And here in this first lecture we're just going to talk about where we are going. We are going to talk about where we are going and to which we can be expected to arrive at maybe. Nothing like being definite.

Question period, first ACC lecture.

Personally, I don't think probably any of those people present will arrive at this goal. But you have the great honor of sacrificing yourselves for the cause.

Yes.

One of the first exteriorization processes, developed by an auditor in California - it was not developed by myself. He heard all about exteriorization and he read my lectures on the subject; he knew about it and he invented a process, and that was a very interesting process. It was: Try not to be three feet back of your head. That was the first open-and-shut exteriorization process.

Male voice: This question of a person not-know, not-know, not-know - that seems to me that's an apparency. Actually what he's doing is create-cease create, create-cease create, cease create. Is that correct?

So he came over and he sat on my lawn in Phoenix for some little time demanding to see me. And when he did he told me about this thing. So nothing would do but what I ran the process on him. And he blew three feet back of his head.

Yeah, but after a while he takes the apparency as real and he not-knows with mass, or not-knows with space. You get a track stretched out at time intervals which is a method of not-knowing. You know? And he - it develops a methodology of something which doesn't exist in the first place. That's very well asked because it brings up this point: that is probably the basic reason why you can neglect not-know and still clear somebody.

We didn't have a one-shot process at that time. One of the few bits there that wasn't originated by me. We had an awful lot of wonderful processes but none of them produced an immediate and sure exteriorization like this one. And you can still run this on people. It's very damaging but you can run it on them.

Male voice: Thank you.

And after I'd run it on him for a little while, why, he had a big cognition. And the reason he couldn't possibly be stably exteriorized is because he had a picture of himself as being the last trapped thetan on earth sacrificing himself so that all others could go free. Isn't that wonderful? A lot of you've probably got the same computation, but of course I wouldn't generalize or evaluate.

Because it ain't.

But we've gotten over even that one. Obsessive help or obsessive being helped, alike, arrive in an entrapment.

Male voice: Thanks.

Now, the method of trapping somebody is not this: Get his agreement to be loyal, get his agreement to be part of something, get him to join up one way or the other for the good cause and then hit him over the head in some electric machine or something. That's not a method of entrapment.

It's all right.

It is used, but it is subordinate to this one: Help him, help him, help him, help him; then get him to help and help and help until he totally loses sight of what he is helping and why and who is helping him and for what.

Well now, this is your question period and it may be on the lecture or it may be on your current auditing. This is your chance to have a crack at me here on all the horrors of war that you're experiencing. Yes?

There is nothing whatever wrong with help, nothing at all wrong with it, until it becomes unknowing. Now, you could say that there's nothing wrong with anything until it is ducked out of sight into a reactive computation. It is that thing which is out of sight and unknown which is aberrative.

Male voice: Ron, I'd like a little more on that tolerance of violence, if you could, as versus responsibility.

That's the first thing you should know about clearing, Clear checkouts, auditing or anything else.

Well, if you have a tolerance of violence, you don't need a stable datum to hold it back. So as a person becomes intolerant of violence he begins to assume more and more stable data, doesn't he? Now, if a person is being irresponsible for the violence, it of course is far more impressive to him.

We have a little gimmick, a gadget known as an E-Meter, complete with cans, which tells people what other people don't know and which tells on you or your preclear, and will register these unknown areas. Because when a computation ducks out of sight analytically, it ducks out of thought into matter. So you might say that all unknown computations are involved with energy.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

The way to get something unknown is to bury it in energy in its space, on some other time track - on some other time track than the one on which the preclear is knowingly proceeding. So you have to have - really, for an aberration and an unknowingness - you have to have a different time, a different space, a different energy and a different matter than the preclear thinks he is involved with. And these spot these different matter, energy, space and time computations.

So the less responsible he is, the more stable data he has to get and the more protective he has to be of the stable data. Don't you see?

Now matter, energy, space and time is not a description of the physical universe alone. It is also a description of every other universe there is, particularly including the preclear's. So when thoughts duck out of sight they become solid or located and therefore they are unknown because they are protected in some fashion.

Male voice: Yeah, I see that.

Now if you know your Dianetics, you know that an engram is one of the sneakiest things you ever had to do with. You start running this engram along the line and it goes something like this: „Oh dear, oh dear, I don't know what will happen to me now. I'm just stuck with this and I will never be able to get rid of it.“ See? It runs that way.

So that some fellow eventually will take a rifle and it will be the one thing - it's the stable datum for all violence, a rifle. You get the idea?

But what does the preclear get the first run through?

Male voice: Yeah.

He gets, „Darling, I have something to tell you.“ „Oh, that's all right, honey, we will get along somehow if we stick with it.“ „Life isn't too bad.“ And this is all Papa's dialect. Some people call it dialogue but it's usually dialect. This is all Papa's dialect through the engram. And it's apparently right on top and the preclear has always known that Papa was a cheerful and reassuring character. So that's not very unknown.

After a while it'll become so valuable that he won't fire one and you get a collector.

He has no real recall on Mama who has always been a despairing, messed-up person on the subject of the second dynamic, you see? But if you ask him for a description of Mama his first reaction is to say, „Well, she was a quiet person; she didn't ever have much to say. She got along all right. She did what she could.“ You know? And he has - he hasn't a clue! So we run this engram and we get Papa's dialogue. And then we run it again and we get some little scrap of the aberrative content. And then we get another scrap of the aberrative content the next time through. And finally the last thing to come off of the engram is the most hidden and unknown part of it.

Male voice: I see.

That is the most aberrative, not because of its word content but because of its submergence. It is out of sight. And it is, incidentally, that phrase most surrounded by M-E-S-T. There has been physical injury at the moment of utterance which has buried the thought on another track in another energy. You see this? It took an impact - and by the way, don't you ever let me catch you auditing a valence off which is all sweetness, light, no punishment, nothing - and you say, „Oh boy, I'm really getting there now. This - that - that person, that professor he had just dominated his thinkingness, you know, and got him all sold on English literature and he's been crazy on English literature ever since. And I'm really getting to this case now.“ You know? One, he told you about the professor. Two, there is no instance in the entire track where the professor hauled off and bopped him in the jaw. And that, in itself, the lack of injury, outlaws and wipes out the professor as an aberrative individual. You follow me here?

Female voice: Wow!

Audience: Mm-hm.

You get all sorts of manifestations of this nature. It's quite an amusing look at life.

All valences which are aberrative must include physical duress.

Yes, Miriam?

There are only two ways something can get buried. One, the postulate that it will now be buried. See, that's first and foremost. And that has to be decided way on the backtrack someplace before it consequently can happen.

Female voice: I want to see if I understand what you were saying. In this association: we may agree to an association. Then we will find out that we have agreed to more than we thought.

A person can never be injured unless he consents to it. That's one you can write down in letters of fire on the inside of your forehead. He's got to consent to it before it can happen to him.

Yeah.

All right. And as we look on the backtrack, then, we discover that the individual feels himself compelled to continue to mock up those things which have overwhelmed him. Above all others, these things must be created, be survived and do the destruction. The active dynamic factors of life are then assigned to these impact points on the track - deep areas of unconsciousness. Other such items are cloaked in matter, energy, space and time.

Female voice: They say, „Skip a grade. I'll teach you a little.“ That means you don't play with any of the children all summer. This spring, in working, I came across that thing with preclears and with myself a dozen times. So here was association without consent suddenly and then you were trapped.

And when we say matter, energy, space and time, there isn't just this matter, there isn't just this space, there isn't just that energy and there isn't just this one time track. There's a time track for every preclear, there's energy for every preclear, there's space for every preclear and there's matter for every preclear. And there's matter, energy, space and time for every universe there is anywhere.

That's right. But you must realize that the only associations that are valuable - and this is the reason we are clearing people - if we took all unwanted or all apparent associations without consent and started to run them out of a case, oh wow! See? This is one of these tremendous tasks because it's just gone on and on and on.

Therefore, an E-Meter will show you unknown and buried items. Therefore, it will.

What you have to do is take something which assisted somebody to create, to cause to survive and to (as he thinks) not-know things; and we take this assistant creator, you might say, which became the individual, became definitely associated with him, and then by some betrayal mechanism became unusable. Now, by this mechanism we have now blocked out a whole zone of creation, see? We had a dependency and we couldn't do it without the thing.

All hidden things in a preclear's life are connected with pain and unconsciousness - those two things - but certainly also with effort, emotion, other thinkingness, a lot of other contents. But the first thing there, is this thing called duress. He must have been injured. And when we say injured, we mean that matter must have met matter, energy must have met energy and space must have gotten mixed up with space and the time must be as wrong as a Republican regime.

There's many a writer today, for instance - I know this personally - who are unable to tell stories verbally. As a matter of fact it's rather symptomatic of our age, but these boys all need paper and pencil and solitude to tell a story. Well, that's a funny thing to need to tell a story, isn't it? Huh, if you think it over? The thing you've got to have to tell a story is an audience! And so these boys write themselves out and run downhill in two or three years, and they talk about writers these days getting all burned out.

In other words, this computation that is holding a person non-Clear is not known to him. If it is known to him, it isn't aberrative. It can only become known to him if he dare confront the duress.

Well, that's fascinating when you look at the career of Alexandre Dumas, and he was telling stories to the world and association to him was a thing of joy, certainly. You never saw a guy associate with Paris with quite such intimacy. And this fellow - this fellow was writing all of his days. See? Well, you could take almost any art and separate out the things which are associative with the art, run it on a whole track basis and find the reason for failure. Now, it won't be what the fellow tells you, but you, a Scientologist, could just work it out on a writer with paper, a painter with canvas, and either (or any artist) with a critic. Critic's very valuable and then he cuts your throat.

So one way of Clear, one route to Clear, one of the more interesting routes, you might say, and one of the less workable - you know, there's tremendous amount of theory can go back of these sort of things - it's what works that counts and that's all that counts - is tolerance of violence. If you could increase a person's tolerance of violence to infinity you would, of course, have an OT.

And you could run this, and although it would be merely a surface computation on the case - see, you're not really clearing this fellow, you're giving him an assist; I want you to get the difference between clearing somebody and giving an assist - you can run these same mechanisms on any given subject on a case and get a tremendous resurgence of ability, and if you handle the present lifetime, all you're going to do is give the fellow an assist.

Now that's just theory. There is at this time no known way of doing this. This process does not work. Obviously it's a wonderful process, but it just doesn't work. What violence could you tolerate? Thank you. What violence could you tolerate? Thank you. What violence could you tolerate? Thank you. You get the idea?

A present lifetime set of auditing is merely an assist, that's all. You could get rid of all the unwanted associations in the present lifetime - if you could; I doubt it. But you certainly could get rid of all of the dependencies on help in the present lifetime and get some resurgence of a skill. You could make a painter paint better, an electronics man do work better and so forth, just by getting rid of all of the little odds and ends and people that he depended on to help him.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Now, you're not going to clear him because it was eight or nine million years ago during a period of space opera that he got zapped thoroughly by his assistant who up to that time had done all of his construction. You get the idea. Every time he wanted to invent some electronic gadget, why, his assistant was an absolute genius on the subject and he'd just mock up all the wires and connect everything and put all of everything in a proper place - and very well educated, terrific technical man, and a pal, you know, and they were good friends. And then one day - the fellow didn't even know that there was an affair between the assistant and his wife or something of the sort - and one day he told the assistant to do something and they were rolling ahead on this big project and the assistant picked up a zap gun and killed him deader than a mackerel.

And one of the reasons it doesn't work is because it has the preclear at effect. Now this has a small and limited workability. This is a small and limited workability. On some isolated preclear someplace in the grass roots you're going to find somebody go Clear on this one. Pssshew. And then you're going to find ninety-nine more that won't.

See, it wouldn't happen every lifetime but it certainly happened that time. And so we find this electronics man in this kind of a state of mind in this lifetime: he absolutely has to have somebody to help him wire things, but if he does he'll get killed. See, and therefore we could unburden all of the help he needs and we would make him just a little bit better an electronics man, see? And it would be a measurable difference, but it wouldn't clear the case.

Beware of processes which work on somebody but not on other people. The processes you want are the processes that work all the way, top and bottom, at any case level. Then that's a valuable process, see? Route 1 processes work on a tremendous number of people. You say, „Why did we abandon them?“ Because they don't include 50 percent of the human race, that's why. And for another 25 percent they only work for three days and then the guy goes back in his head and that's that. The old Route 1 processes worked then for a certain number of people but didn't work for all. So therefore, there must be some missing truth in the matter.

So we have a choice of giving people an assist and clearing them. And that difference is: handling the present lifetime and handling the whole track.

Well, this is one of these workable processes: What violence could you be responsible for? See? And this is an even more workable process: What violence could you admit to having caused? Now, when you're running Problems of Comparable Magnitude or PT problems or something of the sort, you want to keep that one in mind: The fellow is dodging back from the potential violence of this situation.

Now, association with education and learning, or anything of that character, is very long because the one thing he has done since the beginning of the universe was teach and learn. He has done both. You can get anybody by saying, „Have you ever taught anybody anything?“ Oh, wow! See, this goes right on back to beginning of track.

A problem is terminal-counter-terminal, postulate-counter-postulate, idea-counter-idea. Idea A is versus Idea B. They are in conflict with each other and you get the anatomy of maybe. So a problem all by itself is a generated unknown because the solution is not known.

Yes?

The rarest thing in the world are solutions. That's why your preclear clutches them to his bosom. That's why when you have him solve something, solve something, solve something, solve something, the problem walks right in on him. And he becomes tighter and tighter and tighter, glued to the situation.

Male voice: Changing over to this question of violence, what about a process which would clear the person's understanding of violence as you clear the understanding of help, in the same manner? How would that...

Well, don't think there's any other mechanic involved in this than the mechanics of Scientology 8-8008, which is as true today as it was when it was written.

Well, you could, but there is a short process that I didn't mention which does handle violence. Raising his tolerance of violence and so forth by various mock-ups and that sort of thing is very limited. But you can run Help on violent terminals and you will find this as you start analyzing people, that violent terminals are themselves... So that Help on a soldier, „How could you help a soldier?“ is one of the killers.

Somebody just told me last night they'd just read it and found a brand-new book. Read it years ago, but read it again and found a brand-new book. And it was quite true, and he knew all this now! You know? Scarcity and abundance. Remedy of scarcity and abundance of all things, it says in Scientology 8-8008. When a preclear holds on to it he hasn't got enough of it; that is the golden rule of all auditing and is true today. So obviously, he hasn't got enough solutions. He's got a tremendous number of problems without enough solutions. He thinks he has problems in great number, but has no solutions to them - so his scarcity of solutions.

You got the pun all right.

Actually he picks up masses after a while and calls them solutions, and the reason he starts getting glued to masses is because masses themselves solve so many things.

Male voice: Ron, as the preclear's acceptance of violence comes up to a high degree, what would violence be, then, as a definition?

Spaces. The fellow who says, „Well, the only thing to do about it is leave it.“ The car's all smashed up, run into a lamppost and it's in beautiful secondhand condition and that's it. And so he walks off and leaves it. He's using a space solution. See? Now. He's - has various methods of solving things, but the scarcest thing in the world is a solution. Solutions, therefore, get held on to, buried and we have what's known as the stable datum and the state of confusion. And all a stable datum is is a solution. That's it, see? And you'll find people holding on to these solutions. Come what may, to shake them loose from a solution is one of the triumphant things.

An unappreciated series of particles.

Now there's another way of going to Clear then. And one of these is to simply get him to solve it and solve it and solve it and solve it and solve it.

Violence has been the servant of a preclear, you see? And he has caused violence and then has withheld causing violence. One of the favorite methods of mothers the world over is to teach children they should not be mean to animals or their brothers and sisters because it hurts them too. Did you know that? The little child slaps his baby brother, so Mama slaps the little child to show that it hurt the baby brother. You got that? Well, she's showing an association which will inhibit the child's use of violence. Well, I suppose there's nothing else they could do because the child already has a very deranged idea of the uses of violence.

Now, the only thing wrong with this is that it will probably kill him halfway through the process. Why? Because solutions were so scarce that as he begins to dream them up and as they begin to walk in on him they carry along with them and free all of the problems. And he finds himself in this spinning mass of released, unstabilized energy in missing space and so forth.

There's another interesting mechanism on this violence thing that might interest you offhand: is a person gets into violence and confusions by associating himself with one particle and watching all the other particles. So therefore apparently the particle with which he's associated isn't moving and all of the other particles are moving.

I'll tell you one of the ways of getting a preclear into that condition. Now, this is a method of getting rid of solutions: tell me something you don't know, such a process as that. In other words, run „don't-know“ on the bank. Not-know something on the bank. And let him particularly specialize in things he doesn't know anyhow. See? Get the fellow into some kind of a condition... The way of running old Not-know, running it very wrongly, is point out somebody on the street and say to the preclear, „Tell me something you could not-know about that person.“ And the answer the preclear tries to give you is, „Well, I could not-know his name.“ Well, of course, he doesn't know his name. You get the idea? Well, what does this do? What does this do? One of his best solutions is to not-know. So the best solution the preclear has is to get a stable datum about something, then not-know it and get it beautifully buried in the middle of matter, energy, space and time. He not-knows obsessively.

Now, he's just part of a confusion and a chaos, you see? But he thinks this one particle is not moving because he's viewing all other particles from it.

The only way you can keep going on this time track is to not-know its past and future every given instant. And you're doing that automatically every given instant. You're not-knowing, not-knowing, not-knowing, not-knowing. Pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. I'd keep talking to you about this until every one of you had amnesia. That's the truth.

Male voice: Yeah.

Now, the preclear's method of getting rid of confusion was to bury and get out of view both the confusion and the stable datum which kept it from being a total confusion to him. He just not-knew the works. So as you audit him - as you audit him, the stable data come up - comes up. If you let him wipe out that stable datum then he becomes the heir to all the confusion. You following me here? A little more difficulty, I see. But this is real easy.

All right now, if there's plus or minus randomity in the remainder of the particles, he's liable to object to it. When the courts, for instance, counter violence with „wait,“ you wonder why wait is such an integral part of an aberrated justice. They always put everybody on wait. The wait actually is as trying as the violence and can become actually quite as painful. So it's plus or minus randomity or objected-to association.

The individual has as his greatest accomplishment not-knowingness, the first postulate. This he already has on automatic. So the only thing, you could say, that makes a person totally unclear is a not-knowing automaticity which wipes out and buries every unsavory datum and confusion and violence in the whole bank. Do you get the idea? This then apparently is the product - this not-knowingness - of some exterior entity to himself. And you can count on those things which are aberrative in the preclear, first and foremost, of being not-known by the preclear. They are the first things he targeted as not-known. They were painful.

The association's too slow: everybody in this neighborhood is square, see, they're all a bunch of squares; don't want to have anything to do with them; they're all a bunch of slowpokes, you know? So the kid leaves for the big town. You get the idea? That's his computation.

This in itself is unconsciousness. This is unconsciousness. A person withdraws, withdraws, withdraws and the action of withdrawing from his environment brings about a state of not being in communication with his environment, which brings about a state of total not-know. But the basic postulate back of anything is not-know.

Now, he's actually refusing to confront a slowness of particle, isn't he? Well, his reverse computation on it would be: he moves into a neighborhood of - oh, a bunch of criminals and guys that are very fast, savage, high-impact people. See? And he leaves that area because these people have too much speed to them; there's too much motion there. So, in either case you have an aberrated condition where the individual will not confront. But his idea of plus or minus randomity is what causes him to confront.

What does the dentist tell you when he starts reaching for the natural gas, hm? What does he tell you? He says, „You won't know anything about it.“ Right? Well, you know all he's got to do... and people are so wonderful in their experiments with hypnotism. I just love these experiments with hypnotism. America and the Western world is still experimenting with hypnotism; it's been abandoned in the Eastern world for a couple of thousand years. It's one of the earliest therapies. In fact it's the best therapy your pc thinks he has. And it's the most stupid. Because, what is it? It's a total nonconfront.

Now, the individual associates himself with one particle and it's moving just as fast as all the other particles - or just as slow - but he views the others from it. And we get the basic idea of confusion, violence or lack of it.

So what's hypnotism? All hypnotism is, is get him to not-know anything he knows and get him to know anything the hypnotist knows; and then get him to not-know what the hypnotist just said. And you got it made.

Now, an individual could associate himself with one particle in a mass of motionless particles and see no motion on the part of other particles, and he gets the sensation of boredom and other such things. You get the idea? He thinks there must be a certain amount of change, see, or absence of it. It's just his opinion.

Actually, there's a much better definition. I do have a definition for hypnotism which does permit anybody to hypnotize anything - practically. Hypnotism is that system which brings about a total irresponsibility on a given subject on the part of the person being hypnotized.

Now, it's the help on the part of the particle with which he associates himself that causes him to associate himself with that body of violence. You see? So help unlocks him from these single-particle connections.

Now all you've got to do is figure out some way to make somebody totally irresponsible for something and you have him in an hypnotic trance. I don't care how (quote) „resistive“ he is.

It's an interesting picture. If you look this over, there's a lot to know about that one fact there. If you're driving down the highway, you're in your car and your car is relatively motionless and all these other cars are going fast. They're passing you, they're coming the other way, they're all in motion, but your immediate confine is not in motion. That is a gross look at it. You have hold of a body which in itself is a center point of view, and other bodies and things are in motion in relationship to that body.

I'll give you an example of how you could go about this. „You see this front wall? Probably hasn't occurred to you lately, but you didn't make that, did you? Did you paint it?“ „No. No. I..“

Now, let's look at this: you think you need a body to do things. To knit, you think, well, you've got to have a pair of hands and a body. You've got to have a lap to put the yarn on and all that sort of thing. I don't know why; used to be able to knit without anything. Well, as a matter of fact, why should you need needles and yarn to knit? See, why don't you just mock up the knitted object? You get the idea? Here's doingness entering into this thing.

„Well, you didn't make it either, did you? You didn't build it. No carpentry tools; you didn't ever have a tool in your hand and build that front wall did you? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. You didn't, did you, huh?“ „Well, as a matter of fact-as a matter of fact, the organization, you know, rents this building, doesn't own it, and...“ „You're a member of the organization, you don't own the front wall, do you? No, you don't, do you?“ „Now tell me, if an H-bomb went off at this moment in this room, you couldn't prevent that front wall from being injured, could you? You couldn't, huh?“ „If it were to fall down at this moment, there isn't much you could do about that either, is there?“ This is hypnotism. Do you see that? It's explaining to somebody that he can't do anything about it. And if you finally work this in in enough of a gradient scale, you'll have that person sitting there with his eyelids fluttering in the greatest hypnotic trance you ever saw. In other words, we now have the common denominator of hypnotism, which is quite a trick.

So, old Dianetic expression: You learn how to knit, see, and you're knitting away and you're being very happy about knitting and you can handle knitting needles - you a thetan, no body, see? And you could take some yarn and a couple of needles and you can make the needles sing around in the air and they knit like mad and it amazes your friends and it's very interesting. This is in no wise aberrative. And then you go along the line and get associated with a body and during an embryonic period and so forth, you get a knitting needle through the chops. Think that over, see? That's very noncomputive. See, you have to have a knitting needle because you depend on that, but a knitting needle kills you. So it's a noncomputive situation; doesn't work out. That's true of all aberration; it won't compute.

And a lot of hypnotists out there who are hypnotizing people all over the place and themselves unable to be hypnotized, could be pulled right into this. All you'd have to explain to them was that they really had no responsibility for anybody they had ever hypnotized. And if you convinced them of this on a gradient scale, your hypnotist would just go into a total trance. Get the idea? Now. What is responsibility?

But what is noncomputation? If you just said, „All aberration is noncomputation,“ and washed your hands of the whole affair, you'd never cure anybody or clear anybody of anything. See, you'd have to do a lot more than that. What it is, is help, assistance in creating. That's the thing that makes the whole thing noncomputational. It assisted you to create or to survive or destroy, but mostly create because that was the beginning of everything and that's all survive and destroy is, is subversion of create.

It is the willingness to control - was one early definition. But also the taking the blame for having created might be a more agreeable definition to some preclears. In other words, cause-point on the cycle of action would be an excellent definition for responsibility. Willingness to be cause-point on the cycle of action. Willingness to have created, to make it survive, to make it a destroyed thing, to destroy it, make it survive, to continue it, to create it. Willingness to have caused these things.

So you have this create - item A is absolutely necessary in order to live. General - absolutely necessary he has an army. That's the one thing he's got to have. He was going along for just generations. He had an army, a wonderful army, and the - army after army and the one thing he had to have in order to live was an army, and the more army the better. And he just went on that even to this day, generals and admirals do nothing but collect armies and navies. They don't do anything with them; they just collect them. And he just had to have them, see, and it's absolutely necessary till it's so associated with his survival that he can't imagine himself getting anything done without an adjutant and a Quartermaster Corps and an engineer corps and all this sort of thing. That is the way to do this.

Now subordinately, willingness to have controlled it, started it, changed it and stopped it, which you will also find will work into the cycle of action. So the first definition is quite valid. You see this? All right. Now we're talking and have been talking all the way through here about an uncleared state. And I'm just laying it down to you as rapidly as I can.

You give him - one of these fellows - a civilian job and he goes appetite over tin cup because he doesn't have his army with him, see? Yeah, right now we've got the Washington hospital center over here with an admiral in charge. And he's a lost dog! He doesn't know whether he's coming or going. Everybody is doing so much paperwork they have no time to take care of any patients. That's true. I mean I'm not being just sarcastic.

What is an uncleared state? An uncleared state is an obsessive not-knowingness which has buried stable data which then guide the individual in the course of his life. And each one of those stable data was received in a moment of duress.

Nurses are sitting there at their desks through their whole watch - see, their watches - and they sit there and they make out forms, make out forms, make out forms and make out forms. Well, he doesn't have a hospital administrative corps, so he knows all this administration has got to be done, so he saddles all of it onto the people who are supposed to take care of patients. You could be in there for a week and a nurse - and flat on your back in a bed unable to move and nobody would come in and give you a bath. See? That's the way that place is.

You have an individual who is otherwise motivated than by himself since he has not-known all of these stable data and has refused to take responsibility for them after he has not-known them. So his responsibility factor is low, his not-knowingness factor is high. His impact, fear of, is high. His willingness to be responsible for creating is high - in the black bracket - it's a high „know.“ His willingness to cause something to survive is very, very poor. His willingness to destroy something is nil. And the funny part of it is he started all this on something he could not confront.

All right. Now, what happens to him? This general, he's going along and he - generation after generation he's got this army and he's all set and he has to have an army and that's what you need and all this sort of thing. And then one day - damned if they don't mutiny! See? And they string him up and burn him in effigy and he reads in the history books in the next lifetime about what a bum he was. Imagine Benedict Arnold reading again for the fifteenth or twentieth lifetime now, that he was the greatest traitor that ever lived.

And he couldn't confront it then so you as an auditor have got to make him confront it now.

See? He'd get an idea not only that armies were bad but that governments were bad, that everything was bad that was connected with his organizational pursuit. You get the idea? And you get, then, this dependency interrupted by pain and unconsciousness, see; interrupted by impact, interrupted by duress. You get injustice, betrayal, all of these things entering in and they end that line.

Now, knowing this and knowing these mechanics, we see then that clearing in a half an hour is not possible unless in a half an hour you could suddenly graduate somebody into a confrontingness of all those things he has refused to confront. Now, that's probably a lot of things. You see that? There is then a little time entered into clearingness. See? It's a little time is entered into it. By this: the thing that you can do for him is to bring him forward on a gradient scale to a confrontingness of all of those things he would not confront.

Now, the guy is persuaded that he himself has lost all the skills which he was dependent upon an army to perform. See, he got the idea that he didn't himself any longer have the power of doing these things. The army did but he didn't. Now, when they betray him and he can't have an army, therefore he loses all those skills.

Now, there are slow ways to do it and fast ways to do it.

Now, you start running Help on an army and his cognition is that he didn't need an army in the first place, which is true. And therefore he gains all the skills that he invested in the army and at the same time loses the injustice and loses the betrayal computation. It just goes away, because it's not important anymore because he doesn't need the association. So you're really curing people of associations and identifications.

But let's go back and look at this anatomy again. And let's find out how he came to refuse to confront things. One of the biggest tricks was helping him confront things. And we get into the basic anatomy of this and we find that that on which a person has depended utterly, which then betrayed him, became his unknown master. Perfectly all right for anybody to have a known master. Perfectly all right for you to be the known master of anything, everybody. It doesn't matter as long as you don't get yourself buried in the bank.

The first book ever written on the subject stressed identification. Well, we're right now to the heart of identification and that's necessary to live, create.

And one of the ways of getting yourself buried in the bank, of course, is to beat the fellow up. That's why an auditor must never use physical duress on a preclear so as to actually beat, punish or intentionally injure a preclear. Even getting angry with a preclear during a session can actually serve as a key-in of earlier physical duress.

Somebody back there had a question.

So, the whole proposition around clearing is all wrapped up in the fact that he is a package of not-himself. Things have assisted him and then betrayed him. It isn't enough to have been assisted. If a person were only assisted from here on out he would never become aberrated. If he only assisted and was assisted for the next ten billion years he would never become aberrated. Betrayal must enter into this picture: injustice. Those factors must enter into help.

Female voice: Oh, no, it's okay. I'll let it go and I'll think about it, think it over.

For instance, let's say, well, let's take an athletic coach and he was going to help this preclear become a great athlete - and this was a few lives ago or something - and he was going to help this preclear become a great athlete and he was going to do this and that for him. And he did. He helped him a great deal. And the night just before the fight he got mad at him and hit him in the jaw and kicked him in the ribs and said he'd never have anything to do with him anymore because he wouldn't throw the fight or something of this sort. See? Here was betrayal, injustice. Here was a dependency; the fellow was his friend and all of a sudden you get the friend shooting him dead. You get the idea? There had to be help, help, help to a dependency level and then a demonstration that this help could never afterwards be confronted. So we get the person not helped on this angle.

Okay, what have you got?

Now, we pick him up three lifetimes later and we decide to coach him a little bit so that he can become an athlete. Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh! Every time we try to tell him, „Now if you'll just get out and run around the block in your shorts every morning, you know, if you'll just get out and run around the block every morning..“ And he says, „You're trying to make me catch my death of pneumonia.“

Male voice: Can you say a little bit more about the ways that a thetan gets rid of the things he has around him that he wants to get rid of? How does he get rid of them?

And you'll say, „What an outrageous statement! I just don't - summer, it's usually quite warm in the morning. All we said was to run around the block once and this fellow is upset.“ Now we know why high school and college athletics have such a hard time of it. Because the coach says then, „Well, if you do not do exactly as I say (to this fellow) why, of course, we're going to flunk you physically, ostracize you, fix you up so your parents will never speak to you again, fix you up so your whole life will be a failure, you won't be able to get married or anything, you know. In other words, we're going to give you a bad grade unless you get out and run around the block every morning in your shorts.“ Now this fellow knows what happens if you give him help on coaching. Just before the big fight when you've got to get in there and pitch, you're going to get hit in the jaw and your ribs are all going to be busted. And you're probably going to have to step into the ring already mutilated. See? This is what happens. His stable data on help, then, is that it kills you. So you have the confusion of coaching held down by the fact that help is murderous. And that's this solution.

Well, he doesn't. If he continues to obsessively create them, then he lays over the top of them some sort of a shield that's a solid not-knowingness. He's obsessively creating over here and obsessively suppressing over here. And when he's got everything that he is creating suppressed, then he says he's gotten „rid“ of everything. And when all of the things he himself is mocking up in order to live he considers highly antipathetic toward his survival - see, this is noncomputational: the individual has to mock up these things in order to survive but if he mocks them up they'll kill him, see? So his answer to that is he continues to mock them up, but to make sure they won't kill him, he suppresses all of them and renders them to zero.

The solution to living then - this then is never to accept help in an athletic endeavor. And he becomes a great star of Notre Dame or something of the sort because he can't play with any other teammate. You get all sorts of interesting athletic personalities that cannot cooperate.

Now, that person is anxious about getting rid of everything. One of these things might turn out to be the thing which he knows he had better not confront, so therefore he has to suppress everything. You get somebody, then, with an obsession of getting rid of everything. He gets rid of everything everyplace. And you'll find a lot of preclears with this.

In bands or something like this you'll find somebody who is a wonderful soloist but he cannot play with other band members. Now, in that person you may think you have found a great musician because he is aberrated. That's what Sigmund „Fraud“ declared. You couldn't win unless you were crazy, he said.

Now, you say, „How does he do it?“ The way you, an auditor, make it possible for him to do it is simply cure him first of his belief that he must go on mocking this thing up because he has to have it to survive. You get rid of that with Help, don't you see, and then the obsessive creativeness you get rid of with Step 6. See? So you cure him of obsessive creation and so on. So, therefore you run Help, Step 6, Help, Step 6.

You'll find out that when somebody helps you play, they wait for you in the alley and shove a knife in your ribs. See? The stable datum. So anybody who helps you carry a tune will kill you. So therefore, the stable datum and the solution to life is: Don't ever help anybody and don't ever let anybody help you carry a tune. See? And that's a perfectly reasonable thing, isn't it? Now, the funny part of it is all a preclear knows is that he feels uncomfortable when tootling on his trumpet, somebody tump-tumps a drum or even keeps time on the edge of a desk. He could look down at an audience that he was playing for, soloist on a trumpet, and see one person keeping time with his foot and go, du-u-u-u-u. Get the idea? So all of these aberrations boil down to a third dynamic situation. All aberration is third dynamic. Horrible fact, but very true. And all auditing is a third dynamic activity.

Now, that's how you can actually get him up to a point where he has gotten rid of these counter-conflicts and that's all that you're trying to get him rid of.

If you want to know the full explanation for that, go read The Factors again. And you'll find out a universe gets composed when you start confounding other people's anchor points for your own and so forth, and you get the basic confusion. And therefore, you get a continuance because you don't ever figure it out.

Male voice: So eventually he gets so he could destroy the things directly without having to bury them...

But the energy, the matter, the space, the time are themselves not important. They are not what the thetan minds. It's their disarrangement, disobedience, refusal to take proper pattern and what they hide that he's upset about.

Yeah, but look. There wouldn't be anything there for him to destroy if he wasn't making it.

Now, you can go at it directly and try to clear a case on the basis of clearing him on matter, energy, space and time and you'll get quite a little distance, that's for sure, until you find out and run square into the fact that he likes this stuff. And you're trying to wipe out something he enjoys, he likes. It's - his favorite game is being a nothingness trying to confront a somethingness - through a void. If you don't let him do that, he gets unhappy.

Female voice: No.

You can even cure a psycho by taking him out and showing him just a little more space every day, you know? And get him to confront just a little more energy. Gradient scale.

So, therefore, you never do any destruction; you never worry about destruction in auditing. You don't run this process: „Mock up something. Now get rid of it. Mock up something. Now get rid of it. Mock up something. Now get rid of it.“ Because the „Get rid of it“ is a mirage. It's a chimera.

Don't think that the sixth dynamic is the only aberrated dynamic in spite of the fact there probably isn't a person present could answer this question: How could I help the physical universe? Just try and answer that question for a moment, will you? And think of a way you could help the physical universe. Come on. Now, has anybody come up with an answer? You got an answer? Or are the rest of you in a fog? Did that fog you?

That's denial of self. You've heard me speak for years about the only thing you can really do that is aberrative is to deny yourself. You've heard me say that. Well, what is destroying one's own productions but denying yourself? So of course, he invalidates himself by destroying his own creations and the more he invalidates himself, the more he destroys his own creations. You get the idea? And he gets into this rat race and he doesn't know whether he's coming or going. He doesn't know whether he is the thing that is destroying him or that he is the thing which is being destroyed or - after a while why, he just says, „It's all so confusing. I don't know what to do.“ Well, he doesn't know what to do because he can't compute. See, he's got to mock it up in order to survive but he can't have it because it'd kill him. And he's - gets caught in this mess and then he becomes the thing which is destroying him, becomes a circuit and you get all of these various computive mechanisms. But truthfully and basically, when an individual is Clear, there would be no sense in destroying. All he'd have to do is not mock it up. See, it's just this elementarily stupid.

Female voice: What's it trying to do?

Right.

Of course that's a stuck flow. See? The physical universe helping you. See, it helps you all the time. But whatever gave you the idea you didn't help it? You must have this idea or you would have come up with an answer just that fast. You must have something to do with helping the physical universe for it ever to have helped you in the first place. Do you know of ways you could help the physical universe now? Have you thought of one? Huh?

Any other question here?

Audience: Yes.

Yes. Yes, Harold.

All right. Well, here's - just skip it. Here's the thing - here's the thing about that. Apparently, then, that's a magnitudinous question. And that, by the way, is about the most confounding and stumping auditing question you can suddenly ask a preclear: „Well, now, tell me one way that you could help the physical universe.“ And you'll sit there for some time.

Male voice: You mentioned assist processing. Let's say you have a preclear for a very short time, not long enough to clear him. Would you run assist processing on him?

Now, you get the reverse side of it and you get an automaticity. Now, I'll ask you the reverse side of it now. Now, think of a way the physical universe could help you. Are there a few of them?

No. No. Assists - let's - don't have it - I've - see I've introduced a confusion in terms. Assist - an assist is something that you do just temporarily because you can't do that. But let me make this very clear: You will make greater gains with a preclear just by running Clear Procedure straight from scratch than by doing any other thing with him.

Female voice: Yeah.

Oddly enough, if a guy is lying there with a broken leg, you could actually make greater speed with him by just starting in at the beginning and clearing him than by patching up his broken leg. This sounds utterly odd but of course this takes in a broken leg with problem - a PT problem, you see? That is a broken leg and so forth. So that handling a PT problem and an assist are the same breed of cat and you wouldn't get any further than that if a person was in bad shape, anyhow.

Well, that's quite interesting because you're looking at - directly at the solidest matter, energy, space and time on which we have agreed. See? Naturally, it can help you in billions of ways. But if you've got the idea that it just sits there and you never had anything to do with it at any time and yet you're able to communicate with it, you got a couple of wires crossed someplace. That all by itself must be a buried datum someplace in the bank.

Male voice: Right.

There must be something not known concerning your participation in the creation of this universe. Because let me point something out to you: it's here right now; it is created and is surviving right this minute. But the physical universe of an instant ago is no longer here, is it? So it must have been destroyed in some fashion.

See?

We get the phenomenon of continuance by constant creation and destruction by not-knowingness. Just look at that wall and realize that you must be going not-know, not-know, not-know, not-know, not-know, not-know. But what else are you doing? You must be saying, „Wall - create it,“ you know, „Wall, wall. Wall - not-know it. Wall - not-know it. Wall-not-know it.“

Male voice: Yeah.

Now, the number of seconds - the number of seconds or milliseconds of duration of your creation with no effort on your part at all gives you the present time span of attention - which, what do you know, is different preclear to preclear. And the fellow who has a tremendous reaction time is only operating in more present time than somebody else. It's a wider present time, don't you see? So he can, of course, forecast what he's going to do because he has already done it. See? The extant of the physical universe is wide enough for him to forecast because it is.

So you can lay down this truism, although it just appears a little shaky to you at first, you just say, „The thing to do to audit somebody is to apply Clear Procedure.“

Now, somebody who is spinning has an entirely different reaction on this basis, entirely different reaction, and that is: it is so infinitesimally brief and fleeting that it isn't even solid. Do you see that? And eventually it disappears entirely and he is now doing a total not-know of the physical universe.

Male voice: Yeah.

In other words, he no longer creates it, you see, observes it and not-knows it. He no longer goes on that cycle. He goes on the next cycle, which is: He not-knows it. You see, he not-knows it, he not-knows it and he not-knows it. Get the idea? So it has become unreal to him.

See? And the reason the public is told to assist somebody or told how to do Touch Assists and things like that is it doesn't get them all gummed up into any serious auditing. It's something that you can do, miss-do, abandon, you know? And we don't find people stuck in assists. People don't get stuck in assists if they're this kind of an assist.

A blind man who is not blind because of physical impediment just is looking at a total unreality. It isn't there; he can't see it anymore. Well, what he - and he's one of the roughest boys to process you ever had anything to do with. It's a total unreality because he isn't creating it. His responsibility for its creation, its survival and its not-knowingness or its destruction is zero. He doesn't even take responsibility for the not-know. But he's just doing this one thing: he's not-knowing.

But if you, an auditor, just went in to help somebody and you're only going to have five hours to audit this guy, easily the best thing you could do is just start out from scratch and go right straight up the line with Clear Procedure. At the end of five hours he would have made a higher gain than he would have made if you just patched him up...

Therefore, you'll find the less able people are the more stupid people. Stupidity is just a condition of obsessive not-knowingness.

Male voice: Right.

You try to teach this fellow: „The cat's name is Roger.“ So you say to him, „The“ - got an IQ of about 30 or something like that; he's part of the State Department - and „The cat,“ you say to him, „The cat's name ...“ (You ought to make this experiment; this is an actual experiment you ought to make as a test of stupidity.) „The cat's name is Roger.“ Now you say, „What am I talking about? So let's go over it again. The cat's name is Roger. What am I talking about? The cat's...“

.. with something else.

All of a sudden he says, „The cat's. The cat's. Yeah, the cat's. You're talking about a cat. Talkin' 'bout a puddycat. Oooh.“ Now, if you don't hammer it any further, this guy will go off and claim that your conversation has totally concerned the fact that cats exist. He won't have „The cat's name is...“ What's the subject of your conversation? The subject of the conversation is the cat's name, not the cat, and what the name is. In other words, he's unable to learn this datum: The cat's name is Roger. He has an awful hard time with this. He's stupid. Therefore he's hard to teach.

I ran some tests on this you might be interested in. I had Step 6 and nothing else run on some HGC pcs at a time, some little time ago - and I didn't think we were getting an adequate gain during an intensive - so I just assigned three or four to run nothing but Step 6 on the supposition that they would get more gain running Step 6 - stone-blind, couldn't see anything, couldn't feel anything, didn't matter, but just try to run Step 6 for twenty-five hours - that they would get a greater gain than they were getting on old-time processes that tried to unlock some mysterious computation in the case. See? And in each case we got a greater gain. Boy, that was certainly sailing out into the blue, you see? Okay, we've had it here.

What is he doing? As you give him a stable datum, his not-knowing machinery overwhumps it. As he presents himself with a wall, his not-knowingness overwhumps it. Got the idea? The old first postulate proposition at work.

For the rest of today I want you to check out people and if you run out of checksheets, let's not stop checking out people. You just check out the next person, write his name under it and put a little asterisk and you check him out by putting an asterisk down the list. You got it? Using the same checksheet as you already have if you run out.

Now, if this is so valuable, then why isn't it part of the road to Clear? It could be, but it's too tough. To ask an individual to take over his not-knowingness machinery is to swamp him with everything he's creating and not-knowing. And the bank almost kills him before you get him - get him through it.

Now, I don't care how many times any of you are checked out for Clear. It won't do a thing to you or for you. It won't stick you in anything that you're not stuck in already. Now, if a person does get too involved and too stuck and the needle was fairly free before you „Clear-checkout“ him, if you have a kind heart today, if you want to do a nice thing or something of the sort - mind you, this is somebody that you stuck in a Clear checkout - just run a little Connectedness on him. „You get the idea of making that wall connect with you. You get the idea of making that floor connect with you,“ and so forth, and it'll unstick.

In other words, it's a rough way over the hump, because there is a hump to cross. And that hump is this: When an individual becomes proficient in mocking something up, his bank becomes proportionately solid. Every engram he has in restimulation or is obsessively creating becomes as strong and as tough as he can mock up. And if he could mock up a solid object out here his whole bank and all of his past and all the jammed tracks and everything else would become solid.

But we don't care how gummed up people get here at this state of the game. Oh, brother, if you've got a free needle and you've got a potential stuck needle, see, if potentially on your computation of the thing it's going to be absolutely rigidly stuck and momentarily your needle's free and everything's happy - you're just in a dispersal anyway, so the hell with it.

The dentist who - would still be operating on his teeth and actual teeth would start coming out of his head. You get the idea? You see this? The automobile would still be going over the cliff and he would have all of that space that he was falling through. Don't you see? Because he is so associated with these experiences, his obsessive not-knowingness of them, which was his basic method of getting them out of the road, is his only answer. He is so associated with them, he's so third-dynamicked and fourth- and fifth- and sixth- and seventh- and eighth-dynamicked. He is so involved, he is so associated with every part of his past and perhaps even his future, and he is so thoroughly and obsessively creating it and not-knowing what he is doing - this uncleared person - that when you try to improve his case you practically kill him. Do you see this? Therefore, it is not not-knowingness that is the common denominator to not-Clearness. Not-knowingness is the method by which he is preventing these things from victimizing him. That is merely a solution. And if you ran out the solution you would cave the bank in on him. Why? Because he has a solution. His one solution. First, his solution to being just a thetan with no universe was to not-know everything he knew and start in all over again. That's the first postulate. That was a great solution. The only thing wrong with a thetan is a thetan.

All right. I'm very glad. You know, I've had some very excellent reports on your past week, very excellent, and I want to thank you very much for buckling down the way you did. I didn't think as many would make this as did.

So, we have this situation then in which the individual has a stable datum which carries through all of his days, by which he prevents the confusion of past associations from bedeviling him. And the solution to his basic problem of confusion, disrelationship, pain, unconsciousness, all the rest of it - his solution to all of this is to not-know it all.

Now, those who are still on the TRs, I understand for the most part, just have fragments of the TRs to straighten out and you will be out of that in very short order, probably by Wednesday for sure, and then you go straight over onto this.

And when you try to pluck this solution off the case, he of course gets all of the confusion which the solution was holding in abeyance. You got that? Now, all a bank is, is a method of not-knowing gone solid. See?

I'm having mimeographed the procedure which you will use in order to accomplish this clearing that you're going to be doing in this course. And it starts out with: Check out a lot of people with a Clear Check Sheet, see? So, when you start in auditing - as soon as you come off the TRs and go into auditing - why, there'll be a bunch of people brought off at the same time, why, just get together and check each other out ad nauseam on Clear Check Sheets and get started. So you won't miss any of this and you're not missing anything by still being under TRs because as I told you before, it is better to have skilled auditing going forward than auditing. Better to have skilled auditing, so we want to be sure.

But much more importantly, you will run into fields. You'll run into fields. How did he not-know his father? Well, actually, he not-knew his father by burying his father with his mother, or something. See? Get the idea? He used mechanical not-knowingnesses. See? He not-knows his early childhood by burying it under a number of teenage triumphs.

For instance, it's a very silly thing to go ahead and audit people and worry about auditing and try to grasp theory and try to grasp what the preclears are all about, and so forth, when you're falling over TR 3, see? TR 3 is busily flubbing and invalidating everything you're doing; therefore, you'd never find out what the auditing was doing, you see? It's TR 3 that isn't doing it. Got the idea? So we want those real smooth, so get with it. I don't want to see anybody in that TR group by the middle of this week, so get with it.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

We didn't have anybody that checked forthrightly out to Clear, so we didn't have a third unit. See, we've only got two units going. But if in a few days we don't have somebody in the Clear group, why, I'm really going to have to buckle down here.

You get the idea? So he's got a not-knowingness system going on here, which is a solid system. So he buries the unconfrontable with the barely confrontable or the real confrontable. See? See, his non-confrontables are buried in confrontables. You got the idea there? All right. Now, if that's the case - if that's the case - then when you run the solution out you get first, a bunch of confrontables, and then you get some non-confrontables. And with the non-confrontables you get solid not-knowing-ness, which is a field. The invisible field, the black field and so forth are just mechanical ways of not-knowingness. Again a mechanical way of not-knowingness: burying the unsavory past with a triumphant present.

Yes?

All right. Now compare that mechanism, same way, with: he's got all these horrible things that would attack him so he puts up a total and constant not-know he calls a black screen.

Male voice: The one point of confusion about Clears - I've had a chance to look over some people on a meter who've got bracelets and they don't always read at 3.0 or 2.0 respectively, and this is a point of confusion.

But the whole of a case does not go back to not-know. Not-know is simply a solution to livingness. We have to ask: What is wrong with livingness? And I can give you that. So far as clearing is concerned, it's a good definition. Don't jump out of your seats now. This is very, very clear: association without consent. Think it over for a moment - association without consent, without choice.

What meter are you using? You see...

An individual created something and he didn't intend to go on associating with it forever, but something countered and he started to associate with it. And then he didn't like associating with it and he started to separate from it somehow or another. But then he was forced to confront it again. Don't you see? He went on associating without choice.

Male voice: The old...

But regardless of personally himself versus MEST, which is not the clue to it, MEST and people and beings get associated with MEST and people and beings into such a confusion that he can no longer tell them apart or differentiate in any way. And he uses them to not - he uses not-knowingness to get rid of these unbearable conflicts, impacts, confusions. And what is an impact but an association without consent? See, that's an undesired impact, association without consent. A face gets associated with a fist.

Yeah. This meter varies with heat. Now, that's one thing. The other thing is that the individual - as he's going along, plowing along one way or the other... We had a case of this at the congress. We had a girl that was no longer reading properly. She was pregnant.

Pain is nothing more than objection to association. You could make - you could send some boy to school where he didn't want to go, where his companions were all not of his social order - lower or higher, it doesn't matter - where his association is without consent and actually get the sensation - now, I'm not talking about a mental idea of - you'd get the sensation of pain in the boy. Nobody would ever lay a hand on him, but continuing in that school he could actually go on feeling a sensation like pain.

What is going on with this case? Do we get a variation? You should not consider an absolute, see, from hour to hour and day to day with this. You should only be pedantic about their exact reading here for the purposes of auditing. If it's up here it tells you male valence, if it's down here it tells you female valence; and you get a girl reading up here, you know what to do: Get some male valences off the case. And if you get a guy reading down here on female valence, you sure know what to do. It's some variety of female. This is about all that tells you, see? Now, the actuality of what the reading is - if you will read in the original instructions - it says apparently this is the case. It says apparently this is the resistance. Now, these happen to be the resistances of a dead male body and a dead female body. So, it is a body without a thetan attached. It's a thetan that's running the body by postulate and without very much association. See? Get the idea? All right. Now, all you'd have to do... I can knock this myself. You put me on a meter, I can knock it down to female Clear, knock it up to male Clear, knock it up here to about this high or knock it down off the bottom. By doing what? Just by adding a few beams to the body. See? All you had to do is add a few masses into the body at odd angles.

Now, the only thing wrong with pain is that a person doesn't consent to pain. But he must have consented to pain if he afterwards cannot consent to pain. See, he must have liked pain before he could experience pain. But then through scarcity and abundance he decided that pain is bad. So he's got something rigged up as a warning system and he does it in an intricate way whereby it'll tell him something is bad because he feels pain. So therefore, pain should cause a not-know; so you get pain being succeeded by unconsciousness.

Now, all I've got to do is to go out and look at something and make a ferociously heavy copy of it and this thing goes appetite over tin cup. It no longer reads.

Pain is that red light which tells you to not-know it from there on out if you can. See? He's got himself a signal system. But pain is simply an association without consent.

Now, what an individual is doing who is Clear and who is varying on this reading is still a matter of study. All we're interested in is that the individual is really free on Help and Step 6, see, and that he isn't looking at a bank all the time. He thinks of cats, he gets a picture of cats, see, but he isn't doing this now. Well, that's what we're interested in as a Clear. It's a bankless person, rather than a constant or absolute person.

A lot of people are walking around in life actually in a sensation of pain. They are in pain. And nothing is hurting them now. See, there isn't any reason they should be in pain. This drives medical doctors nuts! People walk in and they say, „I have a dreadful ache in my back.“ And the medical doctor looks it all over, finds it's perfectly good shape, can't find any disease or something of the sort. The fellow really does feel a sensation in his back.

Male voice: Thank you.

Well, the medical doctor could possibly trace it back and take a lock off just on the basis of somebody slapped him on the back painfully, a couple of months ago. Came along and just gave him a hearty slap on the back, which really wasn't quite friendly. It had the element of surprise and so forth; it's an unwanted association.

You betcha.

Well, all this keyed in was the times he was hit in the back with a club, the times he was shot in the back with arrows, the times he was stabbed in the back, the times his back was merged with a few dozen other backs on the rack. You know, backs, backs, backs, backs, backs. He gets an unwanted association. It keys in a line.

Any other thing here? I think you ought to give your Instructors a hand.

Well, how come he's obsessively creating them? He's obsessively creating them because he says he isn't creating them. See? He's not-known the thing. So you get an irresponsibility, an obsessive creation, obsessive not-knowingness. It all boils down to a man's protest against association to which he does not consent.

Good.

So therefore, you have to rehabilitate the key thing about association.

Say, „Thank you.“

Why is association valuable? Association is valuable because it assists one. Assistance - it has value.

Audience: Thank you.

What is the value of association? Until you can get him over an obsessive evaluation of association, the tremendous value of association, then he will go on obsessively associating, because he knows he's got to associate in order to live, but he'd better not associate because it hurts! So you've got a can't reach-must reach, can't withdraw-must withdraw. Life is painful. See, you just - you've got to have money to eat, but to get money you've got to work. You see? But you can't work because the people you're working with are just horrible people. Get the idea? And when you work you must associate with this MEST and you're handling these light cables and you know they're going to shock you because you've had a shock or two. You know? And it is just a matter of a whole concatenation of unwanted associations.

All right.

And out of this bundle of misery, the misery which an individual must have because he has to have assistance - this is the new stable datum - is all being not-known, is out of sight and the main thing he doesn't know is what he has to have to assist him in order to live. And he has to have some of the darnedest things. And he himself never suspects it, or association itself wouldn't be that confused to him.

I'm glad you're here. I think it's going to be the best ACC we ever had. It's certainly starting out that way, so I want to thank you.

It isn't the number of associations in which he's involved but the necessity of them that you must solve to clear somebody. And so we work this whole thing down to this particular package.

Audience: Thank you.

Now, you've got to give him practice in knowingly creating and taking over the automaticity of obsessive creation, but you can only do that adequately when you have solved something of this necessity to associate, got to associate.

Okay. I think you've even got two or three minutes left of your break.

„In order to survive, in order to create, in order to destroy anything I must have the help of a Mongolian saddle. I'm sane. Of course, Mongolian saddles always go underneath the belly of the horse and get you trampled. But you have to have them, but you get trampled and, of course, to go anyplace you have to have a Mongolian saddle and in order to drink coffee in the morning I have to have a Mongolian saddle.“ He's nuts. That's right.

And there's one of these, or a million, on every uncleared case. That's what you unwrap. So you merely unwrap the curse or necessity or badness of association - you get that straightened out and then you give him practice in creating. And you'll clear somebody.

His not-knowingness becomes not obsessive the moment that he is able to knowingly not-know. But we don't care what he does with his not-knowingness. It's just a solution. We don't care whether he keeps it or gets rid of it.

Just be wary of this one thing: The fellow who has no bank because he has not-known the whole bank is not a Clear. And he will show up on a stiff needle on a meter.

But the fellow who can create and let it go and create and let it go or create and let it survive, and so forth, definitely is a Clear. This individual can be said to stand alone without association, if necessary, but his association with the world is by choice. And you've got to put him into that category and you've got a Clear.

And that is what you are trying to do when you are clearing somebody. And that is the basic and primary goal of Scientology today.

Do you understand a little bit more about it?

Audience: Yes, Sir. Yes.

In Clear checking, the reason I want you to Clear check people and Clear check a lot of people before you start in auditing is because the way to learn how to make a Clear check is a very simple way: that is, you must check out aberrees, check out people who are not Clear and check out a lot of people who are not Clear. And only then will you be able to see how a needle should react when a person's Clear, because it doesn't react.

So, therefore, you must know how a needle does react in order to find an absence of actual aberrated reaction. A needle simply vacillates back and forth and idly and has nothing to do with the questions when a needle is free.

But that isn't what happens when a person is aberrated. You keep running into these not-known, aberrative associations, plowed-under identifications and the needle sticks and halts and get lie reactions and won't move and it's a ball. And I want you to see a needle doing that on a Clear checkout several times so that you'll have some kind of an idea what a person looks like when they're Clear.

Do you know a little bit more about our particular goal for this particular course and unit?

Audience: Yes.

Thank you.