Good evening. I haven't got very much to talk to you about tonight, but I'll think of something.

The, for any newcomer in the audience, these talks are sponsored by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation and Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, and they concern answers on the subject of human behavior and the resolution of some of the problems of human behavior. And there are a great many things in these two sciences of Dianetics and Scientology which resolve problems heretofore unresolved.

The more ordinary of these problems is the matter of I.Q. Everyone knows that intelligence is intelligence, and one has that intelligence and that's that. Almost daily at the HASI clinic we disprove this. Daily. People who come there for a week quite normally gain in intelligence something on the order of fifteen points. This is a tremendous jump. Even people who are in the class that would normally be considered moron and so forth, gain similarly. So evidently something can be done about intelligence, so something has been done about this age old stumbling block of human problems. How smart is a man? He's as smart as we audit him to be.

That is one minor concern. Another concern which we have resolved with considerable ease is the problem of behavior, as such. Let us take such a thing as very hypercritical conduct. An individual is in high protest in all directions against the society and his fellows, so that he himself cannot sleep or rest. And he doesn't recognize that there's anything wrong with him, he thinks it's the society that is wrong, and therefore he must protest violently against it.

Well with a little bit of processing, quite ordinarily this hypercritical state gets down to something approaching a reasonable state. Well does that mean that we process somebody into an apathy so that he can accept his environment? No. Actually an individual who is hypercritical has usually gone below apathy already, and the problems he is screaming about are not actual, and he is just dreaming up things to scream about because he doesn't really recognize the things around him which should be remedied.

Now when an individual is in fairly good condition, those problems which he screams about are the problems he can do something about. That's quite a, quite a different type of critical behavior. Nobody says that we shouldn't be critical of the society around us. But there is so much that, about which we could be critical, that we consider it quite amusing, people going around being critical about hallucinatory things. And this is, you see how that sits. Well we can do something about that not by making the individual apathetic, but by actually pulling him into a state of action and capability.

An individual stops this process of sitting back and crying about an unactual thing, you know, he's crying because all the bananas in the city are actually made out of lead. I mean, it's just as silly as that, some of the things they cry about. They sit back and they're very upset. Well, let's take the organization. They get very upset because the organization itself is doing such horrible things, or people in the HDRF or HASI are doing such horrible things, and unspecifiably. You see? There's no specification. There aren't any horrible things really outlined, there are very few known. The organizations are liable for the inefficiencies to which man is generally liable. But we get this interesting state of somebody being very upset about the motives or actions and so forth of an organization, which motives and actions are nonextant.

Now if they want to get upset about the organization, why let them come around and ask somebody who's in the organization, they can show them several things that could be gotten upset about. You see? You know, there are some things in there that could be gotten upset about. But people don't get upset about these things. They get upset about imaginary things.

Well we could process, get somebody into a state where he actually could recognize what is actually wrong with the organization. See? That would be quite a gain, that's quite a goal. That's pretty well up. There are a lot of people in the country terribly upset about the government, and they don't know wherein.

It's something on the order of a, of a preacher down south who was brought in by the elders of the church. And he came in and he, he gave a beautiful speech and afterwards why; the elders were considering hiring him as the permanent minister; and he spoke to them asked how he'd got along. And they said, "Well, mm," and he said, "Well, didn't I sound loud enough, didn't I shout hard enough?" And, "Hm." And he said, "Well didn't, didn't I argufy and spewtify enough?" And one of the elders evidently with the concurrence of the others says, "Well," he says, "you argufied and you spewtified, but you didn't show wherein."

And this is analogous to conditions of some people about the government, you see? They say, "It's all bad and this is bad," and are real upset. And we bring them up tone scale a little bit and they take a look at the government and they can find some things wrong with the government, but this is the first time they've looked, you see? Most of the things being found wrong with the government aren't wrong with the government. Alright, now where else could we take this individual, just on the basis of criticism? We could take him up scale to a point where he could actually recognize his role in the society and his ability to do something about the government. You see?

Now where we part company with the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist never was in company with us. We have a lot of pretty doubtful characters once in a while around, but never a psychiatrist. I mean, we don't get along. By the way, there are some people out in California, where else, who get upset about the fact that I take slams at psychiatry and psychology. And I asked them why, and so forth, and somebody in the office finally told me why. He says, "They, these people recognize that psychology and psychiatry couldn't stand up to these slams I give them and..." That's the point.

Now the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist is very suspicious of somebody who's active. "No, that's bad. That's bad. Somebody is active." The fellow walks in and he says, "How are you doctor," and so forth. Immediately after this you know, he says, "Good morning, a beautiful day. Now let's see, what are we going to get done today?" And if you were to follow right in behind him after he's left and listen to the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist would tell you, "That man is just not here, you know? Manic depressive with schizoid tendencies." And you might point out to him, "Well that fellow that just walked through here is executive manager of a billion dollar corporation and everything in his entire vicinity blossoms and blooms." "That just doesn't matter. Overly active."

I was flat on my back one time in a hospital during the war. And a bunch of these characters come around and explained to me; I couldn't have been more motionless. I mean, the only thing that was moving was my heart, slightly; and they told me I'd have to give up this rushing around. Well, they view with great misgivings, anyone who is active. And so the normal belief in that field would be that if anyone was brought up to the level that he could actually see what was wrong and where he would do something about it as the higher level on that, these people would say, "That man would be a revolutionary. He would be over active." And that's not true at all, because the government itself utterly depends on its having in its midst and around it, enough active people who are doing something about what actually is wrong. And when a government no longer has these people in its vicinity, it is a dead government.

Similarly, an individual who is not working in life to remedy or make better the actual conditions which he finds around him, is not liable to succeed. And if you want a good definition of success it would just be that. A person who can look around him and see what has to be done, what has to be remedied, what's actual, and then actually can do and does do something about it. And that person is about eighty-four light years above normal. So we're going pretty high.

Now there is that fellow on a harmonic you might say, below that same level, who imagines many wrong things. He stands there, he sees a steam locomotive. It hasn't any wheels, it has no stack, it has no fire box and its boiler is empty. And he stands there and he looks at and gets passionate about this steam locomotive and he says, "It is the most abominable thing in the world. Every piece of brass on that whole locomotive is trimmed with gold. What a horrible expense." You go and you look and you one, can't find any brass, and you certainly can't find any gold. What most people do about life, they never notice the missing stack, the missing wheels and the empty boiler. See? They never notice that. They're upset about it. These are people who cannot look at a condition. They can look away from a condition and then sort of figure what the condition was. And that's a pretty hard thing to do, to accomplish something starting from that point.

We have to look around and find out what actually is wrong or is taking place. We have to be able to observe the actualities in our environment and then do something about these very actualities, not something else. So there's where criticalness leads, and there is the scale of criticalness. First the individual really, the bottom where the individual won't even complain about hallucinatory wrongness. You know? He's real apathy. And then up above that, where the person talks about hallucinatory wrongnesses, you know, there's lots of things wrong but he doesn't show wherein. And right up above that the individual who gets the glimmering that there is something wrong and is determined to get the actual thing that is wrong. And then up above this level the individual who can look and find the things that are wrong. And then above that the individual who not only looks, but knows he can do something right about it. And above that the individual who can look, see what's wrong, recognize its remedy and act to remedy that wrongness. If you had a lot of these boys up here, you'd have a society, I mean if we could call it a society. Now you haven't.

Now where we, where we part company with the nineteenth century school of thought as represented by psychology, is that man must adjust to his environment. Psychology said man must adjust to his environment, see, his whole salvation depends upon his adjusting to his environment. Well look, if there are a lot of things wrong in that environment and they actually are wrong, then according to psychology definition they should also be wrong with the individual. Think that over for a moment. If everybody in his town has a broken back, then he has to have a broken back. You get this as a complete washout of the individual?

Now our view of it is, an individual is as well off as he adjusts the environment to him. It's a completely different view. Everybody in his town's got a broken back, so then, then he ought to fix them up so they don't have broken backs. You get the idea? Now we would consider that individual a healthy individual. And we would consider the individual who adjusts to his environment, a sort of a hopeless thing. The whole history of man is completely dependent upon that fellow who can adjust the environment to him.

Now our departure then was a quite definite departure, but we see these two things in relative position to each other as on this same band that we've just been talking about with critical, with relationship to criticalness. The individual who adapts himself to the environment couldn't be critical of the environment at all. You see? He says, "The environment's real and actual, and I've just got to fit myself into any round hole or square peg that comes along. You know? That's it.

Now societies have not progressed at the hands of such individuals. Anything that you have, like or want in this society at this time, is to some degree dependent upon the activities of individuals or yourself, in adjusting the environment to themself or yourself.

Now we see this then, as a possible improvement, that an individual who heretofore had been lying supinely and letting the drill presses run across him, who has been you know, kind of going along with the traffic stream and hitting other cars and bouncing off those. That's the optimum, that's the optimum personality in psychology, see. He drives along and adapts himself to the environment. That doesn't mean he drives along, does what the other cars are driving along. The environment is there and he just caroms off various cars until he finally gets to a destination. Total adaption to environment. Now, we take this individual and we find out that we're not going to build much of a society with this fellow. And we're not going to build much of a society with this philosophy extant in it, because it's a sort of a piece of dry rot in the middle of an otherwise active civilization.

This individual will be as good as he can adapt the environment to himself or to his group. And we have a further thought which is entirely foreign to the Freudian school of thought, the psychological which is an earlier; you know psychology is older than psychoanalysis, by many years. It practically went out just about the time psychoanalysis was coming in. And the, the school of thought of Freud and the earlier school of thought was built around an "only one" computation, where each person in the society thought of himself as the only one there. And the one dynamic, the urge toward survival, the first dynamic of self, was the only one which was recognized. And so, the psychologist hears this statement, "An individual is as good as he can adjust the environment to himself," and he says, "Oh, no, no, no, no, nnnn, horrible. That's going to fill the whole civilization full of maniacs." You see? See why he thinks that? Because his entire thought channel is along the line of the first dynamic. There's only one on Earth, each individual thinks of himself as just one and there are no other individuals. This is a sort of a psychotic state which is accepted as normal.

Now we have to go up scale and examine the third dynamic before we can understand this, adjust the environment to ones' self. And that's very easy to do when we adjust it to the third dynamic, because third dynamic is the urge toward survival of a group. And an individual being part of or working with or serving or being served by a group, is part and parcel to that group, works with that group, and each individual has within himself a potentiality and characteristic of being able to work as part of a group. And actually a man is not very happy unless he can attain to some small group. Even the criminal has to have a gang.

Now, when we think now of adjusting the environment, man has to adjust the environment to himself, we're not talking about him adjusting the environment to a bunch of only ones, whereby we would have continual conflict and fight war amongst individuals. We're talking about man adjusting the environment to man, and we've broadened it up to the fourth dynamic. Man has an urge to survive as man because he is a man and because there are men, and individuals everywhere work in the direction to some degree, of bettering man's survival. And each individual is working toward the bettering of the survival of the group toward which, with which he is involved. And a smaller group, a specialized group comes under the second dynamic, the family. And he also, quite incidentally, works for individual survival when he's in pretty good shape, because there's a joke back of all of this that we know in Dianetics and Scientology.

We learned it in Scientology, this business about survival. How do you make an only one if it's this important to thought, this way, because you see it is important. Actually the idea that we're all only ones, that every baby thinks of himself as the only baby on Earth, this whole concept although fallacious, would make it impossible for us to assume, if we believed, you see, this concept of only one, then it would make it impossible for us to accept that man is as well off as he can adjust the environment to him. You see, it would be impossible to accept that. And the reason it would be impossible to accept that is because, because you think of, "Gee whiz, I mean, you mean, every truck driver I run into is trying to force the environment into the frame of reference of a truck driver, and every clerk I run into is trying to make the environment adjust itself to a clerk and every, every other being that we run into is trying to adjust the environment to himself. And, and look at this, because obviously it can't work. It just won't work." And sure enough, if you think of the only one, it won't work. You see? So that psychology was never able to accept and could not today even vaguely accept this idea.

Let's take a little further look here and find out that an individual is at his best and his happiest when he is expressing the maximum number of dynamics in his beingness. Now I'll tell you why this only one is a terrible joke. We do have some modern thinking and there's a great deal of very modern thinking in Dianetics and Scientology. Enough of it so that one indoctrinated in Dianetics and Scientology doesn't easily at one swoop communicate what he knows, to somebody else, because the other fellow thinks he knows a lot of things that are very involved, that aren't particularly true. And his belief that he knows all these things are enough to debar his acquiring any simplification of this entire catalogue of knowingness. See?

You get down here and you talk to, talk to a medico and the medico has got tremendous catalogs of illnesses and my goodness, there's illnesses and illness, and let's get that, that's, that book there, that's specialties on difficulties with toenails. You set that aside and we go through this book and we go through this and it says, this was, this is Specialties In The Handling Of Scalpels you set that aside. And we just accumulate this tremendous number of labels and facts, and we get over here and we get this book and this is the number of parts there are in a brain, from a medical man's standpoint. Uh. He thinks he knows something about the brain because he knows a lot of names. But his patient sits down, his patient is sick, the medical doctor, the medico can't say, "Abracadabra," and so forth and all of a sudden have the patient be happy about his illnesses. Uh-uh. He can't do that. Well then, why does he think he knows anything about the mind, he can't change it. But he has this huge battery of labels and he's falling across these labels. They're a forest of swords. To get across this vast field would be impossible for him, so he just kind of sits down on the least sharp sword he finds and says, "Well, some specialist will have to know all about this." Well that's an only one characteristic, isn't it?

One of the finest specialists in the country, Doctor Pottinger who is such an expert with TB that he's practically the only one you'd really go to in the United States, if you had a bad case of TB. You'd go see Doc Pottinger, and Doc Pottinger would say, put his hands on your chest and he'd say, "Oh wow, two spots already. Well that's fine, let's see if we can't do something about this," and he'd put you to bed and then the next thing you know, you'd get well because you would, you'd want to please him. That's right. People don't dare die around Doc Pottinger, it would upset him. But he is a great specialist, and he said to me one day in his office, he said, "There's only one trouble with medicine today," he said, "there are more and more and more specialists, and more and more and more specialists in more and more and more specialties." And he says, "Where in all this mass of specialties do we find somebody who knows something about sickness and medicine?" That's quite a point.

Alright, because every time you go to a specialist he knows immediately that what you've got is his specialty. See? You walk in there, you walk in, you see this fellow who is a specialist, what do they call them, phrenologist, specialist in fractured skulls. Anyway, you walk in to see this specialist in fractured skulls and you've got a broken finger. You show him your broken finger and he talks to you about your fractured skull. And we don't get anyplace at all. He's a specialist, he expresses that specialty. If you have something wrong with you and you go to see a dentist, he'll tell you it can be cured by pulling out all your teeth. Doesn't much matter what dentist or what malady, you'll get something of this expression. You see more young people walking around without any teeth, and you say, "What was the matter with you?" The person says, "I had arthritis." What's this got to do? "Where'd you have the arthritis?" "I had it in my right leg." You can look in vain in people's right legs, and you won't find any teeth.

So as we, as we look over this, we have to examine this only one as a thing that drove a former attempt at formulating a science into the discard as far as practical use is concerned, it must be quite an important thing. Well it is an important thing because we have everybody, if we had the idea that everybody was a separate individual and nobody was pulling with anybody else except under the duress, maybe a force or something, if we said there's no native desire to work together, if we said there's no slightest compensation as being part of a group, we'd finally develop people, so detached from reality and so far from any ability to understand their fellow man, that they would actively contemplate the destruction of Earth and all creatures on it. Inevitable, isn't it? And we have developed such people. Now there we get everybody getting more and more separate from everybody else, you see?

Well I won't say what role this philosophy, how psychology has played in this or what role psychoanalysis has played in this. It would be impossible to estimate it. It might be just a sign of the times, but all these people have been taught, this concept that the individual is as well off as he adjusts to his environment, and that individuality is the only thing an individual can express. In other words, we're all a bunch of only ones. And that is so improper that it doesn't work and actually, if it is expressed continually, will drive men into madness.

If you don't believe that sometime, just take some little kid and keep insisting that he is much better than his fellows, he has more responsibility for himself because he is a member of this great family, and he has more responsibility than other children, and he is different than other children, and he has breeding and he has talent and he has to support these things, and he, he's got to realize that he is a, he is a Junker and Junkers are all different and he has something to support and he has something to learn for you see, that's different than other boys.

And he goes out there and he's slumming down in the alley way when he's quite small before they break him of it entirely, and the kids are down there and they're throwing mud at each other, and boy he just gets mud from the top of his head to the tip of his toes. And they yank him inside and they say, "You mustn't play with these other boys, because you're a Junker, you, you know, you're special." And now we get this family years later wondering why they have to take this kid to see a psychoanalyst who doesn't do anything for him.

Why is the rich man's son raised in such an atmosphere, proverbially a difficult person? Why did they send Loeb and Leopold to prison, except on the only one computation? They were telling them all the time, they were telling them all the time, "You're just one, you're just one, you're just one. You're something special, you're something different, you're not like other boys, you mustn't be part of that group." And what did this do to these people?

A man is eight dynamics alive, that's how alive a man is. He is eight dynamics alive. There are eight urges toward survival, as we subdivide them in Scientology. And these eight urges toward survival are self, urge to survive as self. Urge to survive through sex and the raising of children and the supporting and continuance of families. The urge toward survival as groups, and that's any kind of a group. And the urge toward survival just as a man. The urge to survival for all men on the part of one man, you see? And the urge toward survival as simply life forms. The urge of a life form to survive. And then the urge toward survival for this universe, which is theta, space, energy, matter, time, just that it should survive. And then the urge toward survival of spiritual things, or spirits, if you wish. And finally the urge toward survival of infinity, which is the eighth dynamic, which is an infinity turned on it's side. We could call this a supreme being if we wanted to.

But here, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And just imagine now, that we had eight rods up here, each one of them just this tall. And we had this as their full, total height. An individual would be as alive as he had all of these rods. And then we come along and we say, "You're the only one." And we put his attention over here on number one, and we have immediately blurred out some portion of the remainder. It would take a great deal of punishment, it would take an awful lot of duress to much knock down these other rods, but man manages it.

Now, his family keeps saying, "You're different," or, "You've got to behave," or "The group isn't for you," and so on. What are they doing to him? They're killing him. It isn't that the individual also has a third dynamic, the dynamic of groups. He is natively possessed of this dynamic, and it is part of the life which he experiences. And when we take that and diminish it or pull it out of his makeup or blunt it or dull it, we have made him that much less alive. If a man were totally alive this would be impossible. But if a man were totally alive on the first dynamic and no other dynamic existed of any kind whatsoever, he would be one eighth alive. You see that? One eighth.

And things would look one eighth as bright to him, and that wall over there would be one eighth as real as it should be. And therefore he would have one eighth the responsibility that he should have. And therefore like criminals, like Leopold and Loeb, would not get written about in the Saturday Evening Post in this aberrated society. It's one of the cheaper journals, Saturday Evening Post, but it did have a good artist drawing for it, one time or another. But the Saturday Evening Post has given four installments to a couple of fellows who have benefitted man to the degree of killing a small boy as a sex crime. Ehh! I don't think it could call itself a magazine anymore to me, because if in that they have given data and material that would prevent this from occurring or would better such circumstances in the future, then there'd be some sense to it. But all it is, is a maudlin steering of so called facts to titillate the appetite of the reader.

Now, these boys, being totally responsible for self, let us say they were one hundred percent responsible for self. This would be impossible, but let's just say they were, they would have no responsibility for any other man, dog, cat or object or moment, being, spirit, anything in the whole universe. You would then have accomplished a horrible monster. A monster, nothing less. And so the individuals who are driven back to this line can occasionally accomplish monstrous things. It is only when the third dynamic is taken away, that crime can even vaguely arise. Only then can crime take place. We examine the criminal, we find out in all of his various departments, he is the bringer of death. That's all. That's his total gift, death. Not a very happy frame of mind to be in. And he's a very unhappy person.

Now when we break it down to only a first dynamic, we have broken it down as well, have broken down the first dynamic to where what is granted and what is grantable is death, and nothing else is grantable. Nice view, isn't it? If we went ahead and worked on this philosophy of man being an individual only and without any feeling for his fellows, no responsibility for them, that every man was thinking about himself, and for himself forever, if we went ahead and specialized on this, we brought up all of our children to believe this, we would finally achieve a society of criminals.

Only when Rome had achieved this philosophy, did it die. Rome had achieved this philosophy at the turn of two millenias ago. They were perfectly willing to see their fellow men torn to pieces by wild beasts in an arena. Bunch of only ones. They were crazy, these people, they were very unhappy. And these insane people had an empire which had been build for them by sane people. And then the sane people had gotten so they felt better than the rest of the people on Earth, and there was only one thing you could possibly be, and that was a Roman, and all other things were despicable. So the Roman became sort of a first dynamic as a Roman, you see, and he fell away from his companionship with the rest of the races on Earth. And falling away from that he fell away from the third dynamic of being a Roman, and at last was simply a mob of criminals.

Now the sad history of Rome wouldn't be called sad to anyone who had been around in those days and had had a couple of lions nibbling upon him in an arena. People felt strongly about this. They felt strongly enough about this to overthrow that entire empire. In other words, how, how do we bring an empire up to a level where it can be overthrown? How do we bring it up to a point of where it can be overthrown? We just teach everybody in it to be an individual who has no responsibility for any other individual, we make nothing but specialists in the sciences, we do not teach anyone who is in the field of physics any of the humanities, we don't teach anyone in the humanities any of the exact sciences. You get the idea?

We turn out engineers who have no more command of the king's English; you say, "Macbeth," and they say, "I heard of that. I heard of that in, I heard of that in high school. Yeah, Macbeth, I heard of that in high school. It was written by, somebody. Yeah, I well remember. I remember I had to memorize a, memorize something from Macbeth, just a minute, I'll remember it here, just a moment. 'The quality of mercy is not strained.' Yeah, I remember." These people have no feeling for the, for the arts at all. They can become extremely engrossed because they're specialists, they're engineers. They're beyond such things as these human impulses.

Now we give them some laboratories and let them build weapons to blow up more sections of Earth than they could build. I know. I asked one one day, I said, "You know," I said, "I saw a section of desert, pretty nice desert, that got blown up by an atom bomb," and I said, "By the way, just offhand, could you blow up another section like that?" And the fellow says, "Yeah, I could. We could blow up a whole town." And I said, "Well that's very interesting," I said, "could you build one?" And I made him sick. He got sick.

When I deal with these boys ordinarily, I don't much believe in pulling the punches. I don't think the government itself has any real thought in this direction, but here we have an unbalanced education being handed out to a great many people. Be all very well if people in the humanities understood a little bit more about the exact sciences. It's quite laughable to ask somebody in the, in the humanities. He says, "Well what we really need on this job is a statistician." And what he means by a statistician is somebody who can add columns and average them in some fashion or another.

A statistician would be so much more than they demand of him, if you really look at what a statistician could do, that he'd take a long time doing it. They, they say, "Well, we're using a scientific methodology of doing this." If you took the scientific methodology out of the humanities and tried to apply it to engineering, nothing would happen. Trains would not run, tunnels would all collapse, buildings would all fall down and there'd be nothing but solid bacteria in your city water systems. They have no real appreciation of it, but similarly and unfortunately the engineer has very, very little knowledge of the humanities. Very little. He's a pauper when it comes to this.

Unless a society has more broad feeling for itself, unless it has within itself some common denominator of interest, it starts falling apart into a bunch of only one characteristics. And what happens then? What happens? You get dark ages, that's what happens because everything goes out of communication.

Alright, let's look at this on a happier side. Let's look at it on a nice happy side. What do we mean by these dynamics? We mean the total assembly of possible communications. Now let's just revamp your whole idea right now, of dynamic. It isn't some urge that is expressed by a small arrow doing through your head. It is not something that is on a graph and in your pocket. It is a desire to survive in a certain direction and sphere of action. That's what a dynamic is. But much more important than that, let's just consider it a lot of possible communications.

Now the funny part of it is, you're as well off as you're in communication. That's interesting, isn't it? We can prove that. We have a triangle in Scientology, called the, the ARC triangle. You'll see Scientologists, you know, sign their letters, something of the sort, with ARC, Bob, or something like that. What's he mean? He means affinity, reality, communication. And this triangle itself sums up to understanding. Do you think if the whole world understood everything else in the world, that any part of the world would hate any other part of the world? If all parts of the world understood every part of the world, could there be any hate in the world at all? No, there sure couldn't be. There sure couldn't be.

Understanding is composed of affinity, reality and communication. And these three factors combined one with another, are themselves life. The potentialities and characteristics of life are contained in these three things. What do we mean by affinity? Actually we mean the consideration of distance between communicating points. That is what we mean by affinity. But it's how much, it's a, it's an engineering definition, if you please, for love. Now here we have, here we have all of the various emotions, efforts and so forth, all lump under affinity. Now we have over here, reality. How real, how actual are these things? In other words, how much are we agreed upon these things? And over here we have C which is communication. The ability to exchange ideas concerning actuality, with affinity.

We can't exchange ideas or communicate in the absence of some agreement, in the absence of some liking or affinity. You see? We have to have liking or affinity of some kind, and we have to have agreement of some kind, in order to have communication. And we can demonstrate in Scientology, that the only universal solvent there is is communication. That's really, a universal solvent. That does the darndest things. It's the most remarkable thing there is. You handle communication while you're processing somebody, and it is the, it's utterly fantastic. It is an actual scientific miracle which occurs when you apply correctly communication processing to an individual. What communication can do for a person is demonstrated in the fact that when not enough communication is done, it can make him sick. Now that's an oddity, isn't it?

Let's take an individual who has theoretically no communication and he's sort of lying there like a rock you know? Has no communication at all, and all of a sudden somebody says three words to him, see? Like, "You darned fool," and he says, "Boy, look at this, look what I've got here. I have some sense and meaning from an exterior source, and man is this precious. I'm now going to dedicate my life to being a darned fool." Now that's actually the operation of the image pictures which a person has. The communication is so scarce that he picks it up and hugs it to his psychic bosom forevermore. And he won't let go of it until you or an auditor comes along and says, "How are you, Joe? How are you, Joe? Well that's fine, I'm glad you're feeling good. Fine, how are you, Joe? How are you, Joe? How are you, Joe? Well, Hello Joe. OK, Joe. How are you, Joe?" And the fellow will say, "You know, I don't feel like being a darned fool, now. I'm Joe."

Alright. Here we have, here we have something so powerful that just a few drops of it; completely different than medicine. Medicine, if you use a quart would probably kill somebody, but if you use a teaspoonful, it would probably help them. That's strychnine, you know? You take a spoonful of strychnine and it actually will help somebody. Bad heart or something of the sort. Nitroglycerine, another thing. You can, they take a spoonful of nitroglycerine, they get away with it. But if they take a quart, they don't dare belch. But it's quite the reverse with communication. Quite the reverse.

You give somebody, you give somebody a small measuring spoonful of communication, and he says, "Oh." No good. And generally that's about all there is available in a society that's starting to go out of communication with itself. You know? A very inadequate spoonful. The last time, the last time you were driving down the road and another driver said, "Well, sure a swell day, isn't it?" Last time you did this was quite a long time ago, wasn't it, huh? You're driving down the road and the driver in another car leaned out, he's at a stop sign and he says, "Gee, isn't it a nice day?" That's such a small dose, but it would have restimulated you into believing he was crazy. You would have gone driving on down the road thinking, "I wonder what was wrong with him?"

Alright. Communication, quite important in communication to have some basis of agreement. In other words, some similarity so that we can talk. We at least have to know the same language, don't we, in order to talk? Of course there are other types of communication than talking, but if we don't know at least the language, why we, we have a hard time getting along. I have talked to people whose language I didn't know, and have been fairly successful at it. But, at least my viewpoint. At least I got the chop suey and so forth. I could ... But the point is, is we have a common thing like language when we can communicate. You see this?

Alright, now looky here. Here's this fellow who is all up here on the first dynamic and no other dynamic, he's going to be having a hard time with his language, isn't he? Well what's, what's this the medico with his huge book which has all the nomenclature about the mind? And he tells us about our autonomic nervous systems and our medulla oblongatas. Huu! And even a Scientologist says to him, "Huh?" And the fellow says, "It was very simple, very simple why she's crazy, her autonomic nervous system is cross roughed with the duce of spades, and..." He'd diagnose, diagnose, diagnose, diagnose, pages, pages, pages, pages, textbooks, looks it up, marks all the places, makes a complete analysis, turns in a report twice as big as the Book Of Names. And the person is still sick. Why? Because he's not communicating on the subject of that person's illness. He's just communicating on a one terminal basis. There's nobody else listening. That's a one terminal communication, a bunch of labels, and he understands them and the patient doesn't.

Of course you can impress a patient this way, but you don't make them well. Why? Because there's no communication. It takes communication to make a patient well. There's many a fine old medico sitting out in the sticks. Amie Glutz comes in, she says, "I've got that misery again." And he says, "Where you got it?" And she says, "Right where it always is, ye durned fool, it's right where it always is. Where's the medicine?" And he says, "Well now, I don't know, I don't know. You sure been takin' an awful lot of this Scotch I been givin' you, Amie." And she says, "Well, it is pretty bad." And he says, "Well, alright, Amie. Pretty bad. Here's a prescription for a pint in a medicine bottle." And she says, "Well OK," so on. He knew her, see? She knew him. They could talk.

Amie, Amie finally, Amie finally goes to town to live with her daughter who married very well. And she gets this craving and she goes down to see a Park Avenue specialist and she winds up in the Mayo Clinic. And they take her stomach out. She, she didn't quite know how this happened. She went into a Park Avenue doctor's office and they said the fellow was a good doctor, but she didn't see the doctor, she saw a nurse. Saw some other nurses and then she saw some technicians and then they took some X-rays and then she saw some more technicians. She never had a chance to talk to anybody. These people just went around silently clicking the handles on machines. She hoped somebody's going to say something, somewhere along the line. She finally gets to the Mayo Clinic and wakes up out of the ether. Nobody to talk to there, either. Get the idea? No communication.

You know, I remember a little kid that was screaming and hollering one time, screaming and hollering and having an awful tantrum. Oh, he was just having a wing ding. Beautiful time, there was company present. We were the company. And he was just screaming and was throwing his heels and, and so I went over to him and I asked him, "Who do you want attention from?" Kid looked at me and said, "You." I said, "Well you got it." So he shut up. Some understanding. Get the idea?

Now if we made a world of specialists, each one of whom understood completely that he was the only one there was, we would have a world of non-communication, wouldn't we? And so that world could hate. That world could go to war with itself. And that world could be sick, because it would be at best only one eighth alive. So let's look at these dynamics, these various urges toward survival, and let's see in these dynamics an opportunity to communicate. In each dynamic there's an opportunity to communicate, even in the first dynamic there was more opportunity to communicate than modern man, but not ancient man, had supposed. There's this thing called exteriorization.

Who ever thought that a fellow could be three feet back of his own head? We weren't talking about mysticism, magic, psychic souls or something, a lot of, bunch of vias. We just said to somebody one day, "Be three feet back of your head," and he was. His body was sitting there and he as a personality was three feet back of his head. The usefulness of this was tremendous, but it demonstrated to us that we had never scraped the bottom on the first dynamic. We were there, then. It was the first time we had hit the first dynamic, because man himself as he sits there and talks to you or stands there and talks to you, is a composite being. Of course there's some part of him in control of the other parts of him, for him to be sane and rational, but at the same time he is not one talking to you.

A lot of people get inverted on this and they talk about saving their souls. And you call that religion. You get the idea? The fellow saves his soul, how could you save your soul if you were your soul? It would be puzzling, wouldn't it? Well they've been puzzled about it for a long time. If you don't believe they've been puzzled about it, try and get a rational explanation out of some of the earlier religions like the Massai witch doctor or something of the sort.

Now here we have then, a picture where actual, the actual anatomy of the individual has not been fully understood. Instead of, as psychiatry has a tendency to believe, psychoanalysis kind of believed, well psychoanalysis believed in a populated skull though, by the way. There was this basic, barbaric, bestial fellow, and then there was the sensor, and there was, there was a heavily population in the first dynamic. I beg your pardon. It was darned, it was overcrowded in fact. There was the unconscious and the re-conscious and the bounce effect, no that's, pardon me, that's in metaphysics. That's a rapport between two ghouls who have been ostracized, then, a bounce effect. Oh, nonsense. But, we have found that the individual, we found that the individual himself, was not one. See? As he stood there, this, this being with a body and so forth, he was not one.

Psychiatry had so far believed that he was one, that he thought he was a machine. See? He was kind of something like a biological hurdy gurdy or something that went round and round and shuffled out thoughts like you shuffle a deck of cards. And very early I was researching in the field of electronic brains and I was singularly struck with a very great oddity, that the moment an operator walked away from the brain, it stopped computing. He, you know, he'd take his fingers off of it and it'd shut up. And so I communicated this to some of my fellows in the field of physics and so forth, and I said, "You know, it's a funny thing," I said, "you know when you stop running one of the things, it quits." And one of them said, "Oh, you think so?" And he took me over and showed me a Eniac. First time I'd seen an Eniac close up, because; he said, "You see?" And he threw on the switch and it just sat there and it ran and it ran and it ran and it shuffled things and we walked out of the room.

And we came back and it was still hunting in its card files and still tabulating over here and so on. And this engineer was standing there saying, "You see? That's a man after all, he's just a big machine. Doesn't matter whether you do anything to him or not, he really doesn't hurt. Yeah, he's just a machine, a sort of a biolog, like a vegetable. And this is the kind of a thing that's his brain, and this is what we ought to be studying." He was giving me this big explanation. We went in the other room and we had a couple of drinks and I asked the fellow, I said, "Who is the machine giving its answer to?" That was tough. That was one second hand engineer. It made a citizen out of him right there.

Well now, many years afterwards I actually found who the brain, if it ever did compute anything, was giving its answers to. Giving his answers to the person that you talked to. But this person is being a body, or being a brain. So he says, "I am a body or brain." He only has to change his mind and say, "I'm not a body or brain," and be three feet back here. When he's back here he isn't mixed up in machinery, he can think of his own answers, he doesn't have to get them off the computer. In other words, there was an operator on this machine all the time. Identifying the operator and so forth, and knowing what he is and what he is doing and what he is made of, is definitely the business of a Scientologist.

In other words, a Scientologist is no longer working with machinery, he working with the operators of machinery. And the sooner he begins to realize that a machine is as good as it has operators and no better, why he begins to be very successful. A lot of people around in Dianetics are still working on the basis that the machine is all you have to repair.

I remember one time we picked up a racing car, and boy we put, shined it all up and, you know, adjusted it and tuned it up and put in new spark plugs and oh, man, I mean that thing just purr, you know, purr. And it was sitting there waiting to go around the track and the driver came out. And the driver'd been kind of nerved up just before the race, so a buddy of his had slipped him a couple, you know, a couple off the hip. Fellow bent his elbow quite liberally. And he came over and tried to get in the car's image. We got him over and got him behind the wheel, and you know, he didn't win the race? It was the best car there, but the driver was half the time trying to drive through the grandstand. If the car had been loosed up though, and if you'd just, just taken the car around the track, you know, and turned on its throttle real good and let it go, it would have gone into the grandstand for sure. So a drunk driver was better than no driver, wasn't it?

Alright, when we look all this over we find out that the goal of man is not necessarily to be an unconscious, impulsive part of all the things that are. That's not a good goal for a man. You know, sort of run by everything, but a perfect knowing part of and participant in any and all of the functions of life. And when an individual is so capable that he can associate without any fear on his own part and without any slightest qualms with any part of existence, he's got all eight dynamics going, and they're all in communication. And if you had a race of men like that, you wouldn't have any specialists, you'd have a civilization.

Thank you.