off of my more wicked impulses, I feel fine.

Now, you run a fellow upscale and he will find more terminals than he thought were there, and several of these will be radiative terminals, radioactive terminals. We process mechanics on somebody who is sure it is all postulates and we're never wrong. Got that? We're sure. This person is absolutely certain, you get it, that it's... We've seen a lot of those cases.

So that's really the only therapy I have indulged in recently. And whereas I'm not in awfully good condition, you know – I never am – I nevertheless feel more satisfied than many of the preclears I've had recently.

I begin to suspect my own sanity every once in a while. I got a fairly wide comm line going on Earth here. And you guys got some comm lines going, and we put out some ideas, see? And these ideas wind up places. You know, all of a sudden they wind up in someplace, and somebody is glibly coming on the air and giving forth one of our ideas. Now, our comm lines are better than you think. They're much better than you think.

Thank you.

Well, I forget this every once in a while — I forget how good these are — and I get a shock like I got in Great Britain one time. And I really tried to follow this comm line back, and had a hard time following it back. And it wasn't for about two or three weeks after my first effort to track the comm line that I found the actual communication channel; and the actual communication channel existed. Put out an idea out of the PABs about educating peoples before we armed them. I mean, just as simple as this. The Labour Party grabbed this whole-hog (of England), and came out with a policy which is now their policy with regard to other countries than England proper. It's very fascinating. And I thought, at first, you know, I says, „Well, what do you know! You shoot an arrow into the air and it falls to earth you know not where.“

Thank you.

One night the TV was turned on (British TV) and here were a couple of chaps, a Labourite and a Socialite or — Conservative and a Labourite, that was what it is — and they were discussing this idea. You educate them, and you make sure that you have democratic principles beaten into their skulls before you start shoving freedom and machine guns in their paws. You know, that was all the idea there was, and they were discussing this, and I said, „The — the — the — the — the... What the hell here? The — just a minute. Am I skidding? Maybe I shoot an arrow into the air...“ I said, you know?

Well actually, people in insane asylums are sure they do this all the time. That's the thing they're sure of. See?

So I said I'd better go over and take my Rorschach or my Wassermann, or whatever you take, and make sure I'm still moting on all eight cylinders — well, at least one or two of them. And it had me in a bit — a bit confused there. So I tried to run it down along one channel, and I wrote one auditor who had such connections and I said, „Hey! Did you put this through there?“ and he wrote back after some time and he said no.

And just about the time he wrote back and said no, I got a long letter asking me for more material, from a person who had simply sort of hung around on the outskirts of the London organization but who is intimately connected with the government. And this person was writing me to get more data on the same plan. So it wasn't an invisible communication. You get the idea? But for a while there I had my doubts! What's going on here? What have I got here, an invisible communication line? From no terminals? Worried me.

But downscale they don't worry about it when they see something like this. They just „know“ that is the thing. They just „know“ that is the thing.

Now, you add it up to the fact that the person can't work, can't spit, can't think and can't run on any process that you run him on, and yet they're absolutely sure that all they've got to do is just accidentally think a thought that somebody is going to run into a lamppost, and somebody will run into a lamppost. Got it? They get sold on this invisible terminal, invisible comm line, way down south — way down south below nowhere. Now, a thetan way up top can do these things. And they sort of remember this capability. Now, these people at the same time tell you that there is no such thing as a mechanic. They tell you there are no walls; they can take care of that sort of thing, you know, and they tell you that's easy to handle. Their emotional tone is quite often beautiful serenity.

Now, this is interesting. This person not-ises mass and puts himself into some kind of an ecstatic state. He's got the whole universe on the back of his neck. He daren't look or the whole thing will fall in on him, don't you see? He has this all suppressed with such pressure that it is fabulous. He has the universe itself completely suppressed. Do you see that? All right. We see this commonly amongst holy men in India, Tibet, so on. They're quite good, many of them, and many of them are quite nuts.

There's a nice piece of differentiation here. You have to differentiate between the person who can do it and the person who says he is doing it. See, there's a difference. And that difference is the acceptance of the mechanical universe. The fellow who can do it can also accept or build or construct or reject the whole cockeyed universe — the whole thing! — and the other fellow daren't accept any part of it.

So don't fall into an error here in processing. The fellow who does it all by telepathic thought and has Western Union wiring up his brain so the government can read his mind, or something of the sort... It doesn't even have to be that crude. He tells you that he doesn't have to be processed on any of these things like walls or things like that; he's rather insulted about the whole thing. He's much better than that. This is your boy. You run him on mechanics. You just run him on mechanics.

Now, we don't care what processes you use. You certainly, however, use walls. You use walls and spaces and floors. You can put ideas into them, you can do anything with them you want to do with them. You make invisible particles solid if you want to. You do anything you want to. We don't care what you do as long as it is a mechanical process. The process must then process the mechanics of existence, with very good procedure, with tremendous stress on the communication formula. The funny part of it is, you'll have a hard time.

The other boy who can really do it is quite interesting in that he can be processed perfectly and easily on mechanics. He's just as willing to be processed on mechanics as he is on eating soup. Doesn't matter to him. He can stay in good communication with you or not. He might change his mind and not be in communication with you, too, you know.

Furthermore, the game (and here's the other one) does not have to be complicated for the fellow who can make the postulates stick at a distance. The game can be so simple it's idiotic. It can be awfully simple, and he can still enjoy it as a game. And brother, the other fellow has to have nothing short of Brahms. See? It's got to be nice. And, of course, if he's really interested, it'd be Prokofiev. That's life. That'd be really interesting!

That's fascinating to see there that we have newly inherited a brand-new method of detecting differences of tone, and that is complexity: What is interesting?

This, by the way, gives you the whole substance of interest. It tells you that interest has to be enforced by complexity as you go downscale, whereas interest and disinterest upscale is by postulate.

Now, you see those first two sweeping classes of processes? You have to call them classes because when somebody gets out of mechanics, he can handle mechanics, he can mock them up, he can do things with energy and spaces and masses, motion and no- motion, and so on, he can do things with all these things; he then has only one class of processes on which he can run with benefit and that consists of postulate processes. But we didn't understand it three years ago that these were as widely separated as they are. They're plenty widely separated. And so we have to treat them as two entirely different classes.

Now, these two occasionally coincide so that you can do both at the same time, and where you have that you have an optimum process because it processes both. But just because you're processing both, for heaven sakes don't think you're processing one thing, because you're not.

Some cases react very, very well to mechanics alone and some cases react to ideas and mechanics at the same time. But you're doing two things at once; remember that you're doing two things at once. Substitution and Confronting as processes are doing both postulate and mechanics at the same time, and there you have the coincidence of the two fields. But they are two fields, and if you get somebody who cannot even vaguely embrace both of them at the same time, you have then to run on him mechanical things, mechanics. Get him to feel walls, put walls there. Do anything you want to do but run him only on mechanics without straining the brain. Got it?

Okay. Thank you.

[End of Lecture]