[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Want to talk to you about the degeneration of a static.

Methods of education. First method of education would be talking. That doesn't work.

Once upon a time there was a little thetan. And he was a happy little thetan and the world was a simple thing. It was all very, very simple. And then one day somebody told him he was simple. And ever since that time he's been trying to prove that he is not. And that is the history of the universe, the human race, the Fifth Invaders, the Fourth Invaders, the Three-and-a-half Invaders, the people on Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Arcturus, the Marcab System, the Psi Galaxy, Galaxy 82. I don't care where you look, that's the story. Only it's too simple a story, much too simple a story, because this thetan would have to admit that he was simple if he understood it.

Another method of education would be beating. That is very successful, providing you don't care what you're teaching somebody.

Now, this being the sad story, let's just trace some of these levels of complexity to which he has resorted. We have to examine emotional response to some degree to understand that emotional response is also a complexity. It's just another complexity. If one did the same thing all the time, everybody knows — everybody knows — one would eventually get bored. But now, just a minute. Boredom is only one of a complex series of emotions. There's no such thing. You have to invent boredom to get bored. You see that?

So the first method that I would even vaguely recommend in the field of group teaching would be the method used in the PE Courses, where we take a definition of some kind or another, and we read it off. And then we take the data that is being defined, nothing more than that, and get the audience to define it.

There's no reason why he has to be this complex, so let's look it over very care fully and realize that he has to have a reason why in order to be complex. You get that? He has to have a reason why in order to be complex. He has to be complex because he invented a series of emotional responses which he now has to avoid. Do you see this? And every way you look at this thing it gets to be sillier and sillier. The funny part of it is, it's dead serious. Because that was invented too.

And we don't get them to agree with our definition; we get them to define what we're defining. And we get each person to define, here and there scattered through the audience, and ask the rest of them if they think that's what it is.

Now, one fine day, I was busy getting audited and I was absolutely flabbergasted to discover something: that I could knit. Now, you speak of abilities, that's quite an ability. I could knit. This became very obvious to me. But as far as abilities go, it would absolutely flabbergast you how I could knit. No body! Look Ma, no body. Weave baskets. You know, get over a pile of reeds, and just start weaving them all together, nice as you please. Neat.

Now, this method, of course, can utilize one word at a time, a group of words, and so on. It is only useful as a method when one uses rather fundamental items in life. Now, you could ask somebody to define apple pie for a long while without any great leap of IQ. You might be able to increase, here and there through the audience, the gastric appreciation for apple pie.

But somebody came along one day and almost died of heart failure because they said this was startling. Here were baskets going together with no human agency. Here were woofed and warped little rugs and... Here was all kinds of stuff. And here was something vaguely resembling a sweater, you know, just going together as nice as you please. Knitting needles going clickity-clack. Well, this was upsetting to people, they told me.

Therefore, the educational system is not quite as broad or permissive as it appears to be. The Instructor is very carefully segregating, out of the vast body of data available in this universe, a few cornerstones of knowledge: things which are intimate to the livingness of the audience concerned.

Why was it upsetting? Not because it's too startling, but because it's too simple.

Now, with great success, you could use apple pie, definition of, with a bunch of cooks, pastry cooks.

But I want to know what I was getting so complex for. Why was I getting so extremely complex as to knit? Why didn't I just mock it up? Look that over.

"Apple pie. What's that mean? What do you think an apple pie is?"

So we look upstairs from the level of complexity that we have already reached when one is busy standing over a pile of reeds and knitting some baskets and weaving some stuff. That's complex, see? That's what I found out during the session — suddenly struck me that this was not very startling. What was startling was that I was knitting them!

And we'd kick this around for a while, and the group would become more real to the group, and apple pie would become more real, and the job would become more real, and so on. But that is a specialized application.

Well, anyway, this is the way it goes. This is levels of complexity being assumed. Every time you find an action, you already have assumed a step in the direction of complexity. Any action goes in the direction of complexity.

Now, let's take something much more general, then, for a general group. And if we pick a general group, then about the only thing we can handle with a general group are very, very specific items pertaining to living itself in its broadest definitions.

To maintain any strata of life, it is necessary to perform a certain series of complex actions — to maintain any series, any strata. Whether to stand up above a bunch of tangled reeds and weave them together into baskets or — without human agency — or whether it's simply to sit still. There's an action involved in sitting still — with a body. There isn't any action involved with a thetan sitting still. It becomes very difficult. It's a very difficult thing for a thetan not to sit still. It's a very difficult thing for him to sit still. It's a very difficult thing. Because he is still.

Then we'd have to take such things as cycle of action, affinity, reality, communication, various parts of communication. We'd have to take oddities of phenomena which are still very general and broadly effective. We could actually ask a group of people about the parts of man. We could read it off hurriedly – preferably very hurriedly – in one category, you know: "A body. Well, all right. What's a body?"

Now, the hardest thing that a thetan does is to do what he is. That's the hardest thing for him to do, is to do what he is. Quite remarkable. It's quite remarkable — to do what he is.

Got the idea? Well, this they all hold, obviously, in common. And so we could establish an agreement this way.

Now, he can always do a complexity, because he's not. But to do what he is, that's something else. Something totally still, that's difficult for him. He runs it out at once into a complexity.

Well, I'll go over the method. The method is very, very specific.

Now, any definition you have for a static has lower harmonics. And here's the definition — Axiom 1, and Axiom 2 for the actionness and description in general — and these all have lower harmonics. Now, as we look down the line, we find lower and lower harmonics on these things, and we discover such things as „dead.“ Well now, dead is a lower harmonic on being a thetan. That's pretty wild; look that over carefully. Because a thetan is alive, and a dead body hasn't got a thetan in it. Therefore, a thetan takes very kindly to dead people. He takes very kindly to that. And it often makes him believe that he wants to kill people. But he makes this very difficult because it is what he is, you see: It's still.

Originated this originally in London, but hadn't thought too much about it or done too much with it until here at the Academy, just before the congress.

Each one of these lower harmonics on what a thetan is, contains an additive. There's an additive characteristic to the basic definition of the static and the next few capabilities of a static. Now we keep adding things and we get these lower harmonics. They're very interesting. These are truth. That is what they have been seeking for tens of thousands of years. This is the truth for which they seek in yoga, mysticism, spiritualism, magic, and so on. All those categories which are just further developments of static, just as such. There's a whole list of them in Fundamentals of Thought. And there's a more complete list elsewhere. These are truth.

We hadn't actually beaten groups to pieces with this in London. I had merely experimented in Dublin and London enough to know that this was intensely effective. That's because I hadn't done much teaching. See, I hadn't done very much teaching of these general groups.

And if you go searching too widely and wildly for truth without finding the upper-scale truth — in other words, if you go searching for truth without really finding truth — you have adventured upon a course which is fatal, to say the least. It is a fatal course. Because it winds one up in that complexity known as „searching and investigating,“ and this can become quite obsessive. Now, man has been at this for quite a while. He's...

And all of a sudden, why, here we were and I had to give the optimum method that I knew in teaching a PE Course, and so that's the method that was given out. I knew it was successful.

Now, a thetan can become involved in investigating himself, and he can become involved in investigating other thetans which he mistakes for himself. And he can become involved. But the easiest way for him to become involved is to seek truth. And therefore, every great school, whether Manichaean, Egyptian, no matter what great school of religious search there has ever been, has wound up in this truth list, which happens to be no-game condition.

Well! Much to my amazement! Much to my amazement, after I went back to London and tried to get this going in the PE Course as a standard operation, dudurrrrr. The Instructor didn't want to do it. He almost blew the place apart with it.

The no-game condition list, in other words, is a list of lower harmonics of truth. And that is a no-game condition list. A no- game condition is differentiated from a game condition very sharply then, and very high, very positively.

Why?

Over here on the other side, we have what we call game conditions, and those are the parts of a game as viewed from a thetan playing the game. This is what he thinks it ought to consist of That is simply a complexity, and it is totally a pack of lies. There isn't anywhere under game conditions, anything resembling truth.

Well, this Instructor is a good boy, and he's doing it now and doing it well.

So you have a list of truths and you have a list of lies. And people who sought to go straight into truth very often hit one of the lower harmonics and „went up the pole“ an old Dianetic phrase. They get very ecstatic. Wears off in eight or ten days. That's the end of them. They get into some lower harmonic and get stuck. But you can evidently lie forever — evidently — as long as you try to keep lying. But when you stop trying to lie or play a game, you become truth, which is nothing. You understand that? The ultimate consequence, you see, the ultimate consequence of playing a game is to not play a game. That is the total ultimate consequence. You don't even say „not be able to play a game,“ or anything else. This could get too involved, and we're just getting more complex. The total consequence of not playing a game is not playing a game.

Now, get why this method didn't come to view and isn't generally used, and wouldn't be generally used if it had come to view. It's quite one thing to sit and talk to an audience, who, by the social patterns of discipline, will remain seated and listen. That's one thing.

Any game there is, is basically a lie. Basically, games are a lie, because they take a bunch of things which a thetan is not, and he carries forward with these things. In other words, there are a great many things which a thetan is not. In other words, he invented them. They're totally invented. And being totally invented, they avoid, as much as possible, truth.

But how about delivering the whole thing over to the audience, and still holding that audience under control?

Somebody comes along and says, „Life has no purpose in it.“ Shake him by the hand; he's uttered a great truth. Get the idea? That's a great truth. But its an undesirable truth, because its a lower harmonic on truth: it assumes the existence of a complexity — bodies, planet, income tax — which amounts to life. So life has no purpose in it. Well, that’s perfectly true, perfectly true. And there's nothing wrong with it at all — except he doesn't like it, because he's already entered into a great many complexities called life. He calls this life. He thinks this is all the life there is.

And this evidently is not a capability possessed by everyone (that they know about).

Now, he is trying to back out of some difficult situation. And in trying to do so, he conceives himself the effect of the situation, so he goes into a no-game condition and he starts uttering great truths — in a sad tone of voice. „Life is without purpose. Everybody eventually dies. There is no end to it at all; it just goes on and on.“ You see, these are laments (uttered in the right tone of voice), but they are lower harmonics of truth. This is all perfectly true. There's no argument there of any kind.

Now where, then, do we use this successfully in Scientology? Where else could we use it?

But when you start backing out into truths, you start backing out into truths at a low level, which already have complexities. Already, there are complexities existing.

Anyplace, providing it was done by a Scientologist.

Give you some sort of an idea. Any of you with the greatest of ease could sit down alongside of a lake, and just sit there without thinking a thought, without doing a thing, so forth, just for ages and ages and ages. You could do this, you see? But we take somebody, and we put him alongside of a lake... They do all sorts of things. They build summer camps (one of the more nonsensical activities) — summer camps that leak all winter, you know? — and they do this and they do that. And they can't sit quietly alongside the lake because of the speedboat. What about the speedboat? It was bought. Well, having been bought, it is owed for. One has to have income. One has already contracted the care and feeding of a body. Food has to be paid for. Complexities, complexities, complexities.

So we come very specific here. A Scientologist would have to know that he was being a little bit overawed in order to bring himself up to confront what was overawing him slightly. Here he's presenting to the audience these data, key data of one kind or another, and asking this person to define it and that person to define it. And he gets a squirrely definition there, so he goes over there and he asks that person to define it. And he gets a good definition for there, and so he says this and that.

But if we removed all these complexities, and if one did not have an urge to go into a game condition with regard to the lake, one could sit there forever in perfect equanimity, providing — providing — he did not have an urge toward a game condition. In other words, all thetans are liars. They're habitual liars. Probably we ought to have an Axiom on it, about Axiom 4 3/4. It's probably really Axiom 1.2. You see this?

And all the time asking the rest of the group, "Well, now, do you agree with that? Do you agree with that, really? You think that is the definition to it?"

And the only thing that goes wrong with a liar is that he eventually believes his own lies. These are hard words. One shouldn't use these things. I have a book written by a very famous artist up in Montana, Charlie Russell. He's long since dead, and his publications, I don't think, ever wandered east. But his paintings certainly have. And they are becoming more and more popular. But, oddly enough, they are almost out of sight now. In his own lifetime, why, he would have been glad to have gotten rid of a painting for a couple of bottles of rather second-rate rye. But his paintings are way out of sight. But he wrote a little book. Collected all the stories he knew and heard and had invented in the Montana area.

Somebody defined a cycle of action as something used by a trick cyclist. And he looks around to the rest of the group, and he says, "Now, do you think that's what a cycle of action is?"

And one of these had to do with a fellow that shot a moose in a land where there are no moose. And the moose had antlers with a twelve-foot spread. And every time he'd have a few drinks, he'd start telling people about his battle with this moose. And he up and shot this moose, and he lugged this moose home. And he finally would always wind up the story with the difficulties of getting the moose's horns into the attic of his cabin. He managed it though; had to knock out one whole side of the cabin. He'd wind this up.

The rest of the group says "No, no, no." And somebody starts to mutter in the back.

Well, it was a very entertaining story, and he told it very well — much better than I've told it to you. It goes on for ages. But one day, why, Charlie Russell the painter met him in a bar, and he said, „Hey, Benson,“ he says, „How about that moose?“ He wanted to hear about the moose again. Everybody always wanted to hear about the moose again.

And he says, "Well, all right, now you tell me what a cycle of action is," see, and "Do you think that's what a cycle of action is?" and so on; just variations on that theme.

Benson said, „Charlie, I've stopped telling that story.“ „What's the matter?“

Well, the reason this is so formidable is actually more than simply the control of people. The person doing this is confronting the exact mechanism that got him that way in the first place: a vast mob of people agreeing that that is the datum.

He says, „Well, I told it so often that last winter, along about Christmas time, I got curious and I went up in the attic and damned if it was there!“

So a fellow to do this has to realize that. And the only person that would realize that would be a Scientologist.

Now, of course, that's a very low harmonic on what a thetan does. A thetan actually does put antlers up there. And he does believe they're there, and he sees them. The conviction with which he is always operating and of which he is capable, therefore, tends to confirm his delusory statements.

So it's no wonder that it wasn't invented and used. But it's a killer.

Well, in auditing somebody, you'll discover at once that he believes many things, but above all he believes in a complexity. This he believes in. A fellow walked up to me just last night, and he said to me, „I understand you can help people out.“

Now, if you wanted to teach a bunch of stenographers how to stenographer – supposing you were running the Gregg Business College, or something of the sort, and you were a Scientologist.

I said, „Yes.“

Every once in a while somebody writes me and says, "I have left Scientology professionally now. I am running a mortuary business," or something, "and I'm using it in my business, and the business is very successful, and I owe all this to Scientology, and I'm getting some other morticians interested." And yet he began the thing by saying he was no longer a professional Scientologist.

He said, „Well, I've been drinking ever since my wife left me, and I can't stop it.” And he said, „I can't pay my bills,“ he says, „but every time I get ten dollars, I can always go to the liquor store and pay that son of a blank down there ten dollars to give me some poison to ruin my life a little bit further.“ And he says, „I can't stop it.“ And he says, „I understand, why, you can help people out.“ He just walked up to me on the street.

I guess people had the narrow definition that a Scientologist would be totally one who audited individuals. I guess when they said then they weren't any longer in Scientology, they meant that they weren't in auditing.

Yeah, well, I listened to this for a while. It's quite true, quite true: he couldn't stop it. He has a level of complexity going which he cannot halt. In other words, he's lost control of it, so he's in a no-game condition.

Well, the funny part of it is, a person couldn't do this with a group unless he could audit. It's actually an auditing process, one kind or another, and you have to handle that group as, not a series of preclears, but as a preclear, or as a composite of circuits of some sort or the other. And one comes up and another one comes up ... And you just run it out.

What'll he do? Well, we'll get somebody to run him on 8-C for a while and he'll be all right.

And why is it so successful? And why do people gain in IQ with such rapidity? Of course, they gain in IQ if you simply stand and talk to them about these same data. But this is nothing compared to the gains you get on this agreement.

But the truth of the matter is he's incapable of abandoning a necessity for alcohol, which kills him. Got the idea? There you are. He's convinced. But the funny part of it is, is he isn't convinced. He feels, still, that he ought to do something else than, every time he gets ten dollars, buy some liquor and ruin himself. See, he feels he ought to do something else, but something else, he feels, has to do this and has control of him. Well, that's probably the case. He has collected, arduously, a very complex series of pictures. He collected them innocently at the time, and then one day they bit. And one of them contains dipsomania. And the picture wants to drink.

"Now, what do you think that means? Now you tell me. How about you?" And so on. And variations of that theme.

Now, you've heard of the genie and the lamp. Old story. The genie in the bottle. Well, I wonder that this genie ever could get into the bottle in the first place — just like the fisherman wondered. How'd he get in the bottle in the first place? Probably to find out if he could. Then he couldn't get out of the bottle. So when somebody asked him, at once, to prove that he was in the bottle, he promptly went back in again. He just dramatized his demonstration in the first place: „I can get in this bottle.“ Somebody tapped the cork in, and left him on the seashore somewhere. He decided that wasn't a good thing. And so he promised all sorts of things, and the fellow — fisherman let him out. All right.

Well, one thing it does is quite amusing. Somebody says that a cycle of action is a trick cyclist. Well, the rest of the group says, "Ha-ha-ha-ha!" And he says, "Hey, what do you know? I'm not in agreement with the multitude. I'd better take a look at my values."

That's, by the way, a lesson not to exteriorize somebody. It's back there in the Arabian Nights. Clearly an anti-Scientology propaganda campaign.

He does. He thinks it over, he talks it over a little bit, he mutters about it, and the next thing you know, he comes off some false values which are discursions from the basic agreement of that particular pin of life, see?

But what about these levels of complexity? An individual enters a level of complexity, and then discovers that he cannot abandon some part of the complexity. And not being able to abandon it, he is convinced that it is, and he is stuck with it. So, therefore, he can't abandon the complexity. He loses his selectivity over complexities. That's what really happens to him. There are many things in the complex scene which he would happily abandon, but there are some of them that he won't.

So the individual who gets it dead wrong can be counted on to do some advancing, even if he gets mad. He'll do a little advancing, just like that, by having his opinions called to account. Because if his opinions are off beam on these exact fundamentals of what he is doing, which is living, then he's doing a nonfundamental job of living. That's all there is to that. It's as simple as that.

The funny part of it is, the one thing which probably keeps this dipsomaniac living is not his desire to live — he undoubtedly does not desire to live, since he would live anyway — what keeps him going is his craving for liquor; that's the one thing he keeps around that he can't abandon. Therefore, he can't abandon life as long as he craves liquor.

Now, we take these stenographers in Gregg Business College and we could, of course, and should, really, continue with just the same thing: cycle of action, ARC, and that sort of thing, and get these things all thrashed out, till they all reach an agreement on them.

You come along as an auditor and try to get him to abandon craving liquor. You'd have to have some complexity to offer in lieu of this horrible rat race in which he is. This is done, of course, by the old process, Problems of Comparable Magnitude. You'll find out that'll gradually ease off. But there are some newer processes on this which are quite interesting. Very fascinating.

And if we're really doing a thorough job, then we'd go all over them again. We would do this repetitively several times, and, man, we'd have people who were way up in tone. But we would include some specifics that addressed exactly their professional activity.

Now, we look over these conditions called game conditions, we see at once that we aren't just talking about somebody playing tiddlywinks. This is a technical term in Scientology. It means a precise thing. There are certain conditions which follow game conditions. Now, game conditions are all right, as long as they are knowing game conditions. When they become unknowing game conditions, they are all wrong. Unknowing game conditions are all wrong.

"Give me a definition for typewriter. All right, you, Maisy: definition for a typewriter. Mm-hm. That's fine. Now, the rest of you agree with that, hm? Do the rest of you agree that a typewriter sometimes serves as a paperweight? Do you think this is right?" And here we go, see?

Now, we used to use the word dramatization as the alternate word to... what we now say a high, unknowing games condition. We just said dramatization. Fellow was dramatizing an engram. Well, he didn't know it was there. He was still obsessively playing the game he was playing at the moment the engram was not an engram, but was life. And this engram stayed around and makes him redramatize this moment again. Well, that is an unknowing games condition. And that's what that's all about. There isn't anything else to it. It's not complicated.

The next thing you know, they would be in communication with a typewriter better, because they'd found out that a typewriter was a machine with a goal of obeying a typist and putting letters on a piece of paper in a roller. We don't care what kind of a definition they finally agreed on; we don't even care how sloppy the English in it would be, or how many modifying phrases and participial clauses there would be attached to it, or how cumbersome the thing was. This we wouldn't care about.

But this list gives us what game conditions are. Of course, they are all aberrative. Somebody looks this over, and he says, „Well, what do you mean that's a game condition? You realize that if you had to have no effect on self and total effect on somebody else, you'd have an awful time after a short while. You'd pay no attention to anybody else in the world; you'd override everybody's rights; you'd trample on everything; you'd just be operating to smash everything down, and so forth. Ah, why, that's a terrible thing,“ he'd say.

You'd say, „That's right, that's a terrible thing.“

We'd be waiting for somebody to say "The cycle of action is create, survive, destroy."

„Well, all right,“ he'd say, „Then what have you got it there for?“

Not a soul there ever read the book. They don't know that.

„Well, that's because that's the way a thetan looks at it; that's why it's there.“ No effect on self, total effect on something else. And eventually we get into overt act-motivator sequences, and we get into all kinds of interesting complexities, and so forth. Well, the next thing you know he's a general.

Somebody would come up and say, "Cycle of action – we finally got this cycle of action. And a cycle of action, we finally figure out, and the cycle of action means that something starts and keeps going for a while, and then it flops."

This is all very well to look at as a theoretical basis. However, it's very practical. It's extremely practical.

And this is perfectly acceptable.

You remember the first communication formula. It was cause- distance-effect, with cause where the preclear was. Now, two-way communication makes an habitable world. Of course, just cause- distance-effect only, with the preclear always at cause, makes an uninhabitable world. But it's a game condition. And he does it.

"The rest of you agree with that?"

Now, when you start auditing him, you will discover, very oddly, that he runs avidly in a no-game condition category: effect on self. Terrific, you see; a terrific effect on self. He'd just love to have effects on self. We used to call it motivator hunger. And it's very factual, it is motivator hunger. He... Wow! But you audit him very long, and appease this motivator hunger, and enough tests have now been accumulated, so that I can pretty well guarantee that you would audit him into the ground.

"Yeah." Bunch of truck drivers. "Yeah! Yeah, that's it! That's true! That's the dope! Right! We got it! It's like a tire: gets manufactured, runs for a while, boom!"

„Mock up yourself dead. Mock up yourself dead. Mock up yourself dead. Mock up yourself de--.“ No good. It's not a good technique.

So the fellow teaching it would have to be a Scientologist. He'd have to know what a cycle of action was. He'd have to be able to sort of have a picture of it in his mind, you know? Eyuh-thuh. Somebody comes up and says that.

„Mock up somebody else dead. Mock up somebody else dead. Mock up somebody else dead.“ Good technique.

Now, a fellow who didn't know anything about it couldn't do it. Because he wouldn't know when to stop. He's liable to call to account definitions which are on the beam.

So we have a tool here which differentiates between good and bad techniques. Now, I can guarantee that you will undoubtedly, here and there, flub this one. This one you will flub, because your preclear is so anxious to convince you that he is a victim. Yeah, he's a victim. A victim of what? A victim of his playing games. Yeah, he's a victim of that. But he doesn't know he's a victim of that, he thinks he's a victim in some other way. He thinks things have been done to him. No, he's done things to things. Now, this is a very hard thing to sell the public or any individual: That he is sick because he's done things.

You get the idea? He's liable to say, "Yeah, well, all right. Do the rest of you think that's it?"

But if you could get a person who came to you, and on whom you could run with the greatest difficulty, „Look at me, who am I?“ and if you were to ask him and receive an answer to „tell me one thing you've done to somebody else,“ his health would take an upward surge, his mental stability would take an upward surge. It's one of these very low order, challenging questions. And it's right next door to „Look at me, who am I?“ It's one of these things that runs the whole band, but it is usable in the lowest ranges of auditing. You say, „Look at me, who am I?“ you get him into communication one way or the other. There's an adjacent process which is a direct-communication process: „Tell me one thing you've done to somebody.“ And if you can get that question answered, you'll have a change — if you can get it answered.

Get the difference.

But on a case that would be very difficult to run „Look at me, who am I?“ — very difficult to run on that one — to get him to do this other one is almost impossible, but terrifically productive of results. That's something for you to remember. You're asking him to run a formula called cause-distance-effect. You could also ask him, „Tell me something that you could have an effect upon.“

Well now, that system would then be used to clarify livingness in general or specific capabilities or characteristics amongst a certain group of people.

Now, let me give you a very interesting, neat little package of a process. Somebody has just gotten off an airplane that was a rough trip, and they don't feel well — they do not feel well at all. Went over the Appalachians flying low and slow or something. If you wanted to snap them out of that with an assist in about fifteen minutes, you could do so by simply asking them to look around, right where they are, and find something they could do. You see, that’s still cause-distance-effect. See, that's still overt act. That is still „do something to somebody else,“ or „do something to something else.“ „Look around and tell me something you could do.“

Now, let's take acting. If you took a bunch of actors, and you wanted them to be better actors, you could process all of them. But one of the actions you'd have to undertake to consolidate a company of actors would be this type of an activity.

It's quite amusing that the person would at once have a tendency to hold on to the seat. He just finished a rough trip, see? You've just turned on all of the plane motion. And you ask him something else he can do, and he feels the plane go jolt-jolt. He says, „That’s funny.“ He looks around; he's very apathetic. „Something I could do. I guess I could step on that cigarette butt four feet away... it's already been stepped — Yes, I could do that.“ Yep-rup-rup! You moved him on the track.

And you'd have to reduce acting to its common activities, those that had common denominators to all acting. See how we'd have to do that?

Because he had to sit still in the airplane — it was a rough trip — with the belt buckled, which told him he could do nothing, he must not be anything but an effect, it said there. It said, „Fasten Seat Belts.“ Got the idea? So it made him an effect. During the entire trip, he conceived that the plane was moving him, he was not moving the plane.

We could go over this, then; we reduce it to maybe fifteen titles, each one, one after the other. Each characteristic – we'd wind up with about fifteen of them, or something like that.

Actually, on a little further analysis, he was moving the plane, even if only economically. He did pay his fare. If people didn't pay their fare there wouldn't be any airplanes. And that's true, by the way; that's true even in Russia. That's true in Russia where they don't pay for anything: They don't have any airplanes either. Now — oh yes, they have military airplanes, but there are no passenger lines to amount to anything.

We'd even take the parts of acting. We could take the stage. We could take an audience. "What's an audience? All right, you define an audience."

All right. Now what, then, is all of this hogwash about running out everything that's been done to the preclear? Leave it alone! You'll make him, the victim, scarce on incident.

"Rryrrr-rowrr! Yeah, that's what an audience is."

Perhaps you could get somewhere by saying — I said perhaps, remember — you could get somewhere by saying, „Invent something that has been done to you.“ See? You'd possibly get somewhere. It's a questionable technique, though. Very questionable. You really will get somewhere if you ask him to invent something he could do to somebody else. Now you'll get somewhere; now you start moving his case. And the formula is cause-distance-effect, with the preclear at cause. Because every time a thetan involved himself with doingness and beingness, with identities and possession and so forth, he was involving himself in a game condition. And the only thing that is wrong with an individual is he has played a game, and forgotten.

And you'd at least let them work out a tremendous amount of hostility on the subject of hostile audiences and so on. You'd probably run the last two or three flop plays out of them, just with just that, see?

I'll go over that again. This is not wrong with him: that he played a game. But that he played a game and forgot that he played a game: that's wrong with him. That could be interpreted in a dozen different ways. You could say, „Well, you mean he's taken life seriously, he's forgotten it's a game?“ Yes, that’s what's wrong with him. There's one — there's one interpretation of the same thing.

In other words, you'd have to break this subject down. So you'd have to know a great deal about Scientology and a bit about what you were trying to break down. You'd have to have observed what was going on.

Another interpretation of it: He was playing football. He played football when he was fourteen, in high school, and he got a busted leg, and now he doesn't remember that his leg has ever been broken. See, he played a game. He's forgotten he ever played football; he has no memory of ever playing football when he was fourteen.

Now let's take several other fields.

It takes unknowingness, joined to a game condition, to bring about aberration. And it takes both! It takes a game condition and it takes unknowingness about it to bring on aberration.

Let us take the field of medicine. Now, how much medicine would you have to know to run this on medicos? Really not very much.

Then what about the fellow — if you please — what about the fellow who doesn't remember that he lived before this life? That is a case — strictly a case of Wow! Why, he's forgotten a whole section of life. Its amazing, though, how little of it is now still aberrative to him. Do you know what's the most aberrative to him in this whole forgotten section? The part that he had already forgotten while he was alive. The forgetter inside the forgetter. You get the idea? That's most aberrative to him.

"So, what's a patient? Now we're going to define patient. Now, you, Dr. Jones, how would you define a patient? Oh? Ho-ho! Somebody who pays a fee. Very good, very good."

He was a steeplechase jockey in his last life. And as he got on toward middle age, he of course knocked off steeplechase jockeying and forgot entirely — forgot entirely — that he had ever had a fall. And he used to sit around the pub and tell people, you know, he'd say, „You know, I... huh! I was always a lucky jockey. Never fell off a horse in my whole life.“ Of course his cronies knew he was nuts. But he didn't. After the last fall, which fractured his skull for the fifth time, he started telling people this. He believed it himself.

We'd eventually get back some of the ethics and so forth that they had in medical school and lost there. We'd eventually get this and that and clarification. We would also get greater interest in their own profession.

I had a preclear of considerable interest to the organization all of a sudden utter a ruinous statement, as far as this preclear's repute was concerned. Everybody had always thought this preclear was a pretty sane preclear, you see? Only they never got anyplace on the case. Only they never got anywhere on the case. Audit the person, you know, audit her and audit her and audit her and audit her, and nothing ever happened. They thought she was perfectly sane and okay. And one day she confided, in the most confidential tone of voice, that such and such an auditor was crazy. Why? They had this preclear on an E-Meter — this auditor that was crazy had the preclear on an E-Meter — asking the preclear, of all things, for a moment of pain. And she knew she'd never had any pain in her whole life! The preclear knew she had never had a moment of pain in her whole life!

Now let us take an organization, and this becomes very, very, very important, because it is a part of organizational Scientology.

Now, let's look that over, since it was a part of medical history that this person had had some very severe operations. And the weird part of it was that these operations had to be buried because they were kind of antisocial, you know? And the preclear buried them very thoroughly from everybody, and herself. And she had never had any pain in her whole life. And then she went on to confide to people that she had never hurt anybody; never at anytime, anyplace, had ever hurt anybody.

Organizational Scientology is moving right up to the front, because we are actually processing more and more large firms. And so far, we are simply processing them either on a PE basis, just teaching them fundamentals of life, or we are doing it individually. That is, the Association is doing this, and it's doing a great many of these. Some of them are coming up every time you turn around, all abroad. It'll be happening here in America soon enough. Individual or PE Course.

And, of course, immediately the staff auditors took a look at this person, and dong-dong-dong, here goes the wagon, as far as they were concerned. When they audited her next time, when she was next audited, they entirely changed their tactics. They sat there and tried to find the preclear, tried to get her into a little bit of communication of one kind or another. And cognited that she had never answered a question, really — always was offbeat. Managed to get the preclear upscale, out of psychosis. But the person actually was a psychotic, and walking around, and apparently was perfectly sane. And until something like that came up, nobody knew it.

Now, you have to know something else here. You have to know this other thing about special activity.

But what was the exact anatomy of this? It's the same anatomy of any insanity: Insanity is an unknowing games condition. That's all it is. With this little fillip thrown in: Part of the game was insane. Part of the game was the exact postulate of insanity. Person didn't know; played this game.

Now this same method of training can be used on an individual. And the second you move into settling an organization in place, you use a different type of education than would ordinarily be used.

Now, we try to get somebody over a circumstance in this lifetime that seems to be very arduous. We try to get them over this circumstance. We don't get them over this circumstance. We run them according to all the rules and so forth. And after we've run them long enough, we get back to an old Dianetic rule: Basic- basic shows up.

You don't issue him 825 directives, all of them more or less conflicting, but beautifully typed. You issue him instead a Scientologist, who takes up his job with him. And you put this individual on post. I'll tell you much more about that when I start to tell you how to run a practice. But, you put him on post, and you get him to define his activity until he has a stable datum for it. And you just keep doing this with him.

Fellow has got a peg leg. And we try to get him over his worry about the peg leg. He just can't operate with a peg leg. And we try to straighten him out so he can really walk with a peg leg, and we just don't manage it. And we run out all the incident, and we run out him making people peg-legged, and we do all kinds of interesting things. And then one fine day, what happens? We find out that he's been peglegged for three lives. The unknowing games condition is „to have no leg“ — not being peg-legged. That's a win. You got it? The game was how to get rid of a leg. In three consecutive lives he'd managed it. And then the auditor sat there and tried to audit him out of a win, which is a no-game condition, of course. A peg leg was a no-game condition; it was a win. What was the incident? Getting rid of a leg, that was the game.

Oh, he'll weep and tear his hair. He's liable to do anything before he gets through. It's quite an adventurous activity. Just exactly what you did with life, with a group, you do with an individual. And it's the darnedest auditing you ever ran into.

And if you ever wanted to see buckets of tears come off of a preclear, they came off of this one when he was run back through something very interesting: He had cut off somebody's leg! And he was so upset about it, and it was so deeply buried and so much in present time, and so on, that it had ridden with him for three lives. He felt so bad about it, he never could face it. And when the auditor finally made him brace up to it, on „getting rid of legs“ and „keeping legs from going away“...

You run out a whole field of confusion when you do this. One of the most vital activities that could be engaged upon by a Scientologist. It's quite interesting. But as I say, we'll know more about that later.

That was the technique, by the way, that did it. And the same technique is working right now at the HGC on a preclear — or did last week — who has a bad leg: keeping the leg from going away; keeping the other leg from going away. You have to run both sides of the body, by the way. You can't just run one side of the body on anything, because the body sympathizes with the other side of the body.

Now, here then is the special characteristic or just the fundamentals of life. Remember the rule is that you have to get a person to define it, find out how much of their agreement exists with it, discover any further ramifications or things that have to be added to the definition, and then you eventually get them to achieve a stable datum on this subject.

Here we had an unknowing games condition. The unknowing games condition, including depriving another human being of a leg. Well yes, we know all about the overt act-motivator sequence: The fellow accumulates too many overt acts, he gets some motivators. So he'd handed himself the motivator, and he'd done it for three lives. That it never gave the other person back a leg, seemed to have missed his view. Now there, you see, was a peg leg, life and history of. The peg leg was not the incident. It was somebody else's leg, and it was cause-distance-effect, as far as the preclear was concerned.

The moment you do that it as-ises a tremendous quantity of confusion; when they really do it.

Now, if you know that and you know that well, and you look that over thoroughly, you will see, then, the anatomy of any case that presents itself with some peculiarity — there's some peculiar manifestation that does not at once surrender. It's this cause- distance-effect. Preclear did it to somebody, that's what's wrong with the preclear. You got the idea? Did it to somebody, now he can't remedy it, he can't straighten it out, he feels he should, and so on.

So here we have a group activity going down to an individual activity.

We know that it is sane to have two-way communication, to have a two-way game. This is sane. You can go on forever doing that, no difficulties. But to have a game which is only cause-distance- effect is so one-sided that we call it a game condition. It is so far from truth, so far from usability, and it is such a lie. It's always going to be cause-distance-effect the other way. Get the idea?

It always used to be that an individual activity expanded out to a group activity. But here's a new one.

But a thetan says, „No, no, that’s not true. I can do anything I want to anything, and nothing I ever have will suffer, and therefore I will never suffer because nothing can be done to me.“

This same process has been used very successfully, and is being used successfully, which was originated on a group and now it's applied to individuals – see that? – as instruction.

The hell it can't be done to him. I have said a few times that nothing can really be done to a thetan directly. Now, get the difference between something can be done to a thetan's possessions. It's only his possessions that can be affected. But, yet, this will do something to him, because he's postulated that it will.

Instruction. Odd kind of instruction.

The reason people are afraid to lose things is because it is very painful. They don't like to lose things. They postulated that they had this thing and they weren't going to lose it. And then they lost it. Well, the reason people don't want to have things is because they lose them, and when they lose things it's very painful. They eventually will get to that. In anything anybody is having any trouble with, he's run that cycle, you see? He can't have it because he'll lose it. And he doesn't dare lose it because it'd be painful. Got the idea? So something can be done to the thetan via his possessions, but only to his possessions. Nothing can ever be done directly to a thetan. So the trick is, one has to attach him to a possession, and then hurt the possession.

A fellow's an accountant. You say, "All right. Now here you are, and here I am and..." Sort of an "Am I here?" sort of a "Is this a room? Is this a session?" sort of a conversation, you know?

All right. Now, it is very true that cause-distance-effect and game condition no-game condition all apply. If any one of you ever start out auditing out of somebody, in an effort to remedy his circumstance, a bad shoulder, and expect it to stay out, then you have not heard me today. Sure enough, you can patch up a bad shoulder; you can patch it up. But to inquire why it is a bad shoulder, and remedy the condition known as bad shoulder, is to remedy an unknowing games condition whereby he had an effect on a shoulder he did not possess. Now, of course, a thetan can have an effect on his own body. But this is short-circuited as far as he's concerned. That's a short circuit.

"I understand you've been on the job quite a while," and "Do you know Mr. Smithers well?" and so on, "your boss," and two-way comm. And "All right, well, we're supposed to do something here. I want you to explain something about your job to me."

Now we take up this thing called complexity again. I have to tell you about game conditions and unknowing game conditions because of two other things. We have this thing called complexity, and I started talking to you about these complexities. He wants to make life more complicated, evidently. Well, he doesn't even have to want to. It so happens that everybody he is in agreement with will do this very fascinating thing — he'll do this very fascinating thing: Everybody he's connected with, in this age, is apparently motivator hungry. And they start convincing him he's doing things to them that he is not doing to them. Got that? So a fellow becomes convinced that he can easily hurt people.

Well, he's always willing to do that. He thinks you're there to explain his job to him. And this takes him by storm, because you don't do that. You say, "What is a good definition for accounting?"

It's actually pretty hard to do. People go around minding their manners, trying not to give offense to people, and so forth. That isn't what hurts people. Taking a thetan's possessions and tearing them up, taking his body and tearing its head off or rendering it a cripple for the next forty years, something like that, that is doing something to somebody, you understand? That's order of magnitude.

And he gives you some long, involved thing out of the Alexander Hamilton Institute for Higher Federal Swindling.

Now, because that has occurred, he now has the idea that things can be done to his possessions. And so he gets the other idea, you see, that — two other ideas: One, that he can't have, and he better not have possessions is one of them. And the other one is that he can be hurt or has been hurt. And then he will tell people this. But he doesn't tell them the actual circumstance. He tells them another circumstance. He says, „When you sneeze in my face, it causes terrible pain in the back of my head. 1 wish you wouldn't do that.“ It does?

And he gives you this, and you say, "Well, that's very good. But do you think that is – just think it over for a moment – do you think that is..." Pick up any clause in it, any phrase in it. "Do you think that belongs there?"

I asked somebody this last night. I refused to audit somebody last night. Somebody was sitting there just begging to be audited, see? They didn't quite realize it, but they were really begging to be audited. And I kept asking him what was so important about it. And I kept asking him this and that. The person was begging to be audited because the person kept trying to persuade me that I had been guilty of an overt act toward the person. Never laid hands on the person in my life — never shot him, never did anything to him. You know? Didn't ever hit him, kick him, nothing. And that's all I told him. I said, „Now, let's look this situation over very carefully. Have I ever beaten you?“

"Well, I don't know.

And the person said, „Huh! No.“

"How would you rephrase that?"

I said, „Have I ever gouged an eye out?“

And it's a funny thing that you're asking him this question, because he's never thought about the definition before.

„No.“

And he starts knocking it together, and after you've done this with him for maybe an hour, this professional accountant comes up with a definition for an accounting, something he never had before.

„Have I ever torn an ear off?“

And all of a sudden, about eighteen hats he thought he was wearing disappear, and about three more he didn't know he had appear, and his job starts to orient. And being a stable datum now, he can handle his communication post, which is all he is occupying.

„No.“

All right, now, let's see, then, that there is a method of teaching by definition and getting agreement. There is a method of teaching that way.

„Did I ever kick you in the stomach?“

There is another method of education, which is lower than this, and which is quite fabulous. It's fantastic. In fact, I'm ashamed to mention it. It's too fundamental. It's right down in the bottom drawer.

„No.“

I'm going to pick somebody very bright here in order to do this with. And you understand this is just a demonstration. Have I got any volunteers? Thank you, Harold.

„Did I ever feed you poison?“

PC: Okay.

„No.“

LRH: All right. Now I'm going to say something, and then I want you to say something. Is that all right with you?

„Did I ever cost you your home and mother?“

PC: Yeah.

„No.“

LRH: All right. One, two, three.

„Well, why is it, then, every time I ask you something or say something to you here, you flinch?“ This was a hell of a problem. The person sat there and chewed the corner of the napkin, and was very fussed up about the whole problem. And finally extricated himself from the fact that I'd never done this to him. It was a horrible thing for him to realize, because it was a much less complex situation. And I refused to let him have a complex situation. Now, that was just mean of me. That was all there was to it. It was merely mean of me. I wasn't auditing him. Actually, probably dropped his tone, but increased his ARC with me. He had to go find somebody else to beat him up. Get the idea? I just refused to let him put me in the role of executioner, and we had an entirely different kind of an activity going on than he expected.

PC: One, two, three.

In view of the fact that this person never had any processing, it was quite remarkable that he was almost all the time in session. And in view of the fact he was associating with people who aren't auditors, I pity him. That'd be pretty grim, wouldn't it? Always in session. „Look what you have done to me. Do something about it“ — standard dramatization, see?

LRH: Now, that's very good. Now, did you say that?

Well, all right. Now, that was a mean thing to do to this person, but I had peace. That was the only thing I was asking for. Undoubtedly dropped this person's general tone here, for a little while. But what would I have done if I'd really wanted to have improved the person's health? What would I have had to have said? Had to have said something else.

PC: Yeah, I said that.

I would have done an entirely different approach. It would have been ten times as effective. Except, I couldn't count on the person's unhypnotic state. I couldn't count on this, so I didn't do it. If it'd been a Scientologist talking to me, why, I just would have cut loose. Person starts begging for a motivator, see? Just begging for the motivator. He kind of „You know what you've done. And that certainly disturbed things. And your demand that this file series get... I don't know, I've already worked day and night for a week.“ You know, that kind of thing — somebody who would just stand there, begging for a motivator, and so on. I don't do this, but I could do this; it'd be quite effective: I'd simply say, „Well, that's nothing compared to what I did to you last week!“

LRH: Well, why did you say that?

The person says, „Did to me last week? What do you mean?“

PC: Because you said it.

„Oh, you remember what I did to you last week. Do you remember my kicking you down the stairs, and then leaping the whole flight, and landing exactly on the middle of your spine and breaking it? Why, you just got out of the hospital yesterday. How could you forget?“

LRH: Oh, I said it and then you said it!

The person would have to get rid of that one, see? They'd say, „Ah, come on!“

PC: Uh-huh.

So we have this mechanism of more game, more complexity, more problem. And that is the direction you audit in. If you audit in the direction of more game, more complexity, more problem, why, you bring people upscale. If you just insist that there wasn't a game, I'm afraid that you may disconnect from this particular dramatization, but you don't handle them as people. Get the difference?

LRH: Now, do you remember what you said?

I didn't want to handle this person last night. I don't see any reason I have to handle everybody I meet. I knew a fellow driving a truck down the road the other day. I wasn't handling him; I wasn't driving his truck for him. Honest. I... I — driving along behind him. He was driving his own truck. He run hisself into the ditch. I didn't do it. Honest! I really didn't. I mean, I didn't drive him into the ditch. In fact, his steering wheel actually was too greasy to get a good grip on; it was impossible to have turned him over on that side road. And that he was going five miles an hour had nothing whatsoever to do with it. I wasn't even mad at him. I was containing my anger very, very nicely. I didn't have a thing to do with it. And besides, he just ran over in the ditch a little bit. You know?

PC: One, two, three.

Now, that’s the kind of conversation you want to suspect from a preclear. „Say, I never did anything to my mother, and she was always very mean to me. I never did anything to her at all. I was always good to her.“ Daaah! Funny part of it is, is the person really believes this. There's something wrong with this. It'd be impossible to be a child to a mother without raising hell with them. See, it's just not possible to be good to a mother.

LRH: That's very good. All right. Now, you see how this goes now. All right, I'm going to say three more numbers, and I want you to repeat them, okay? That's good.

Birth. Take birth, for instance, so on. Well now, a thetan tells you he didn't do that. He appropriated the product! The thetan appropriated the product of birth — had something to do with it. It's connected.

PC: Mm-hm.

There's always the protesting preclear. Now, you get a preclear who has systems of protest. What do you do about these things? More game, more problem, more complexity, and always in the direction of a games condition. Always audit them with the preclear at cause and something else at effect. „You make your body stop. When I say stop, then you make your body stop.“ See? Never this: „When I say stop, why, the body you're running will stop.“ You always put it on a games condition basis: „You make your body stop.“ That doesn't just put them on self-determinism, that puts them on a game condition.

LRH: All right. Six, eighteen, twelve.

Self-determinism, by the way, is a game condition. Narrowing down and individuating one's ability to control his environment, of course, renders things terribly complex, because it leaves all of these things out of control. See? It's very simple to control everything in the environment: Just stop it and leave it that way. The streets are all crowded and so on, and you can't stand the confusion (you decide you can't stand it; you postulate that for the next five minutes you can't stand it), just stop everybody. Just stop them there.

PC: Six, eighteen, twelve.

Then you'd be a good thetan if you also stopped and preserved them — and we've added in complexity. Next thing you know, you wouldn't be able to stop a whole street full of people at one postulate. You'd have slipped. You see why? You got too many other things to keep your eye on at the same time. You would be thinking of the sanitation department — its protest at the bodies when they started to rot, so on. You'd avoid this and avoid that and so on. You got a complex game going.

LRH: All right. What did I say?

Now I'll give you a process — give you a specific process that takes care of this, completely aside from the rationale of communication. I gave you one. It's „How many vias could you communicate to that thing on?“ Just any semblance of that problem. „In order to tell that person standing over on the counter the time of day, how many people could you tell to tell other people before the message would have arrived at that person standing on the counter?“ See, that'd be vias by terminals. You get the idea?

PC: Six, eighteen, twelve.

Because the actual complexity is a Gordian knot called communication, and it's communication that you're cutting apart. If it was just complexity that you were worried about, we would have all the complexities of the universe to worry about. We have complexity in only one part, and that's communication — complexity of communication. And you cut the Gordian knot of complexity of communication, and you've done it. Now, that's one technique. It's a very, very good technique.

LRH: Is that what I said?

Another technique — a whole series of techniques — is „Mock up a confusion.“ Now, that run, without any understanding on your part at all, or the preclear's, and so on, will still work, oddly enough, because it handles rest points and stable data, which are comparable to rest points and confusions and random data. You see? It handles this. But there's another way to run it, and that's simply: „Mock up a worse confusion. Well, that's fine, but can't you make a confusion that's worse than that? Well, that's good. Good. You did do that. All right, that's fine. Now mock up a worse confusion than that. All right. Now mock up a worse confusion.“ See?

PC: Yeah.

And he'll tell you eventually that he can't think of anything worse. And he'll do all sorts of things. But he will do it. And eventually, what do you know? He will do this technique of „Mock up a worse confusion“ by mocking up somebody mocking up a worse confusion, or something like this. He'll suddenly come back to fundamentals.

LRH: You're sure that's what I said?

And now I'm going to give you a key process, which is one of the heftiest assist processes that I've ever discovered. And this is a killer. Do you notice games conditions contains enemies and individualities? Well, enemies and individualities — you invent an enemy on a preclear for a while. Have him invent enemies and he does real well. „Invent worse enemies,“ he does better. But „Invent an individuality that could cope with it“ and „Invent a comparable circumstance,“ now that would be quite interesting. That will blow engrams — that technique, just as it is. See?

PC: Yeah.

The fellow is stuck in birth. All right. „Invent an individuality to cope with it. Invent a comparable circumstance. Invent another individuality to cope with it. Good. Invent another comparable circumstance. Invent another individuality to cope with it. Invent another comparable circumstance.“ Do you get that idea?

LRH: Well, do you recall what I said? Do you really...

All right. Now we run this complexity into it. You invent an individuality that couldn't cope with it at all, and invent a worse circumstance. Now, that is running it on a complexity. Do you have that? „Invent an individuality that couldn't cope with it at all,“ and „Invent a worse circumstance.“ You just exaggerate it in the direction of complexity. See?

PC: No, I recall what I said.

So, you can take any good process and you can complicate it toward complication, with greater results on the preclear.

LRH: You recall what you said, not what I said?

Thank you.

PC: Yep. Yeah.

[End of Lecture]

LRH: Well, that's very fascinating. Well, what number was it?

PC: Well, it was three numbers: six, eighteen, twelve.

LRH: But you do remember it, don't you?

PC: Yes, I do.

LRH: Well, do you recall me saying it?

PC: (pause) Mmm... not as well as I recall me saying it.

LRH: You remember you saying it better! Well, that's very interesting. All right, now, that's good, that's fine. All right: thirty-two, sixteen, eleven.

PC: You want me to do something with that?

LRH: Sure; say it!

PC: Oh! Thirty-two, sixteen, eleven.

LRH: Very good, very good. What did I say?

PC: Thirty-two, sixteen, eleven.

LRH: All right. Do you recall me saying that?

PC: Yeah, but not quite as well as I do me saying it.

LRH: All right. That's very interesting, isn't it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Now we're going to go a little further into this, if this is all right with you, huh?

PC: Sure, sure.

LRH: All right: A hundred, twelve, sixteen.

PC: A hundred, twelve, sixteen.

LRH: All right. Did I say that?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Do you remember my saying it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: You do remember it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: It's easier to do now?

PC: Yes, it is!

LRH: Well, all right! All right.

PC: Yeah, after all that.

LRH: All right, I'm going to say three more numbers, and I'm going to ask you to say them after them. All right?

PC: Right.

LRH: All right. Three, two, one.

PC: Three, two, one.

LRH: All right, that's fine. Now, do you remember the first numbers that we used? The first numbers I said?

PC: Mmmm... no.

PC: Oh, oh!

LRH: Yeah, what were they?

PC: One, two, three.

LRH: One, two, three. All right. Very good. Well then, you can remember what I say, can't you?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Huh? You can remember what I say, and you can remember what you say, can't you? Huh?

PC: Yeah, yeah.

LRH: All right and it's not very difficult, is it?

PC: No.

LRH: It's not very difficult at all.

PC: No.

LRH: Well, all right. Now, I'm going to ask you something, and that is, did you feel any physical pain while I was saying these numbers to you?

PC: No. No.

LRH: In other words, repeating them and remembering them didn't cause any physical pain. Is that right?

PC: No, it didn't.

LRH: No physical pain at all?

PC: No.

LRH: Well, all right. I'm going to say three more numbers, and I'm going to ask you to say them after them, all right?

PC: Right.

LRH: All right. Eight, seven, six.

PC: Eight, seven, six.

LRH: All right. Now, how do you feel about that?

PC: Good!

LRH: You feel all right about that?

PC: Yeah! Yeah.

LRH: In other words, there's no great tension involved here?

PC: No.

LRH: You sure? You sure? You sure there's no tension? Huh?

PC: Nah.

LRH: Less than there was?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Now, what was the last thing I said?

PC: Eight, seven, six.

LRH: In other words, this is easy to remember, huh?

PC: Yeah!

LRH: Yeah, it's easy to remember what I say, huh?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, all right. Now, what do you think about it?

PC: Well, I think it's pretty easy to remember what you say.

LRH: All right. You think it really is?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Now, all of these data, of course, I've been giving you are very nonsignificant.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: There is no great significance to this data at all.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Is that right?

PC: That's right.

LRH: All right. Now let's get just a little more significant, all right?

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. All chairs are purple.

PC: All right. All chairs are purple.

LRH: All right. Well, is that true?

PC: No. No, it's not.

LRH: Well, what did I say?

PC: You said all chairs are purple.

LRH: And then what did you say?

PC: I said all chairs are purple.

LRH: All right. We both said all chairs are purple.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Are they?

PC: No.

LRH: No. All right, then you could disbelieve something I said, couldn't you?

PC: Yeah!

LRH: You could throw it out, huh?

PC: Yeah, yeah.

LRH: All right. Well, that's good, that's good. Now, let's try that again, all right?

PC: Yeah!

LRH: All right. The ceiling is an inch above the floor.

PC: Okay. The ceiling is an inch above the floor.

LRH: All right. How's that?

PC: That's all right.

LRH: What did I say?

PC: You said the ceiling is an inch above the floor.

LRH: All right. Can you throw that out?

PC: Yeah, sure.

LRH: Do you have to believe it?

PC: No.

LRH: It's not a vital datum?

PC: No. No.

LRH: Is it true?

PC: No.

LRH: Not true?

PC: No.

LRH: In other words, you got a power of choice over something I said, haven't you?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, that's pretty good. That's pretty good. All right, now let's go just a little bit further with this, shall we?

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. Preclears should always be acknowledged.

PC: Okay. Preclears should always be acknowledged.

LRH: Mm-hm. Well, all right. Is that true?

PC: Mmm... Well, if you want to help him, it is.

LRH: Huh?

PC: Yeah, if you want to help him, it is.

LRH: Well, yeah, but the datum was preclears should always be acknowledged. Is that true?

PC: No, that's not true.

LRH: That's not true?

PC: No.

LRH: What do you think about it as a datum?

PC: I think it's a pretty good datum.

LRH: Yeah? Pretty good datum, but not always true.

PC: No, not always true.

LRH: Well, I tell you what. Let's take a little example of this here, one way or the other. Let's take these two objects here. We'll call this object the preclear, and we'll call this object the auditor, all right?

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. Now, I want you to give me an example of that datum, "preclears should always be acknowledged." Now, if that datum were in existence, what would be the action of the auditor here to a statement on the part of the preclear? Now, you just tell me.

PC: Well, acknowledge him; say "Okay" or "All right," something of the sort.

LRH: Mm-hm. All right. Well, now you have the preclear here say something and have the auditor acknowledge it, okay?

PC: Oh, "Gluck!" You know, "Okay."

LRH: All right. You bet. All right. Have the preclear say something.

PC: "Gleeck."

LRH: All right. Now what does the auditor say?

PC: "All right."

LRH: Okay. Is that... that's an acknowledgment?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: And the datum says what? "Preclears should always be acknowledged." What's that say there?

PC: Well, that says that the auditor should always acknowledge...

LRH: Yeah...

PC: ...something from the preclear's statement.

LRH: Well, give me a more graphic example of that.

PC: Well, preclear says, "I'm hungry."

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Auditor says, "Okay."

LRH: Mm-hm. All right. But the datum is a preclear should always be acknowledged. Now, can you give me a graphic example of that? Using these two items.

PC: Using those two items... (pause) I don't know! No, not very well, using those two items.

LRH: Why not?

PC: Well, that's not a preclear, and that's not an auditor.

LRH: Well, that's true... That's true. I agree with you there. It's perfectly true. Perfectly true. In other words, you didn't even have to accept my assignment of value to these two things.

PC: No, no.

LRH: You didn't have to.

PC: No.

LRH: Did you really agree with the assignment of value to them?

PC: Well, for a little while there.

LRH: But not now?

PC: Yeah, not now.

LRH: Well, not now. All right, shall we assign value to them again?

PC: Well...

LRH: Why don't you assign the value to them? Which one's the preclear?

PC: I don't know that I'd want to assign that value.

LRH: You don't know that you'd...

PC: Well, unless I wanted to assign more values to them, and said that the, well, the glass, you know, could talk or do certain things...

LRH: All right.

PC: Yeah, you know. And I could do that.

LRH: Okay. Well, do so. Go ahead.

PC: Oh, go ahead? Okay, well, it's all right the way you had it there. The glass can be the preclear.

LRH: All right. All right.

PC: And the Coke bottle will be the auditor.

LRH: All right. Now let's get an example of this datum we're examining.

PC: Okay. The glass, as a preclear, says, "I've had enough of this; I'm leaving."

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: And then if the auditor, which is the Coke bottle, must always acknowledge the preclear, the Coke bottle says, "Okay."

LRH: It's not very workable, is it? All right! All right. You got a good grip on this datum, though?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Well, let's modify it so it is true. Now, how would you modify it so it's true?

PC: Well... (pause) Well, something to the effect that if an auditor wants to get good results, you know, if he wants to handle this thing, then he will acknowledge. You know...

LRH: You were...

PC: Like, for example, an auditor might just be trying out, to find out for himself whether acknowledgment was worthwhile or not. So in that case maybe he wouldn't acknowledge, just to see what would happen.

LRH: Mm-hm. Well, give me a datum then that could be taught to somebody.

PC: Hmm...

LRH: Concerning acknowledgment.

PC: Well, something like "You want to be an auditor, you're going to audit a preclear, try this for yourself and see if it works: When your preclear originates something, you acknowledge. See if you get good results." Something of that sort.

LRH: Mm-hm. Well, can you just codify it as a datum?

PC: (pause) Mmm... (pause) Well, just acknowledge your preclear.

LRH: Mm-hm. You'd want to make it that brief?

PC: Well, you might add something about results in there – get certain kind of results. I don't know for sure.

LRH: Well, "acknowledge your preclear": is that much of a modification from "preclears should always be acknowledged?"

PC: Well, I don't know about this should always be acknowledged...

LRH: Oh! You don't like that should always.

PC: Yeah, I'm not sure I like that.

LRH: Well, how would you vary that?

PC: Mmm. I don't know.

LRH: Well, let's vary it so that it could be stated. Preclears what, concerning acknowledgment? Just anything you want to say.

PC: Oh, I'd be more inclined to say... I don't know.

LRH: Come on, let's make a datum up here.

PC: (pause) I don't know. I'd just say "acknowledge your preclear."

LRH: You just would say "acknowledge your preclear."

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Hm. Nothing cautionary about it?

PC: I might make another datum that says – that would put this datum under "For good auditing..." I mean, "These are the rudiments of auditing," or something, "Acknowledge your preclear." And then tell the guy, "Well, you try doing it, or you try doing it – try not doing it, and see what happens."

LRH: All right. All right. What conclusion do you think he would attain then?

PC: Well, I think he'd come to the conclusion that when he wanted good results, that he would acknowledge his preclear.

LRH: All right. Well now, supposing you tell me that datum.

PC: Well, if you want good auditing results, acknowledge your preclear.

LRH: If you want good auditing results, acknowledge your preclear.

PC: Right.

LRH: Is that what you said?

PC: Yeah, that's what I said.

LRH: Did I repeat it?

PC: Yeah, you did.

LRH: Oh, I'll repeat something you said.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Is that right?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, say it again.

PC: If you want good auditing results, acknowledge your preclear.

LRH: All right. If you want good auditing results, acknowledge your preclear.

PC: Very good!

LRH: All right. Okay. Thank you very much, Harold. End of session!

All right. Now, do you see this particular method of instruction?

It takes a nonsignificant datum and teaches somebody that the repetition of the datum does not bring about chaos, does not hurt him any, that he can do it. Right?

Then you teach him he could remember it and so forth.

Now, although he is taught data all the time, it might be, because of association of something with you, he is not necessarily convinced that he could accept your data. Some people are safe and some aren't, you see? Got the idea?

So if you wanted to teach him something, why, you would have to give him a test of this. Let him look it over.

And you'd do this, of course, with a nonsignificant datum: one, two, three; a hundred, thirty-two, sixteen, see? Just numbers. Just nothing to it, nothing to it at all. You get a repetition of this, and then he can remember it, and he will find out that his own – usually, this is fairly standard – he'll remember that his own repetition is safe, and that yours is a little bit held off, see? Then he finds out immediately that's not so bad; I mean there's nothing wrong with that.

Now, you do something else with him. He's so used to being taught by life with duress, and not with a power of choice, that you take a totally incorrect datum. You know, you showed him he could remember it over a long period of time, like the trick of giving him the first number backwards, and letting him repeat the first number again.

But you give him an incorrect data. There would be no argument about the incorrectness of the datum. And you let him throw it out. And you give him another datum, incorrect, and let him throw it out. And if he has any difficulty with the nonsignificant items, you would, of course, keep repeating these until we could do it smoothly and this worked out.

I don't care how long it took.

And then, you would keep giving him incorrect data and letting him throw it out, and show him definitely and positively that he could give it the yo-heave. You got it?

Now, you've shown him that he can remember something or reject it, and that is the definition of power of choice.

You've shown him and demonstrated to him – probably at much greater length than I have demonstrated to you here, you see? You have demonstrated to him that he can take nonsignificant data and give it the yo-heave, he can take completely incorrect data and give it the yo-heave, and that he can remember any of this data. And also that it didn't hurt him and it didn't kill him. You got it?

And then you give him a datum which is the datum you wish to teach him. And you give him power of choice over the datum. But the pitch is to give it a little bit exaggerated in force. You got it? "Preclears should always be acknowledged." It's not true. Not true.

Let him quarrel with it. Let him chew it around. Let him add it up and look over his experience.

And make him give you an objective example. That is a vital part of this particular operation – a vital part of it.

Have him set up a dummy situation somehow or another, see? If you're teaching him that it is wrong to run off the road with a car, or something stupid like that, why, you have him show you where the road is on the table and move the salt shaker off the road, see? You get the notion, see?

You give him an objective example. He has to then translate your statement into action. Got that? He must do this, and he must continue to do this until he can do it, one way or the other, so that it ceases to be a bunch of words.

There's many an excellent student to whom all of education is only a bunch of words, and somehow or other they've mastered the mathematics of words so that they can make the words change and redefine and come back, and nothing ever hit reality at all. In other words, the avoidance factor is so strong that they have worked out a complete mathematics of symbols. And they can be very convincing. They can give you examples.

But to point to objects, to make them give direction to the objects, intention to the objects, and so forth, is quite something else. It removes this thing, then, from the theoretical class and moves it into the world of doingness.

So you remove this datum into a bit of a better definition, and then you remove it into the world of doingness. You argue some more with him and agree with him – you pick an agreement with him – on the subject of the definition itself, until he can state it fairly well. And then you make him give it to you, and you repeat his definition.

It shows him he can do this, too.

Fascinating thing is he's liable to relax about the whole datum.

Now, one item came up with relation to this particular demonstration session. Of course, the amount of stress that we were putting on it is of course brief We did this very, very briefly, with somebody who already knew the datum. That's why it could be brief, don't you see?

No subject has more than half a hundred important data in it. I don't care what you're doing. They don't have more than a half a hundred really vital, top-flight data.

The running of a truck company: some guy who knows how but can't tell you how, and that sort of thing – got it bred in the bone, and all that sort of thing – you better not count on him in any push. Because he can't state what he's doing; therefore, it's all in the field of action. So therefore it must be to some degree obsessive.

He always has to get the trucks out. There's eight broken down. If they run any further in the condition they're in, they'll burn up his trucks. Well, some hidden datum is in there someplace about always getting the trucks out.

So these eight trucks, in spite of the protests of the mechanics and so forth, hit the road anyway, and there's an awful lot of dollars in trucks suddenly burned up, you see?

I've seen shipping companies do this. The ships must always go to sea and be making money for their owners.

Or "Paint is expensive!" or something like this. And this is a monitoring, important datum.

All right. Now, in view of the fact that we are doing an evaluation of data, if you please – please, look at this – the evaluation up to this moment is in the hands of the Instructor. You got it?

Now, we have to run another type of session, which is best done on the ground with the subject matter of the person. We run unimportances. We run unimportances, that's all.

We don't run importances. Why?

Everybody in the universe has always been running importances. Everything was always important. Anything was important.

"It's very important that you put your hat on this particular peg."

"Why?"

"Well, because it's important!"

Well, why is it important? What's important mean? Important means punishment. Got it?

People are taught to do things, not because they're sensible or because it's a good game, they're taught to do things because of consequences – dire consequences.

So you can cover the whole field of any activity in terms of consequences by covering it in terms of importances.

Now, you could do consequences or importances and wind up more or less with the same result.

You're teaching somebody to drive a tractor. Driving – teaching of driving – is quite an activity. There are a lot of driving schools in the United States. They teach people to drive.

There are a lot of police schools that teach people to drive better. They do a fine job of it, too. They send the people out to have more accidents. It's very good. I mean, it's very good. They have trouble, you see, with employment in the traffic department. And if they had less accidents, why, they'd have less employment, so on. You got to keep it up somehow or another; it's the only way I can figure it out.

But they teach everybody how important it is to do this, and how important it is to do that, because of the dire consequences of.

And I've never heard anybody in a driving school... And I've looked this problem over very interestedly. We even devised a very beautiful little test that someday we're going to shove under the noses of people who are taking driving tests. And when they flop it, they flop. That's that. It's an amazingly insignificant little test to show up the tremendous stress of confusion in the individual. Because only 10 percent of the drivers make 90 percent of the accidents. And all you have to do is eliminate them, and we would see a lot less red lights.

I've never heard an instructor say, "You drive this way because it's the aesthetic thing to do," or "because this is the way to drive gracefully."

They don't do that. And yet that's the only reason that appeals to a thetan. It's the only reason people buy automobiles today: they look aesthetic in them, they think. Or they drive aesthetically or something. You know?

Maybe somebody's got a reverse on aesthetics, and ugliness and aesthetics have reversed somehow – beauty and ugliness have reversed in the field of aesthetics – and so he knows how he looks aesthetic in a car: old slouch hat, Model-T Ford, you know? That's the aesthetic setup.

So what would you do? What would you do with somebody if the importance of the situation is rather for the birds. It really doesn't get too far.

I was rather amazed to learn a complete report about all of the kids of a town in England are taught continuously and yanked back in. Nobody ever stops teaching them how to ride their bicycles and walk safely. They're always taught this. Ride their bicycles and walk safely.

And the report goes on and on, saying then the importance of an educational program in preventing accidents, since they've had no accidents in that town for motor traffic, which is fairly heavy through it, for many, many years. And this program has been very thorough and has been followed very, very well.

The datum, of course, makes good sense in favor of "make them all study safety, and they have a safe record," until you learn that they are conducted through these exercises and so forth on the ground.

It amounts to learning how to walk and ride bicycles on streets. They take them out and... They must include in it, for the thing to work at all, the lesson that "you, too, can safely ride a bicycle and don't have to worry about it." And that must overweigh the importance factor; otherwise the program would not have mounted up this way, see?

It's quite interesting.

Now, if you have no time to educate anybody, if you're very careless, you don't care anything about it, and you feel pretty sadistic, you say, "Nobody is going to leave this post tonight."

You're a general or something, and, you know, uncontrolled. And somebody named Slovick or something or other leaves the post, and you shoot him. You show other people the dead body and you say, "You see?"

That is, if you're real stupid, this has a workability which is a usable workability – if you're real stupid. You haven't any imagination or something, you can do that.

Well, this has a rather broad appeal, for some reason or other.

I'll show you; it's intensely workable, this method by force: "If you kill. somebody, you'll get killed."

Very forceful; it works: murders stopped a long time ago. Hasn't been a murder in years, obviously, because there've been an awful lot of hangings. Proves itself, doesn't it?

Education by importance, then, is all right as long as you're in terrific ARC with your people.

You can say, "This is an awfully important datum. Look it over and see if you don't think so."

If you're not in terrific ARC with the people, not close up and in terrific ARC with them all the time, by golly, you certainly... It isn't power of choice you have to return to them, it's relaxation. That's what you've got to return to them: relaxation.

You've got to get them to relax about the body of data before the importance of the data shows up.

So, you teach somebody to drive a tractor by having him select the unimportant parts of it: things that he's sure are relatively unimportant about the tractor, the control or handling of which is relatively unimportant.

And you know, before you've run it very long, this tractor will become the most important thing he ever saw. I mean he won't be able to run it very long before "But it's all important!" you know?

And you say, "Oh, come on. You can find something else about this tractor that's unimportant. Oh, come on; let's find something else." You're running a covert kind of 8-C, of course, at the same time, which is highly successful and mustn't be neglected on the educational factor.

"One more unimportant thing about this tractor."

Well, he finally decides that the coat of paint that is on the exact front of the crank is probably unimportant. He probably decides that.

And you keep nailing him and nailing him and nailing him. The thing gets more solid to him – one of the things that happens. But the other thing that happens is, the allness that he finally comes upscale into starts to disintegrate.

He finds out after a while that the controls – he doesn't know anything about the tractor; he's just been examining it. He will finally select the controls and the exact items which are control contacts of the tractor as the most important things of the tractor from his standpoint. And then hell select these down, and gradually, why, hell have it taped.

The funny part of it is, if you do that, he ran get in and drive the tractor. Fantastic!

In other words, it isn't so important that it'll kill him if he doesn't know. And if he's on a craving-to-know anxiety all the way through his learning to drive a tractor, it practically kills him. And someday the tractor probably will kill him. It's all so important that he convinces even himself by running off of a cliff with it.

He suddenly fumbles for the brake at the last moment, you see, and hits the choke, and it merely advances the speed of the engine slightly. And he says, "Something is wrong here," he says. "It's all so important."

So there's a whole series of tricks educationally that center around the devaluation of importances of the unimportant parts of the subject. Got it?

That's a whole field of education. Go take somebody out and show him a hydroelectric dam, find the unimportant parts of it.

My God, it may take him ten months! We don't even care who he talks to or anything else. But we don't let him simply study it out of its manual, see? We don't do that to him. He has to select the unimportances.

Now, one of the things that is very amusing about this: I quite often show somebody how to use a camera, because that's a dramatization on my part of Fac One, of course.

And I have pretty good luck. I pretend to take film out of the back before I show people the snapshots and so forth. And it's quite interesting that people in Scientology are very, very easy to teach about a camera. Very easy. Fac One or no Fac One; it has no bearing on it. They're just rather easy to teach the mechanical operation of something. You show them this and show them that and they say, "That's fine," and wind it up and "click," you know. They're fine.

Except for somebody who has never selected out the importances of Scientology, and who still believes that every datum in Scientology must be totally memorized, because it's just as important as every other datum in Scientology. And Scientology is the same order of magnitude as yoga; it's the same order of magnitude as something else; it's same order of magnitude as psychology; the same order of magnitude... It's all-all-all-all- all, see?

And you look up this person's past, and they've been punished within an inch of their lives. Direct coordination. It's all important.

So if you said to somebody, "For good auditing results, preclears should be acknowledged," something on that order – if you just said that to him, and you said to him, "Preclears sit in chairs and stand up," and "Textbooks vary in price." Now, you give him this data, and you say, "Now, study for examination."

So they memorize "Textbooks vary in price."

You will find this person likewise is incapable of putting the material into use.

So you have to devaluate the unimportances out of this allness.

All right. I was showing somebody this in Scientology – how to run a camera (this was not very recently) – because I wanted this person to get a couple of snapshots at a congress. "You go over there and snap them."

All of a sudden realized that I'd hit a peculiar strata of "it was all very important," because they were being taught something – because I was teaching them this, you see?

Its order of magnitude jumped out of groove. See? And the anatomy of a preclear and how you snap a camera became of equal importance, you see?

They were going this way: "Yes. Yes. Show me that again. Sh--show me where the – where the release is. Show me where the – where the release is."

And I said, "Well, which release are you talking about?"

"How – how you take the film out."

Well, what could we have cared less about taking the film out of the camera they were only going to use for two shots? Yet they were fixed right on it.

And I said to them, "Well now, tell me confidentially: Do you think what I'm telling you is very important?"

"Ha-ha! Ha-ha! Ha-ha! It's not at all important, is it? Ha!" and they all of a sudden went outside and went into hysterics.

Person's whole auditing characteristics altered – their abilities altered – just on suddenly realizing something was out of line on the allness of the importance of everything.

In other words, we just shook one little brick loose in this formidable wall, and the rest of the wall caved in.

Now, the shaking of the allness and everythingness and uniformity of the importance and heaviness and conviction of, and so on, is probably one of the best educational maneuvers that a fellow can undertake with somebody who has already been educated in a subject. So we even can undo old-time education.

Now, I told you education has something to do with fixing data and unfixing it, changing existing data, either by making it more fixed or less fixed. So today we have under view and in view, then, a technology, with its importances, and any variation of it, which can undo to a marked extent a very thorough education in some subject and return it to the power of choice of an individual.

Now, because some people are so far out of communication, the technique of teaching them something often has to include auditing. So they'd have to be audited and uneducated.

But this you find is the most formidable task of the educator: to take somebody who has been educated in it. You hand a bunch of new radar and stuff to the Andrea Doria. Everybody on there has been going to sea all this time. They are all terribly experienced; they know all about it. They never look at it.

And in a fog one day somebody thinks they're depending on it, and they're not depending on it, and they've got a cross-up, and they have never been uneducated from other methods, and they're supposed to accept new methods, and they're all equal – lahlah... And the Andrea Doria is on the bottom.

See what happened? You didn't try to uneducate them before you educated them.

Now, everybody knows that a thetan is a bottomless pit. But not on the subject of education. He absorbs just about so much on a subject, and then he knocks off.

So you have to get him to evaluate it, reevaluate it, and assume its various levels of evaluation under his own power of choice. And then he's got a subject in more useful state than he has ever had it before.

And now I hope you know perhaps a little more about how to teach people to know less about what they know all about.

Thank you.