And this is the second lecture of the 22nd of December, 1953.

This is December the 22nd, first lecture of the day. I want to talk to you today about prediction.

Tonight I want to tell you a fairy tale. And a fairy tale which I'm sure you will find very touching, and which even might make you weep. Only you won't be weeping for the characters in the fairy tale, you'll be weeping for you.

It can be said that the sane person is in present time, that the neurotic person is either hectically in the future or slightly in the past, and the psychotic is well into the past. And this shows up in terms of prediction. The mind could be said to be a computing instrument for the future.

I always save, on such occasions as this, as you know, thirty thousand or forty thousand processes and eighteen or twenty million shortcuts, but this time we're going to have something that is usable, very usable. And it starts out with this fairy tale, and how it ends, I myself am not too sure. That's mostly up to you.

Well, as soon as an individual has an experience which must not happen again, he believes then that his future depends upon keeping that incident suppressed, in line, squared away and so on. And as a consequence he is inca­pable of making a decision without having reference to the destructive datum; and so he takes a reference to the destructive datum before he acts in the future.

You see, once upon a time, there was a very, very bad fairy — and a very, very wicked fairy, a very vicious fairy. And this fairy came over and saw a fellow, and sat down — he was minding his own business, he was in a park — and the fairy said to him, "Would you like to have three wishes?"

Now that, at first, is just on selective subjects; and after a while, it begins to blur with the individual and the blur becomes more and more pronounced.

And the fellow says, "Go away." He says, "You're just an illusion." He said, "You're something out of Scientology."

And by blur, I simply mean that the individual relates too many data; he consults too many data in order to predict a future action. And having consulted this data, he of course is so now armed with data that he knows that everything can happen in the next minute or so and that it's all going to be bad. The reason for this is he's consulting only bad data.

And she says, "No, no. Seriously, would you like to have three wishes? Just three, that's all."

He has tried to store data of unpleasant experience in the past so that he will not repeat an action in the future. As a consequence, as an individual gets into more and more blur, that is to say, more and more of these incidents have to be consulted — he sets it up just as an automaticity, you see — and more and more of these incidents have to be consulted, and more and more of them.

And so, he thought it over for a moment, and he thought, "Gee. You know, that'd be real nice of you."

Well, of course, at length he is just drifting back, you might say, on the time track because the mean of all these incidents would be back of present time. By the mean, I mean the earliest and the latest all averaged out would put him back into the past — it'd put him back into the middle of the past. So that by the time he's consulted all this bad data, then his prediction, of course, is that things are going to be bad.

She says, "They'll all come true. Every one of them will come true."

As a result, an individual comes to you and they are unable to be happy. Why are they unable to be happy? Because they know the future's going to be bad. We have in this person a storehouse, a warehouse full of bad experience which must be consulted before the future.

And he says, "Well, now, let me see . . . You mean they really will come true?"

Now, I call to your attention, the little dog goes down the street, he's got his ears up and his tail up and he's feeling very cheerful and he sort of says hello to everybody and people will stop and they'll pet him. And dog goes into a restaurant and he sniffs around and he smiles at everybody and, why, somebody's liable to put him up on the stool and feed him a hamburger — there's no telling what'll happen to him. It's usually all good, you see? And he just has a perfectly good time about it. He doesn't know anything. He is completely ignorant as far as the past is concerned; he has no accumulated experience. He is running along on his GE facsimiles that tell him how to walk, run and smile. Well, that's about all. When he gets a little older, bad experience may have stored up to a point where he has to consult bad experience before he goes into the restaurant.

"Yes, sir. Yes, sir."

Now, let's take a bum. He walks down the street, he's all in rags, he is filthy, he knows that man is bad. He has had many bad experiences — he has lost twenty or thirty wives and eighty or ninety businesses and that sort of thing. And he goes down — he's got lots of experience; he's holding on to all of it — he goes into the restaurant and they throw him out. He says something to somebody on the street and they sneer at him. Well now, he's — has bad experience, I mean he stored it. He stored it real well, and he's got it right there and he's wearing it all over him.

So he got his three wishes, and he's still in the mest universe. His wishes all came true.

People try to avoid what they classify as bad experience, and so close terminals with it. "I want to avoid a bad experience," the fellow says. So he closes terminals with all the bad experience he's had. That which one resists, one becomes. And as a result, we have the difference between the puppy and the bum. And the puppy knows nothing, absolutely nothing, and — about the future and everybody's nice to him. And the fellow who "knows all about life" — he gets thrown out of the restaurant.

That's all that's the matter with a postulate: It's got with it the desire that it must come true.

Well now, let's make it even worse — let's take a young kid — let's take a three-, four-, five-year-old kid: Can you possibly imagine a child of this age walking along by himself and not having people look after him? Well, that isn't any strange and peculiar urge so much as it is people like the bright face of the world they see reflected on the child's face. The child can see a bright world for them.

And when you were little children they came in and pulled this gag on you too, you know?

If you yourself wish to bring to people a feeling of security in your presence and a feeling of pleasure that you are there, then you reflect the bright face of the world to them. They can't see it as well as you can.

They came in and said, "Now, here's a nice fairy tale. And it's all about these nice little fairies. And they asked this little boy if he wouldn't like to have three wishes, and he said yes, so he used up two of them getting the first one cancelled. Well, you still were left with the impression that it might be very desirable to have a wish which would then come true.

Well, when you have the future hectically in view, and when you have the past in continuous suspension, well, it's just a puzzle, then, of time that the fellow isn't in the time of. Here he sits in present time — none of these things are going to happen to him. He doesn't happen to be in the middle of the war, he doesn't happen to be here or there, he doesn't happen to be on an operating table. He isn't any of those places, and yet if you were to E-Meter him, you'd find flick, flick, flick, flick, flick, flick, flick — all these incidents were right there, and just as though they were happening.

I point that out to you: It would then come true, after you had wished it. It immediately supposed that time would involve itself with the wish.

In Dianetics it was necessary, in getting an entrance into an understanding of this problem, to have an individual reexperience the bad experience. Well actually, the bad experience will reexperience just as though you were running it off on a phonograph record and it's quite interesting that it will.

So, the wish, therefore, could appertain and apply to nothing but havingness. See — time, come true, havingness, and there we are.

But this is a mental therapy, it is a successful mental therapy but it is a limited mental therapy. And it is limited, in a very marked degree, because another factor enters in to all this. There is the matter of loss. And there is the matter of havingness.

So, when we look over the problem of a postulate, we find out that everybody is interested in postulates simply and solely for this reason: They want something to come true.

Now, let's look at space and we find out that space is beingness. The human experience equivalent to space is beingness. The human experience equivalent to energy is doingness. The human experience equivalent to time is havingness. Now, time and havingness: You understand that if a person has something, then — he has something of this universe — then he can see by the co-action of the particles of that, that there is some motion taking place. And this in itself is time. So that time becomes impossible in the absence of havingness. If you simply had — if all that you had was simply your potential to generate energy and make space and so on, why, you wouldn't have any time; you'd be completely timeless. And so havingness is time.

Competence is the estimation of effort. Effort is making two things coincide at one point or stop coinciding at a point or change coincidence at a point. In the final analysis, that's the basic.

Now, that is a very good datum to remember. It just isn't one of Ron's wild ideas, it happens to work out. You'll find an individual in every case who is having trouble with havingness, is having trouble with time. And when an individual has trouble with time, he's having trouble with the most noncombatable barrier we have.

Now, that's why it's a "two" universe. There can't be a "one" effort. Now, every time you start to make a "one" effort, you start reaching out and fighting nothing. Therefore, you don't like nothing.

So time, in essence, is the only aberrative barrier. You can overcome all the rest of them, but where's that gun you lost in 1720, hm? You just don't have it anymore.

So, if you estimate an effort into space and nothing is there — you have walked down the stairs and you've decided there's another step at the bottom of the stairs, and you take that extra step. Well, all right. That's fine, but jars you up some.

"Well," you say, "well, why don't you go over where it is and pick it up?"

Now we walk downstairs and we get to the next-to-the-last step and decide there are no more steps; and immediately one gets shaken up rather badly. Those are misestimations of effort: making two points coincide in the wrong place. In the MEST universe that's being wrong, really — it's failing to make two points coincide. So, estimation of effort.

"Well, it's not there." Those particles have co-actioned until they're dispersed in one fashion or another.

Now, when one looks at two particles which are going to coincide, he in essence has to make a wish. You see? But at first he says they're going to coincide and that's all, and they just coincide.

Well now, let's take a closer look at this. And we find out that time is one of these — well, it's the great charlatan. People say time is a great healer. If you just don't have any of the particles around anymore to remind you, why, then of course you won't be ill. Well, that's — has a very, very limited application, because it is fought immediately by this: If you keep putting the particles away from you, you're occasioning yourself loss. Havingness. It comes down to havingness.

And after that he says, "Well, they're going to coincide."

Why does time exist? And let's go into a human experience now, which is greater than time. Time itself is simply a humdrum pocketa-pocketa-pocketa of particles. Let's go into a greater experience than time and we find that form, aesthetic form, is in essence a far more important factor. Why do you have to have energy, huh? I mean, why do you have to have any of these things? Well, the motion and the form. And a person who has a problem of havingness is having a problem of time. And if a person is having a problem of havingness, then his problems in terms of time become insurmountable to him.

And after a while he says, "They'd better coincide." And he gives a lot of other particles to shepherd them around and push them together or pull them apart, and just make just exactly happen there what he wants to; he's really got it protected and estimated.

Well, the problem in terms of time, of course, bring in: Is this Tuesday or is it when I was being operated on? The moment he starts to have a severe problem in time, he begins to get then into this problem — "Well, I'll hold on to this bad datum in order to get the good data in the future."

And after a while, he just wishes he could.

Well, now in view of the fact that there isn't any such thing as a classifiably total bad datum — there aren't bad data and good data, there isn't a good experience and a bad experience — there is a consideration of a datum and there's consideration of an experience. And that's all there is. A fellow considers an experience; he considers a datum. All right.

So a fellow is only trapped in this universe at the point he starts wishing and stops doing. And when an individual wants his postulates to come true, he eventually gets bogged down in what is known as "truth" in a scientific textbook. And this "truth" only has to do, really, with one thing — and that's to fix an idea, to make it endure. And this idea, then, must endure one way or the other until it comes true. And then you've got the entire cycle of this universe, because then wishes never come true. When you start wishing and you stop acting, why, nothing's going to come true after that.

One fellow tells another that something is bad. And when he says "bad," he means it's a "you shouldn't have." That's bad. Now, when he says something is good, he's saying it's a "you should have." And it's an effort on the part of one thetan to present to another thetan or take away from another thetan, havingness. And that is bad and good. It is also forgetfulness and remembrance.

So a fellow hits that bridge point, and beyond that point he has nothing to offer but hope. He wants from others reassurance. He helps, and has to help, because he's in a coincidence whereby all by himself he can't cause something to happen. He's got to be very determined about it happening, and he's got to do this and that.

Memory here — when a person can pull in or be in the area where some­thing happened, of course he can remember it. And when a person pushes something away from him, then he can forget it. So we have the effort on the part of individuals to forget that which is gone from them. See?

Well that, in essence, is the degeneration of a thetan. If you want to know how to do SOP 8-O, why, it's along that line. You put him into a position where he can do, not just hope he can do. Where he can fail and not give a darn that he fails. Where he can lose and just finds losingness the part of a game. And when an individual can do that, he is in wonderful condition. He's also happy, which might have some bearing on the situation.

So they want to know why they forgot what was gone from them, and of course this, then, is bad. Must have been. But if they consider that what was torn from them was good, then they're into a very severe problem and that is, that they can't have good things. And that — you're looking right straight there at a dwindling spiral.

That's because he's free. But what's he free of? He's free of a cycle of action. He doesn't have to have a cycle of action. First, because when he starts a cycle of action, he brings one off. He doesn't have to worry about it. And next, he doesn't have to worry about a cycle of action because if he doesn't complete one, why, it doesn't mean his wreck and ruin forevermore.

Then it works on an inversion. If this keeps being torn from them all the time, they keep losing this all the time, therefore it must be bad. So we first get the fellow into the line where he can't have good things. And then we get him into the thing that the things that are torn from him are bad. And so we get evaluation changing, changing and turning continuously.

And below that bridge point, which you might call the break point, way back on the track, the individual has this as a very, very important thing: effort — estimation of effort to make two points coincide. He wants to make one point be at one place in coincidence or in relationship to another point in another place, or two points come together at one place, or any combinations that you could make out by taking a couple of cubes of sugar and pushing them around in a piece of space. Any combination, then, of those two cubes would be what he's trying to do. You can pull them apart, and you can push them against each other, and you can change them, you can start them toward each other and then make them swerve off, and — in other words, all these patterns of motion.

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

Now, let's look at this cycle of action. What happened to him? What happened to him? He just got into a longer and longer cycle of action. And he'd start on a cycle, and the break point was when he got down to a point of where he hoped it'd happen. And he doesn't know the end, he never knows the end of the story; that is lack of confidence — complete lack of confidence. Of course, it spoils an awful lot of amusement for you to know the end of every story that you happen to look at. Well, you can bar out some of that knowledge and still not cave in.

Whenever we have a problem in havingness, we get restimulation of engrams. Well, why is this? A problem in havingness brings about the restimu­lation of engrams. A person resists that which he becomes — he has to resist it first before he becomes it. But an engram is a pattern of constantly made — and for your purposes you can simply consider it a piece of energy — constantly made energy, but you can consider it a piece of energy.

But it is not a sad and sorry and horrible thing to know the end of the story. That's not a sad thing. There's nothing wrong with knowing the end of the story. Because you don't know that you are entirely dependent upon amusement. You don't know that you have to have this stretched-out time factor of "What is the end of the cycle?" Since you're in a perfectly wonderful frame of mind as long as you can make two particles coincide.

And we have this engram. Here we have an engram and it is havingness. It has form, and it has, usually, an aesthetic value, it has certainly a dramatic value, and it certainly is havingness. So an individual gets things torn from him this way and that, he loses things, he takes things away from others and throws them away and at length, he begins to develop a deficiency in havingness. He can only develop a deficiency in havingness because he has started to consider that those things he can't have must be bad for him, and then that he can't have; and then he considers that those things he can have must be of a very low order indeed.

You ever make a hole-in-one in golf? I imagine you were kind of pleased about that time. Well, you've made two particles in essence coincide. You made a ball go into a cup and you completed your end of cycle.

And if he had, scattered across the universe but able to reconstruct, a very large number of engrams and he had some very, very beautiful facsimiles, he at length, because of this constant belief — continuous, continuing belief — that he can't have good things because they're taken away from him, he would choose out of these things . . . This is a very good one for you to remember because this in its essence is Acceptance Level Processing, this is what's back of it. He gets into the state of mind where he can only receive the very bad things. And he gets into a dreadful muddle.

Now, way, way back on the track, a fellow didn't complete his first cycle and somebody sympathized with him, and somebody told him how sad this was, and somebody told him that they were very sorry that he couldn't reach the end of cycles, and etc., etc., etc., and he sort of got paid for not reaching the end of a cycle. In other words, he got some sensation, he got some effort of his own — not of his own production. And so he began a dwindling spiral.

Well, what's a very bad thing? Well, there'd be this consideration of beauty. But let's just take it in terms of what's colorful, what has a smooth, flowing line, and he would take things that were dun-colored or even black-colored and had no smooth, flowing line of any kind.

The end of cycle, then, becomes the most important single curve which we can draw. It starts, it changes, it stops. It goes there. And in the mest universe, it's create, survive, destroy. It gets that long.

Now, that's interesting. Because an individual then begins to accept from life all sorts of odds and ends and horrible things that somebody else wouldn't think of. Do you know that an individual, if he ran his parents — if an individual is having a rough time of it, if you run his parents accepting sick children, he'll all of a sudden recognize something, it'll flash to him very quickly: He's — the level of acceptance of his parents is sickness. And so he has to be sick, otherwise he can't be accepted by his parents. In other words, what kind of havingness do his parents desire? Well, they desire sick havingness. In order to stay with his parents and so forth, he has to be sick. And the person sits there in the auditing chair sick.

Well, what happens to a fellow who reaches for a doorknob to open the door? He estimates the effort, he reaches for the doorknob, he turns it, he pulls the door. All the way along the line he is estimating effort. He's estimating coincidence.

Acceptance Level Processing in the PABs 13, 14, 15 is mostly a demonstration or an understanding technique for the preclear rather than something which immediately clears things up; because it can be run for many, many, many hours. And it's not particularly the end-all of techniques. But it's demonstrative of this thing called havingness. Well, the process of receiving something and putting it away and not being able to have it again and only being able to have the things which are not as smooth a form and as — so on, and having less and less desirable things in terms of just an aesthetic, whatever the consideration is, these — this cycle goes on and is itself (please note this), it is itself time. The process of throwing things away and pulling things in and getting them forced on one and forcing them on others and so forth, brings about the agreed-upon condition known as time.

When he feels he can no longer properly estimate effort, he can't see. He doesn't see anymore. Why? Well, seeing is in essence a matter of particles. It's a matter of motion, it's a matter of energy, and therefore a person who cannot estimate effort is unable to handle energy and so he can't perceive. He can't reach and withdraw the way he should in order to make a coincidence of himself and a scene so that he can perceive it. He can't stop a pattern in midair, you might say, and look at it. Lots of things he can't do. But they all boil down to: He can't predict the position of particles. And if he can't predict the position of particles, he develops anxiety. He develops all sorts of interesting dodges.

So havingness in terms of human experience is senior to this pocketa-pocketa-pocketa pattern, second hand going round and round and round, I mean just that — time. Now you wouldn't have any of this time because time gives you the hope that though you can't have, you may be able to someday. Time is the great hoper; it's the great reassurer.

We have this condensed curve — look, and when that's condensed we get into emotion, and when that's condensed we get into effort, and when that's condensed we get into thinking of a computive variety.

A person looks at it and he says, 'Well now, look at that, that's — that calendar there. Here it is the 2nd of December, and I don't have anything very much right now, but on the 25th of December, somebody's going to give me a present." Hopeful havingness.

A fellow who is thinking hard about the future is a fellow who has already admitted that he cannot control the future. He has to think about it. He needs to compute and use Boolean algebra or something, in order to predict the future. That's because the particles that he is trying to make coincide or part or change, he's trying — the particles he's trying to start, stop and change — these particles are not within his control, because he can't reach that far. They have a time, because they move away. And he feels he doesn't have the power to predict them all the way.

Now, hope in itself goes about two ways: It's the desire that sometime in the future one will cease to have something which he no longer wants but can't seem to get rid of, or that one will acquire something he wants. And that is hope.

So he just says, "Well, I wish they'd be over there." And of course that requires, then, future. And that stretches longer and longer until at last he's getting born, and hoping he'll get through with it somehow. And if he hopes hard enough and he wishes hard enough and he makes everything come true and he says everything with sufficient determination, why, eventually he'll get to die. And that's his reward for wishing so hard.

And there is a condition of beingness that goes along with this, of course, and that is, an individual has exterior things — he has things which are other than himself (that is to say, they're made otherwise than by himself) and these things which are made otherwise by himself, they come against him and to him and so forth. And the harder they hit him and the more often they hit him . . . That is to say, the harder they hit him — the harder they hit him, the more often they hit him — I mean, you're just getting the same phrase. You see, you don't assume time merely because you have time. If you're dealing with something that would be timeless, you wouldn't assume time in order to explain it.

All his wishes come true. That's what — in essence, what a thetan starts to do very early on the track, and that's one of the things he starts wishing. And that's one of the things he hangs on himself, and it's about the most vicious thing he could hang on himself: that his postulates will take place.

So you just say to the fellow — fellow's hit by something and he's saying all the time, "I don't want it; I don't want it" — and he's got it. Well, he can't be wrong; he mustn't be wrong. He must have already gotten into this to be in bad shape. So if he can't be wrong, why, of course it must be that he wants it. Well, you get your DEI cycle: Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. He begins to desire it, but what does he — what happens immediately before he desires it?

A careful analysis of any case will demonstrate that he has wished on himself everything that has happened to him. You don't think so offhand, but this isn't trying to shove into somebody's lap an entire responsibility for the entire universe all of a sudden.

Well, if you can inhibit something — if you can inhibit something from going into a fellow and if he's trying to inhibit it same way — if he's trying to inhibit something from coming in which somebody is trying to push in (which is your E into I), why, it'll become him eventually. Unless he has an awful lot of force to resist it.

But the truth of the matter is, as you backtrack it, you will find that the sickness which he is now fighting, he once wished for.

Now somebody's trying to give him something and he decides he doesn't want it. Well, believe me, right below that first DEI as it goes down is another D, so he desires. He desires that which has been forced upon him to such a degree that he can't do anything about it. And that's other-motion coming in on him, that's other-determinism coming in on him. And we know instinctively that acquisition of other things is in itself bad. Now, that even applies to knowledge.

An individual will say, "No, no, no! This never happened. I never wished for this sickness. No, no!"

A person quite often is difficult to process merely because he has the idea that other-knowingness can itself destroy him. And if a thetan (quote) "knows anything" (unquote), he thinks he knows that. It's not true — it's not true. A whole group of people can know something and be happy about it and prosper. But an individual who's had too much knowledge forced on him which he found indigestible after he receives it runs into this DEI cycle, and after a while the most desirable information imaginable — somebody could walk in and say to this person the most desirable information imaginable — would be something he couldn't receive.

And you say, "Well, did you ever wish you were sick?"

Now, a person could walk in and say, "You've just inherited a million dollars." And this is a piece of knowingness, you see? Information.

"No, no! Not me. I want to be well. I mean, I never wished for a sickness."

And he's just liable to sit there and say, "Well, could I have a quarter?" so forth.

And you say, "Well, now let's take school. Did you ever try not to go to school? Or did you ever get sick so you wouldn't have to go to school?"

And you could tell him in vain, "You've just inherited a million dollars," and he'd keep on asking you for this quarter.

And the fellow says, "You just whipped me, fellow."

Well, his request for the quarter is his idea; so he thinks that his request for the quarter is senior to what you're saying. You're trying to tell him he has a million dollars, you — and that — he'd never get into communication with you. He's unwilling to receive the effect of knowingness.

Because anybody that's sick today hoped he'd be sick some day in the past.

And you'll run into that with preclears, you'll run into it in trying to instruct. Most everybody has had this forced down them. Now, a little child . . . You'll use a little child because a thetan is pretty well swamped up when he picks up a baby, he's perfectly willing now to roll on the line again. And he's doing a good job of having thrown away his past havingness. Although if you will carefully notice, by the way, a little baby that is one, one-and-a-half, something like that, they're a little bit spinny; they're just a little bit spinny. And if you'll watch them, you will see that they have not settled yet into a comfortable feeling about what their loss has just been. And they very often have old people's or other — you know, sort of former people's characteristics. They will go around and do strange things, they will go around and mop or try to do something to make themselves useful or something. And they appear to be a bit in a fog. And as a matter of fact, they are a bit in a fog. You take that much havingness away from anybody and he's in a fog.

But earlier than that is "all of his postulates must come true." He's going to prove that he's right to everybody by making his postulates come true. Any way you look at this, he's going to make his postulates come true.

Well, they suddenly wake up, sooner or later, to the fact that they've got a new mock-up, and they accept this utterly, and about that time, you get an entrance into childhood. And up to that time you just get a sort of a fog. This new mock-up works, they get intrigued in running it, they see that the people around them are not too desperately horrible, they see that it's a bright new world and they've decided to make the best of it.

And he makes them all come true. He says to himself one fine day, he said, "Gee, everything I do is wrong." That isn't very much. Wouldn't be anything. See, he's not a bear that's about to eat himself up. He just sits behind all this "postulates must come true" and he keeps trying to operate with that one on the track.

Well, they haven't really decided one way or the other to make the best of it usually because of the between-lives sequence. But the loss of havingness, the sudden loss of havingness, brings about a considerable degradation; and the individual goes down below the level of being able to remember — he just goes down to zero — I mean, zoom! Because he's so associated himself with havingness itself, you see, he's so closely linked this together, that a sudden loss of havingness is a sudden loss of self. All right.

"What I say goes!" is a colloquial phrase. "What I say must go!"

When we get a problem in terms of knowingness on the part of a preclear, we're in immediately into a problem with the preclear of time, too. But basically, we're into a problem of havingness.

And so if the fellow says, "Well, everything I do is wrong, and I never do anything right, and I hate myself," and so on and you start processing him as an auditor, you could actually by — just strip his track down to a point where he first said that and look it over and they'd blow. And you could do that if this wasn't basically effort. Because the effort he has made to make the idea stick, to fix the idea in space, or to keep it moving in space — the idea itself is cloaked in such heavy determination that it itself is a lump of effort, and your preclear can't handle effort anymore. So what are we going to do about this fellow? He can't handle effort anymore and he doesn't dare handle it because he can't predict. All right, if he can't predict he can't handle effort. Well, if he can't handle effort, well, you see, he doesn't dare tamper around much with fixed ideas, because if he tampers around too much with fixed ideas, they'll just collapse on him and there he'll be! Upsetting, isn't it? I mean, he's caught there in a trap.

All right, now let's look at it another way. We try to instruct somebody. We try to give him a somethingness. Well, as a little kid he was eager to learn — tremendously eager to learn. And then they taught him things he didn't want to know. And then they spanked him so he'd learn, and they did all sorts of things. And he got to school and when he got into school, why, he went into a sort of a cage, so on. It's very often children like school, but not — but it's very, very much up to the instructor more than anybody else.

He won't be well unless he can regain his force. All right, if he can't regain his force then he won't be well, will he? And if — all that's wrong with him is he can't regain his force. Well, that's simple then — all you do is make him regain his force. But he can't regain his force because he can't touch any part of his force. And you can't find a gradient scale, you think maybe sometimes, to give him a sufficient entrance into it so that he can possibly come up the line on force.

And a lot of information's handed him, handed him, handed him — he doesn't know what to do with it, he can't correlate it, he doesn't see that this has anything to do — so it's a havingness he doesn't want. And he eventually gets down to a point to where he figures out, "There's knowingnesses that I don't want."

If you were able to turn on a few thousand watts in your preclear rather rapidly, let me assure you, he wouldn't have any trouble with creation. The only thing he does with creation that's troublesome to him is run out of material. He'd be very happy to construct a body — lump! bang! crash! — mold its head together and put it all up and make it operate. He'd be very happy to do that. A body you could see and a body I could see — a body everybody could see.

How could there be a knowingness that you don't want? Just — that's impossible. I mean, you want to know about everything, of course. You — there — you haven't any finite capacity, you haven't any finite storage capacity for information. You can't hold just 674,000 data, and the 674,001 datum won't crack your skull. Total knowingness is shunned by a great many people because they know so much of it is bad.

But you see, that unfortunately requires a very heavy mass of force, see? See, a very heavy mass of particles. Particles in essence are force.

They've been into this experience of having — they're holding on to all these past experiences that are bad so that they can predict the future and so forth, and they don't want to know about the past experiences after a while because they've gotten into the DEI cycle. See, they desired to know about bad experiences and then after a while they had to know about bad experiences and then after a while, why, they inhibited themselves from bad experiences and then they closed with the bad experiences and had one. And that's the way you get the cycle going. All right.

What is force? Random motion of particles. What's energy? Energy is particles. And if he doesn't have any force, why, he can't handle these particles.

Here's a person who has a shut-down knowingness. Well, if he has a shut-down knowingness, he has a shut-down space. There's a bunch of data he doesn't want to know about. He feels that this would ruin him if he ever confronted it. And so he would much rather handle energy patterns or something, you know? I mean, knowingness would be bad. That — there you see, that's the one thing that can't be bad!

Well, the horrible part of it is, if he doesn't have any space, he can't handle particles either. And so you say, "Well, the best way to do is let's go into this problem and let's rehabilitate his space and then he can have some particles." But we find out by rehabilitating his space, it tears to pieces the particles which he has and you upset his havingness. You know, we do — make too much space with a fellow, and it starts blowing holes in the hard energy which he has around. And blowing these holes in this hard energy is very hard on him, believe me. Because, the next thing you know, why, all of his energy's kind of gooey.

So you know everything there is across the face of the mest universe. Knowingness is actually a form of havingness because you have to be able to have some space in which something's occurring, you have to be able to go through some of the actions and so forth — at least to experience knowingness. But knowingness itself — theoretically, you could simply say, "I am the entire mest universe, and now I will know everything in it; I wish to know everything in it." Zing — you'd know everything in it. I mean, you could theoretically do that. It's an impossibility, but I mean you could theoretically do that. You see that then — you'd certainly be indestructible if you could do that.

Hate is all right in its place. Take out in space where there's very little energy — you go into good old space opera, and what do we find in space opera? We find an awful lot of hate. That's because nobody's got any barriers. If they hate hard enough, why, they'll make some. That's about all there is to that.

Well, and here's some fellow — some preclear: You're trying to show him something about his own life by making him process it and so forth, and he's sitting there and, boy, he's running "I don't want to know, I don't want to know, I don't want to know, I don't want to know."

Then you get down on a planet and everybody is trying to love each other like mad so they'll dissolve some of these barriers because they've got too many. The two never get together. When spacemen hit planets and when the planet people hit spacemen, why, they just don't mix very well — between the two you get religion. Well, anyway . . .

You'll find yourself instructing people in Scientology and you'll find them — they're just sitting there, they don't want to know. They — it's horrible. You say to yourself, "Well, how could they possibly miss this? We just got through saying that if you put two pictures of your mother out in front, why, you'll feel better about your mother."

Love and hate — love melts everything down, hate makes it all solid. Well, you say, "Well, let's handle it in love and hate, then, and that's the best way to go about this problem. We'll handle it in love and handle it in hate and so forth, and we'll get him over having to hate everything, and we'll get him over to — so he doesn't have to love everything but he can. And we'll give him freedom in these two emotions, and it'll all straighten out" — and they've been doing that for a couple of thousand years, and that failed too. They haven't even been doing it with our processes, but at the same time, it hasn't been successful. And with our present processes it isn't successful.

And this fellow just got through saying to you, "Well, you can't get two pictures of your mother in your pocket."

So all right, well, that's tough, that just leaves us in a horrible spot, because — by this time we get kind of lost, because if we try to get this individual to handle a couple of particles and that sort of thing, the progress he makes is so slow. We start to remedy his havingness by making him pull eight anchor points in — we have to remedy the havingness of any case because he hasn't got enough mass — and we find out that that will go just so far, and he keeps on after a while. And then the GE — if he's still in the body, God help him — if he's still in the body and he keeps remedying his havingness while being stuck in the body, after a while the body itself will develop its own appetite for the energy thus being generated and he just winds up sort of feeding the body. So that isn't too good either.

And you say, "What?"

Furthermore, he starts up flows that almost knock his head off and he does other things that are rather difficult; and so they — all these techniques have a successfulness, they have a — you can go up the line, only they travel a little too slowly. Because what are you trying to do all this time? You're trying to rehabilitate somebody's ability to make two points meet or part or change, and — in other words, you're trying to make him predict. And there is your prediction cycle. If you can't make him predict, why, you can't make him make two points coincide, because he knows better than to handle energy. He knows better than to look at anything. He can't predict what's going to happen to it.

And he says, "That's right."

Now, you stand up talking to somebody, and you try to predict what they're going to say back. And if you've been around somebody who said a lot of nasty things to you — lots, and suddenly, and kind of took your head off, bang! and you weren't looking for it at all — why, after a while, you get very fixed and very alert on what people are going to say to you, because it's very, very violent. Because there's an emotional impact behind it.

He just didn't want to — he didn't want to know about this because he didn't want to have these bad experiences with his mother, and you connected the bad experience about his mother and so forth, well, he's going to take the knowingness and throw it away.

Some people have ridges just back of their faces which are as solid as can be and the whole face is gone, simply trying to predict what people are going to say. You know, they're sort of holding back while they push forward. They are reach and withdrawing at the same time because of what people liable to say to them, what people liable to feel, the emotion they're liable to have hitting them all of a sudden. It isn't nice to have all that emotion hitting you suddenly — boom! So, people might shove it at you, so you have to be careful of what you say, and you have to be careful of what you do and so forth.

Well, knowingness, actually, is the most senior thing in the whole category of SOP 8-C. It stands over the top of everything. And as you have solved problems of havingness so that the individual at last can have, you'll get knowingness.

Why? Because you can't predict.

But if you think that it would simply be a matter of just flipping out a few postulates — just bing-bing-bing, you know, flip out a few postulates — you see, basically, all havingness is, is a few postulates. Well, you think if you could just flip out a few postulates, bing-bing-bing, that's all there is to it and so forth, well, this fellow would change his mind. Well, he made these postulates in the first place, didn't he? Well, all right, if he made them in the first place, let's let him unmake them right now and then all this havingness that he's worrying about and so forth, and the bank would disappear and so forth.

You go down and talk to a lion, and you go — walk up to the lion, you put your hand in his mouth, he's going to bite. Particularly if you laid a problem out like this: You're going to put your arm in a live lion's mouth and then you're going to kick him in the chin, you would certainly get a tooth scratch. Well now, you could predict that that was going to happen. But all of a sudden one day you're walking down — you know, you're walking down the path and it's a beautiful spring day and there's nothing at all occurring, and you just feel happy as can be with life, and somebody tugs you on the sleeve and says, "Your house just burned down and everybody's dead," you know? What's commonly known as a tone drop. You know, runs a curve on you — sudden curve.

Well, it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way because you can't make him unhave that fast. And if you make him unhave that fast, he will go down into a degraded state. And that is why you mustn't reach over with a pair of theta shears and start chewing away at somebody's engram bank, because you reduce his havingness. And if there's anything — if there's anything I wish an auditor would pay attention to in processing, it's the amount of havingness, and what you call the balanced havingness of the preclear. If you don't pay attention to this factor, you'll have cases dragging, you'll fail to understand why some case is hanging fire. Well, it's a matter of time, isn't it, on a case. This case — you don't want to spend in this much time on the case.

You're walking along and minding your own business and you cross a street and halfway across the street, why, a car hits you, and you're in the hospital for six months. You sure didn't predict that — the coincidence of that car and your body — you didn't predict that at all.

Well, people who can have your time, sort of have some of your havingness. They can have you if they can have your time. All right.

So a person's prediction becomes shorter and shorter and shorter and so time appears to be longer and longer and longer because his prediction is getting shorter and shorter and shorter. He can only predict a sure thing.

Now you say, "I just don't like to spend this much time on this case." Well, yeah, but what you just said is you don't want to spend this much havingness on this case. And the reason you'll have to spend time on the case ordinarily is because you haven't paid any attention to a problem of havingness the case has. And that's what makes the case slow.

You ask a preclear, "How far can you predict into the future?"

What's slow? Well, the greater the scarcity, the less — that is to say, the greater the scarcity, the longer the time. That's what makes a timespan span. What makes a timespan span? Scarcity makes it span.

And he'll say, "What do you think I got? A crystal ball?" You just said future — that stuck him. He immediately assumed the future was when? You say, "Well, what is the future? How far away is the future?"

Now, the more he has — you see, it doesn't quite work the way it looks there — the more he has that's actually his, the less time will affect him. But you can't solve it in the mest universe. Because the more you have that is actually yours, actually, the more you move out into your own universe. And you're not going to take any piece of this universe with you — it's rigged, booby-trapped. So you'd have to have havingness which was strictly your own. I mean, you'd have to know it was your own so that you could pry it loose from this universe, and only then would you get out of the time stream.

Somebody got the answer here, "A couple of minutes."

Now, that's confused with the fellow who acquires and acquires and acquires and acquires in this universe, you see, until he's got a responsibility for a tremendous quantity of material. And this materiel itself is, each piece of it, going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa and it's saying, "You have to be responsible for me, you have to be responsible for me, you have to be responsible for me; you have to agree with me, you have to agree with me." And the more you agree with it, of course, the more you go pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. So you've agreed with this co-motion of particles which is this particular universe, but that is a sort of a false havingness, if you want to know the truth.

Well, that's about it. Future's two minutes away. Two minutes from now, I could, without too many qualms, predict that I would be standing here — two minutes from now, without too many qualms. Two minutes from now you could predict that you'll be sitting there — two minutes from now. Two minutes from now we can predict that the world will still be here — we hope.

A person who will possess more than he can actually use is a foolish person indeed — just in the business of agreeing with the economic, cultural strata. If you really want to worry, why, throw a hundred thousand dollars into the bank and save it. If you just want to worry, you want to worry yourself frantic, that's a wonderful way to do it. That, of course, is — you enter that on the D end. And you say, "Gee, that's desirable." And it wouldn't be if you went right straight through and actually did it, because you would find out that people enforced the fact on you that you had a hundred thousand dollars.

But the longer this goes and the harder it is to predict, the less and less confidence a person has in an existence continuing. So a continuation of existence becomes his entire fixation, and this in itself is survival. And so he fixes on survival. He doesn't fix on creating; he doesn't fix on destroying, really, he merely fixes on surviving. Why? Because his anxiety is such that he doesn't know for sure if Earth is going to be here a minute from now. He can't tell you for sure if this house is going to be here a minute from now.

The streams of inventors who would go up and down your porch steps demanding that you invest, the streams of stockbrokers that would call you, the amount of mail you would receive would all demonstrate to you rather clearly that this hundred thousand dollars was being forced on you.

You just pin a fellow down and start really pounding him with the — you want the answer to that question. And he'll have to confess that he really actually can't tell you. It's just a slight probability.

And then there'd be the government, and it'd start inhibiting it. And the government would say, "Well, you really can't have a hundred thousand dollars; we have — now we have instituted, very recently . . ." You see, the second you had a hundred thousand dollars you'd have to get interested in the government. And you have never — all of your life you've been perfectly happy. You've never read a Congressional Record, you have never read the newspapers, you don't know what the political columns are, you don't know whether you're a Republican or a Monotonist. And all of the problems of your life have just been solved beautifully without knowing anything about politics. But you get a hundred thousand dollars, you'll be interested in politics. You have to be. Because the government, sooner or later, might turn into a socialistic state and everybody'd divide the wealth and there'd go your hundred thousand dollars!

So, what's he predicting now? He's able to predict in a small particle line. He can say, "If the universe is here, and if the house is here, and if this room is still here, and if I am still here, why then, a moment or so from now, I will be able to pick up this match and put it at this corner of the desk. And if the universe is still here, and if the house is still here, and if I am still here, and this desk is still here, then in a moment from now, I can pick up the match on this corner of the desk and move it other — to the other corner of the desk. And that is a lead-pipe certainty!"

That which you have, when it is under raid, you might say, has to be protected. And one realizes so easily in this universe that havingness is short, that he realizes that any real havingness he has, has to be protected. The way many people solve this problem is to have poorly; and they have moldy loaves of bread and poor clothes and so forth — nobody would steal them. Well, they learn, sooner or later, that somebody will even steal these. And so they get moldier loaves of bread and then they get moldier clothing and then they're dirty themselves — and they make themselves as unhaveable as possible, just so they can covertly have a little havingness. That's their main problem.

He's — right there he's dealing with certainty. And so we move into that very thing: certainty. What is certainty? Certainty of the coincidence of particles, certainty of their coming apart. In other words, certainty of a start, stop, change of at least two particles. And that's certainty. That's prediction.

So we have in our economic structure a great deal of protectiveness of havingness. And the less you protect in the structure, the more you can have. And the more you protect, the more you get nailed down into a static state — that is to say, not a theta static state, but just an immobile state where you can't protect. The biggest lesson anyone learns in this universe: that there is a certain fatality connected with having something which can be attacked. If you have something which is very obvious, if you have a huge house that has a lot of goods in it, you've got something there that you've got to guard. And the more you have to guard, the less you're going to win.

Well, as long as he's ahead of that and he says, "These two particles are going to meet," he could also say, "These two suns are going to meet at a little — some little time in the future."

I call to your attention the Japanese for instance, were able to raid Pearl Harbor and able to raid all kinds of installations all over the Pacific until they acquired enough so that they had to guard everything they had. The fools didn't know that what they should do was simply to remain in a raiding force. Well, this is because they already had the Japanese islands so they really didn't dare go so far. But actually if they'd just retained and concentrated their troops as a raiding force, they could have easily won the war.

And that's essentially the only difference between you and a planet builder who is still working. He can say with some certainty, "When I take this mass of particles here the size of Jupiter, and throw it into that mass of not-yet-condensed particles, I will then have a sun here and it will glow."

And we didn't even vaguely find ourselves in a position to do anything about Pearl Harbor or about the Japanese because we were spread all over the map. We were guarding everything. We were guarding the entire Orient and had no pile of personnel or ships or anything else sufficient or adequate to suddenly raid Japan, swish! So the war dragged on for years. Everybody had something they were trying to guard.

Now, he can say that with the same certainty as you can say that the match will be at that corner of the desk. Now, it's a big certainty, but it's a certainty of prediction.

Well, it was obvious that when the Japanese had spread themselves that thin, they could then be rolled up. Why, of course — you could hit their installations and you found the guards very thin and so you could take their installations piecemeal.

Well, how long does it take to move that much mass? A planet the size of Jupiter into a sun — of course, I'm just stating a hypothetical, rather interestingly fantastic idea that anybody ever built these planets. Everybody knows that they just sort of happened. They "aggloomerated." I think that's the latest scientific theory — the "aggloomeration" of planets. They call it that because it's so black out there. Anyway, when we have . . .

The Japanese empire was guarding beyond its potential of guarding. It had. And here is havingness which stretches time.

It's very scientific, this whole thing. And the truth of the matter is, they were just built. How's a fellow build a house? Well, he gets some material together and knocks it together. And that's the way you build something. You don't have to be as technically exact building a planet as you do building a house. You have to — don't have to know about mortises and jointises. Ah, no.

But no amount of philosophy will get around the fact that you have, in your preclear, first and foremost, a problem of havingness.

But again, we're into prediction of particles. How much presence do you have? How much basic presence do you have? You have as much basic presence as you can occupy space. You have as much space as you can span time and predict it.

Now, it would really amaze you that havingness will run out Book One problems. I give you something quite significant in this. There was a case last night whom I audited for a few minutes. I'd audited him before and — one of you was there. It was an interesting review of a case. This case, by the way, had run off, priorly, in Dianetics some of the charge and so forth on several engrams, and one particular engram, a tonsillectomy, had been run with Dianetics.

Well, is there any solution to this? I mean, here you are — here you are only able to control a matchbox full of space or something like that, and stuck inexorably, and completely incapable of doing anything about it. You can't predict whether your preclear is going to be out of his head in the next couple of minutes, and there's two particles you're trying to predict and — the particles that the preclear is still holding on to, and the particle of the body. And you want those two things to uncoincide in space, and prediction of that happening and so forth.

The only thing that was wrong, the only reason it didn't work well on the case, was because the case had such a terrific problem in havingness that the reduction of any havingness was unthinkably horrible. And as a consequence, everybody trying to take something away from this fellow who already had so little that he was right at a perishing point, was pushing a case in the direction of less havingness; whereas the only place you had to push the case was in the direction of more havingness.

Well, we get into a matter here of an endless cycle, obviously. I mean, here we are. I mean, everything has gone on to a point of anxiety where it has to survive. It becomes an obsession: survival, survival — that's the obsession. It's terrible, but we must survive. Mustn't destroy bodies, mustn't die and so forth. And mustn't create something! That's kind of a shaky thing for an individual to do. If he creates something, why, it might turn out bad and it might cause somebody not to survive or something, and so he'd better not create because he can't predict what's going to happen.

It's one of these simple identity problems — I mean it's Q and A. The condition is there, you see it very clearly. We look at this person and we see he is terribly thin, he's emaciated. Well there's a problem of havingness, see — havingness in terms of food or havingness in terms of a lot of things. All right.

We get into what we call the "Frankenstein effect." The Frankenstein effect: You create this thing — perfect innocence — you create it, it walks down the road, and then you say, "Stop!" you know? It's just about to pick up a small child or something and break it in half.

Well, let's solve the case. How we going to solve it? "Well, let's run an engram and erase it and let's — well, I tell you what we do, we get in and we'll cut off a large portion of his bank and throw it away . . ."

That was a wonderful picture I've run out of preclears several times, of Frankenstein walking down a stream bed, and he finds a little girl on the bank of the stream and — but just before that he's seen somebody, if I remember rightly, picking the petals off of a daisy and throwing them away. And he sees this little child, so he plucks its limbs off — of the child, you see — and throws them away. It was a very charming picture. It was a great contribution to psychotherapy. (audience laughter) They got the Menninger award for it.

If he landed in doctors' hands, they would say, "Well, let's see. If we could saw off his left arm or something . . ."

Anyway, when we have a problem in a preclear — we're saying we have a problem, then there is an answer to the problem. He is offering us a problem.

See, an auditor who would think like that — I mean, he sees this person with no havingness, and then promptly gives him less havingness, almost negative havingness — this case is going to go frantic. And sure enough, the case would actually, and has in the past, gone into a convulsion when a little bit of havingness — just obediently do the technique which would reduce some having­ness and go into a convulsion just like that.

Well, what's a problem? A problem is ways and means of predicting an answer. The way you work a problem is you use certain symbols and you combine them, or you use certain past experiences and combine them, and it all winds up to the same thing: You want to have the answer. That's the first thing you'd say. But you wouldn't have any problem if you merely said, "I want to have the answer. There's the answer." See? I mean that wouldn't be any problem.

Why does he go into a convulsion? Well, because his havingness is not adequate to his control of the situation. He doesn't have enough havingness to keep things stopped and keep things this way and handle things that way, and so as a consequence, the case would go out of control.

So it works out this way: "I want to have the answer. And here is the experience of the past. And if I can associate together the experiences of the past and be warned about certain conditions which may take place in the future, then I will be able to have the answer to the problem."

The body itself would drag on any energy of the thetan to such a point that the thetan was unable to control the body. The thetan would just be completely upset. Anything the thetan had would just be pulled off of him by the body with this little havingness. All right.

You've gone down into symbolisms, you've also gone into mathematics, you've also gone into what man considers knowledge in the form of data — data knowledge. Now, that's data knowledge.

What's the proper way to run this case? Give him something. Well, how do you give somebody something? You make space in terms of anchor points. You have him put out eight anchor points and then pull them together and at that moment, then neglect it. Don't have him pull it together hard enough so that it'll explode the anchor points. Then you put out eight more anchor points. Put them out anyplace — in front of him, around him, it doesn't matter where. Put out eight more anchor points and pull them together. But, again, not so hard they'll explode. You see, just pull them tightly together.

Data knowledge is there merely so one can predict a result. And when he says "predict a result," he is saying he wants a couple of things to coincide or uncoincide in space; and that's a result.

What do you do with them then? Well, you can have him crowd them into his body or you could have him just merely drop them. Because there are sufficient unhavingness vacuums in the vicinity of the body that will actually pick up that piece of energy. And you as an auditor could count on that automaticity. But you could stuff it into his chest or something after this had happened if you wanted to do something with it.

So somebody wants to predict a result, and that means future. Future coincidence of particles or uncoincidence of particles.

Well now, he will get so hungry for this havingness that he will start to beg to manufacture it. He's learned how to manufacture some havingness now (only he doesn't realize what he's doing). You just told him eight... He said — he'll start telling you (this is invariable) that he can do it now, he can do this now and he wants to do it faster; he can do it a lot faster than you're doing it, you see? You've got him up to a thirst point. And it'd be like giving a man who had been dying of thirst a little sip of water, you see; and then you wait for a little while and you give him another drop of water and so on. He'll start telling you, "Oh, I think I can take much more water than that." Well, this is the same phrase, the same reason, same rationale behind this. All right.

The reason a fellow learns how to drive is so that he can predict the moment when his car will swerve and hit the truck. The reason why they teach little children safety in crossing streets and so forth, is they'll know what crosswalk to be on to be hit. That isn't exactly the reason why, but they're trying to teach them how to make two particles uncoincide. See? Safety.

Let's take this havingness, then have him put up eight anchor points and have him pull them together. Have him put them aside or put them in his chest or just drop them or just anything with them. And put up eight more anchor points and pull them together and so on. And you know what's going to show up? All the engrams he's caught in.

They're trying to make them not be on the crosswalk when they're not supposed to be on the crosswalk, and be on the crosswalk when they're supposed to be on it and so forth. In other words, coincidence of particles.

And what are you going to do about the engrams? If you're a real bad auditor that doesn't know about havingness, you're going to try to run one. What's he got these engrams for? They're a level of havingness he can have. He knows he can have these. He can't have anything better than that, merely because he's so short on havingness. If he has anything good, it'll be taken away from him — he's been taught that very adequately. Well, he can at least have engrams, even though they give him agony. Nobody else is going to take one of these engrams because they'll hurt him. Well he can have, as — even though it hurts him, he can still have them. And they're more valuable to him than no engrams. Something is always better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. The thetan has this as a motto: "Anything is better than nothing." And boy, if you look over some of the "anythings" some thetans have, you'll certainly realize the truth of this.

Time has no other bearing or relationship or existence than this: coincidence of particles. And that, of course, adds up immediately into havingness. Because you get a lot of particles coinciding, you get a big particle; and that, in itself, is matter made out of energy. So we get time. We get time, and time is composed of the past, the present and the future.

And so, here you have this individual sitting there and he's starting to go into convulsions and he's starting to do all sorts of things simply because you're pulling in eight anchor points on him. See, you're telling him to put out eight anchor points and then pull them in.

We use the past for a data bin. We use the present for something to perceive immediately in front of us, and we use the future in order to have something to predict for.

Well now, there's — you can get tricky about this; you can change his interest. If you found that early in auditing while you were testing out the case or you were doing something about the case, you said, "Now, get a picture of your mother," and it threw him into an immediate convulsion; you put up eight mothers, so — the corners of a cube — and pull them all in to a point (you know, crowd them together) and stuff them in his chest or throw them away or anything he wants with them. But the point is that those eight mothers crowded together in that fashion are going to go into his bank, ssllrrp! And you'll actually — if you were to look at this, you'd just simply see him pulling into his bank all kinds of bric-a-brac of this character. All right.

And, well, all it amounts to — it's a game of the coincidence and uncoincidence of particles, and it's a very easy game so long as one can predict.

We have then our problem in havingness solving in terms of the fellow, now with a superior grade of havingness, perfectly willing to surrender a few engrams. And how will he surrender them? Well, they'll start coming off of him. In other words, they (quote) "go into restimulation," as far as you can see. Well, they're below a level of restimulation at the time you contact them. And you'll find him stuck on the track somewhere. And one main engram, two or three engrams will come up if you repeated this and continued it.

Well, what's predict? It's how wide a piece of time can one occupy.

Well, he's making what he now has, so it is his. You're showing him he can make it. This is a source of great relief to him. And he starts to give up, then, the engrams he's caught in. Because he wants them; he wants them on a DEI cycle. But he only has them simply because they're something nobody else would possibly take. This is a problem of the fellow wearing dirty clothes so nobody will steal them. He has very, very little; he cooks out of an old tin can because nobody's going to steal that tin can off of him. We're not going to get into a problem of havingness as long as we have very poor and bad things. So he's got an engram, and he's got it all wrapped around him. It's horrible! I mean nobody's going to do anything with this engram.

Now, an individual is in his best state when he's slightly in advance of present time. In other words, he can know the future; he is slightly in advance of present time. He knows the future simply by being in the future and regulating the behavior of particles in the present. That's as far into the future as he's going to get. He can do that any time, however, simply by being a little bit in advance of present time. A thetan works in advance of present time. When he gets back of present time, he isn't working; present time is working on him, then.

Now, any rationale that stems from this is perfectly valid, but it's a lower order of rationale. It's a much less reason why. You're dealing with about the seniorest reason why anybody has an engram when you're dealing with this right now — havingness.

That which is effect is after that which is cause. That's the primary definition of cause and effect: That which is effect is after that which caused it. And so cause always precedes effect. And therefore cause is in the future of the effect.

Well, how do you amend havingness? It's by giving him new mass. Now, every once in a while you're going to run into the same thing — you're going to run the most interesting problem with a preclear. You're going to give him some processing and then after you've given him this nice processing, he doesn't feel good.

If you look that over carefully, it's very clear. There's nothing difficult about it.

And you say, "What's specifically wrong?"

But what do we mean as an effect? Well, we mean the coincidence of particles, of course.

"Well, nothing."

So, when it all boils down, we're talking about the estimation of effort all over again. And we're talking about the prediction of the future, and we find out that an individual is trying to survive simply because he has an obsession about knowing the end of the story. He's got to keep these things all coincided or all uncoincided, and we find this individual in a strongman stunt all down through the ages: He's trying to keep particles apart and he's trying to keep particles together and he's trying to keep particles moving and he's trying to keep particles stopped.

"Well, what happened? I mean, you found all those incidents I told you and you contacted all those recalls." And he did everything you said and, gee, he was kind of stable up there as a thetan and yet you gave him this processing and he just doesn't feel well. He'll sit there and look at you glumly.

And by the time the preclear sits down in your auditing chair, he's done a lot of this. And he is parked, variously, at any point of the cycle of motion that you could name. The cycle of motion in terms of the universe is create, survive, destroy; and the cycle of motion in terms of motion itself is simply start, change and stop. This is very, very interesting. I mean, hardly anything to that.

You've reduced his havingness. And that's always the answer. I mean, that's one of those "always" answers. You don't know what's wrong with this case? Well, his havingness has been reduced.

For instance, I take this, and it's in a stopped condition right now. And so we start it, we change its motion, and stop it. Start it, change its motion, stop it. That's what you mean by a curve. That's why a curve has always got a curve on it, not a straight line. That's a "curve of motion." It is changed in the middle. Its direction is changed in the middle. And people study curves because nearly all directions change in the middle. There's hardly anything like a straight line anywhere to be found, anywhere. Well, you could also — there's various other things about curves, but they all add up to that: start, change, and stop.

Well, how much havingness can a thetan have? Oh boy, that's real big. Why doesn't a thetan mock up a body which is visible to everybody? Well, it's because somebody will steal it, of course. He's got to have some covert method like the genetic entity line. He'll say, "Let something else do it — let George do it." He couldn't make one.

When you think about reach and withdraw, it is a condition where a centralized point is trying to attain and then reach away from another particle; so in essence, we have reach and withdraw as a part of that motion curve of start, change and stop.

Well, someday you'll be running some preclear, he'll be going along pocketa-pocketa-pocketa just wonderful, you know. I mean, he is doing beautifully and all of a sudden he will put up the classiest facsimile — oh, what a beautiful facsimile he puts up there — and he goes pong! on a can't-have, a mustn't-touch. Because he's said so often about a beautiful facsimile that nobody else must touch it, that he mustn't touch it now; and he just goes occluded. And you go along pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, you're just having a fine time, he puts up this beautiful facsimile and then he looks like he's sort of scared, he flinches back and it's gone.

Your preclear who can't arrive: He simply knows by this time he can only hope. That's what many a preclear is doing who is just sitting in your auditing chair, and that's practically all you're trying to do, is keep up his hope. Hope that what? Hope that he'll arrive, of course.

Well, it's "nothing else must touch it, so he mustn't touch it" and this is too high an order of havingness. Because everything he has will get stolen — that's the one he's working on — everything he has will get lost. He won't be able to retain what he has. A lot of problems associated with havingness come up and he can't have anything that is going to be stolen. So he'll have bad things or he'll have poor things or he'll have something else.

What's wrong with him? He can't arrive. See, it's elementary. The fellow can't arrive, that's why he can't get out of his head. You tell him be three feet back of his head, that's a finite point, and he can't arrive there. Why? Because he can't arrive. Why? Because that's the end of a cycle of motion. Why? Because he can't predict being three feet back of his head, so he can't be there, of course. Why? Because he can't arrive.

Well, of course, an individual who has a problem of havingness has a tendency to get jammed on the track. He starts pulling in all the bad things because nobody's going to steal those. And so we've got another rationale going to work here. And when you have processed somebody and they don't feel well, you ordinarily have reduced their havingness.

And so we get circular logic. Nearly all logic is circular in the end. But fortunately, it has its own uses. All right. So much for that.

Now, I said a thin fellow a while ago, and you know, you may get ahold of somebody who is terribly fat — oh, just terribly fat; eight hundred pounds or something — and you'd say, "Boy, that's sure a problem of too much havingness." Oh no, it's not — it's a problem of too little. See, he's — there's his trouble: problem of too little havingness. He knows it'll be taken from him and he sort of lets it slop around and he doesn't try to constrict it; he's not trying to hold on to it anymore. If he has some havingness, that's no responsibility of his — somebody will take it anyway. So fat or thin, old or young, why, you've got problems in havingness in a preclear.

I hope you understand the problem. And I hope you understand it very well. And I hope you understand that the fellow who is sitting there hoping is a person who is sitting there not predicting.

And as I said, this preclear may finish this session feeling terrible. Well, you may only have blown a half a dozen little ridges or something. You may have only blown something that was quite painful to him, he thought. And you thought, "Gee, that's good, we really got rid of that somatic." And you said, "That's real good." No it wasn't. You reduced his havingness down to a point where he's not interested. Because the way to knock his interest down in creating things is to demonstrate that they can disappear. Well, a guy won't go on endlessly creating if he thinks everything he creates could be stolen even before he gets a chance to look at it. That's a real waste.

It was a very wicked fairy indeed who made man want wishes to come true. He's sitting there wishing; he isn't doing. And if you sit there and wish too, as an auditor, why, he can go on wishing and you can go on wishing, and you after a while, why, you'll both wind up in the — as members of the same sympathy club and that's about as far as it'll go. You'd probably have fun, I mean, so on — both hoping, both wishing.

And by the way, there's a law goes along with that. A person is trying to waste in the mest universe what he should be wasting in Step IV. And you look at this fellow, he has a fixation: He's always trying to clean up rooms and attics and throw them — throw everything out and so forth. Well, he's trying to waste junk. Well, you wouldn't think that was an aberrative condition or a place of entrance on a case, and yet it will be. You can enter the case there — you don't have to — but you can enter the case there by having him waste junk. Oh, my, he'll feel a lot better — waste it in brackets. He can't have junk, that's what he's demonstrating. And so if he can't have junk, that means he's got too little junk and it's gone on an inverted havingness, so he'd have to waste it before he could have it. That's your DEI cycle running backwards. Whatever a person can't have, he generally has to waste first.

That's essentially what praying is. People can't predict at all and so they say, "Well, something else must be able to predict by this time. There's certainly something predicting something around here. The sun is still shining, and the particles of light are still hitting Earth, so something's predicting."

Oh, you can solve lots of cases like this. I mean, this is auditor judgment. And you could just solve more cases like this. You waste things in brackets that people are trying to waste in the mest universe. They won't waste in the mest universe — they just won't, that's the horrible part of it. But they'll waste in his own universe. And they waste in his own universe, and then he can waste them or have them in the mest universe; but he only tries to waste things that he can't have. Very important, that Step IV there. What it leads to in terms of processing is something that an auditor, once he has — once he's come up against a case, the case is moving slowly, and the auditor just keeps on slugging and slugging and slugging — the auditor's up against a case of havingness; something wrong with the guy's havingness. Well, find out what it is and do something about it. And you'll get a higher tone jump by doing that than any other single process I know.

And so they get together — they get together and wish. Only you call it "prayer." They just wish something won't hit them. And they wish that something else won't happen. And they wish that something good will happen and so on.

Well, how do you give him things back? Self Analysis gives him things back. You just keep having him mock up things, and his havingness starts improving. That's all. He just gets more and more, and more and more, and more and more — his havingness. You won't ask him sometimes what's happening to the things, you'll just keep on calling them off; that's why there is never any in Self Analysis — you don't say, "Now, throw it away." You read them a line of Self Analysis and then you read them the next line of Self Analysis. It's sort of their business what they did with what they created, see? And you'll normally find out it snapped into the bank or snapped into some kind of a ridge out in front of them someplace or it gradually withered away in some fashion or another that they can't quite explain.

A horrible pun could be put in there — I've been associating with the wrong people here lately — a person gets "wishy-washy." (audience laughter) Isn't that terrible? You see what you've done to me in this unit? That's really dreadful!

You'll run across some cases that can only mock up four or five things, and then they all of a sudden can't mock up any more. Well, this fellow thinks — he's already sold on energy has to be produced at a certain rate and so forth — he thinks he's run out of energy. That is of course, the main trouble with a case, is he's out of energy. Because energy, condensed energy, becomes havingness. And when we're talking about havingness, we're talking about matter.

Well, anyway, you see there's no escape. I mean, just — you might as well quit. Just no reason even to hope — Hubbard's even destroyed hope now.

Now, I ran across a case one time that really felt degraded. Oh, he felt so degraded. That's terrible. We ran across a facsimile that told us a great deal. This case had been — well, this is a — interesting facsimile, it sounds more or less like a fairy tale, but we shouldn't worry about that. This case had accumulated a tremendous amount of radioactive material, just as a thetan, you see. Just tremendous amount of it, you know, tons and tons and tons of this stuff, and it was suspended — he had it suspended, you see, and he collected it; it was mest universe stuff. And somebody came along and made fun at him and he threw it at them. And you know, we figured for a long time over that facsimile trying to figure out — well, what the dickens was the sudden degradation and the sudden memory cutoff, and it cut off the past and it cut off the future and it just stuck right there. And that facsimile was the one that brought into being — I finally took that facsimile, and by comparing it around and looking around with it for a long time, was able to nail down this problem of havingness and what happened to havingness.

It's like the fellow — saw a cartoon one time, fellow had a great big black­board, huge blackboard, and it had a long column of figures, and equal sign and then zero. And it had a long equation, and then an equal sign and a zero. And it had another long equation and a longer equation and a longer equation, and they all added up to zero. And there's two professors sitting there looking at the blackboard, and he says, "Well, you've got to hand it to him. He really wrapped it up this time!" Yes, sir!

That was a year ago, and we've been making fast progress ever since. And here — he'd thrown it away and, of course, this much sudden cessation of having­ness was just too much loss, that's all. He just — sudden cessation of havingness; it was too much can't-have. So, of course, can't-have — he couldn't have anything. Actually the mass of this radioactive material took off and took the rest of the bank with it. Mass — just a problem in mass. As I say, it sounds like a fairy tale, but it's just an entrance on a case.

So everything equals nothing, and there you are. I mean, that's science. And no better description could be made of it: Everything equals nothing, or nothing equals everything. You get — have to get halfway between that to have anything.

Here you had a case in tremendously degraded condition, this is the only facsimile you could find — what are we going do with this facsimile? It was the only facsimile there; evidently contains within it the explanation of what's happened to the case. So we patched it up. We made a radioactive mountain, simply by doing this: putting out eight anchor points and snapping them in without letting them explode, and setting that one aside and snapping eight anchor points in again.

So, well, I hope you fully appreciate, then — and I hope you fully appreciate that the problem is hopeless. I hope you appreciate that your cases are hopeless. I hope you appreciate that you can't wish yourself out of your heads. I hope you appreciate that you're done for. There's nothing you can do. I hope you appreciate the human race is lost, and that you'll never be able to do a thing for it. I hope you appreciate that.

This boy was exteriorized, by the way. I mean, we were trying to pick up and make healthy a thetan who was flying around and had real good perceptics, but he was real sad. He was a sad thetan. This is the only facsimile he was doting on.

Because you've been appreciating it for a long time. And it's about time you stopped!

And we just snapped things together and put them in a pile and snapped them together and put them in a pile, and then we put — made — started making radioactive anchor points and snapping them together and putting them in a pile, till we built a mountain out of this stuff. Big lot of it — oh, tremendous amount of it and so forth.

Well now, every once in a while, I have a process I hold back to process auditors with. Well, I'm leaving here now. I don't have to do any sudden emer­gency processing. You can always count on me having a half a dozen ahead of what you got, simply because you get into trouble, see, and then I have to bail you out; and if I don't use something surprising and startling on you, why, you just don't bail, you see. So that's the only reason I keep inventing new processes — it isn't that they work any better, you see? (audience laughter)

And then he started taking the stuff cautiously, one little anchor point at a time, see, and he would test to find out whether or not he could throw that away. His recalls turned on for the whole track. Real interesting, huh? Real recalls turned on, on the whole track, got very cheerful, got very happy, was finally willing and able to approach a body and didn't care whether he did or not — you know, no anxiety about it. Well, it was a problem in havingness. All right.

Actually, it's — "He just changes his mind. All this stuff — all of his stuff is contradictory anyway, and it all contradicts everything. I mean, after all we're not solving anything now. I mean, first lecture of the day here today, we were just merely solving Book One, and this stuff's all changed; changes all the time anyhow. You can't predict it. No prediction — let's all pray." (audience laughter)

This case of which I spoke earlier, of the fellow whose — who, facsimiles showed up (and I say just processed him last night, another case of it), practically anything has been done to this case that you can describe, and the case boils down to a problem in havingness.

Well, essentially that's the only reason why we can have a church now is because we can do the only effective praying there can be done, which is predict the coincidence of two particles — pam! Yeah. Sure. All right.

And when I said in the congress tapes that we've got a problem of energy starvation at anywhere around IV and V, that's right — that's all there is there, it's a problem in energy. And that's a problem in havingness. And the basic thing that — go out of gear on it is time. And if time goes out of gear on it, memory gets misplaced because memory is incident per time. So if havingness is upset, memory gets upset.

So there must be and might be a technique that'd bail a preclear out of this and wouldn't bog him down, wasn't hard to use, that you could use on yourself and that you just take that and it'd kind of clean a case up all the way up along the line and that would be that. There might be such a technique, you know.

You find anybody who has got an occluded field stuck in a loss. How do you give him the loss back? Well, it's very easy. All you've got to do is snap the thing lost together, make space with it as the anchor points and then pull it in and set it aside; and pull it in and set it aside, and pull it in and — make it, you know, and pull it in, set it aside; make it, pull it...

And, of course, if I had it and I didn't pass it along to you, why, that would be upsetting, wouldn't it? So I've decided not to tell you about this one, I've decided to hold this one back. Because some of you might get high enough up the Tone Scale so that I wouldn't know more than you know, and then that would be fatal, you see. And if I held back this piece of information, then of course I'd always know more than you know and so on, and then that would be — that would — well, let's see, what would it do? Just a minute, I'll have to figure out something it'll do. Must be something that it would do! Well, anyhow, there it is.

All of a sudden he won't care he lost this girl — the most beautiful girl that ever lived and so forth, and he'll never get over it and so on. Blow the grief charge of being gone? No, thank you. Now, that guy will keep the facsimile of a loss around because he's at least got that. And facsimiles will fly off and do you do anything about them? Nope.

Well, such a process isn't, however, sufficient into itself. Sometimes you neglect to realize how much you do know about Scientology — quizzes aside. You neglect to know how much you know; and you think, "Well, gee-whiz, why didn't I have that some time ago? And if he'd just come out in the first place a few years ago and said that, why, then you'd know all about it and I wouldn't have had to worry about it, and I wouldn't have fussed and stewed and my case wouldn't have bogged down, and I wouldn't have gone through all this agony," and that sort of thing.

Well, now what's this got to do with prediction? Every one of you is being very alert, probably, and every human being is being alert as to what people will say. Trying to predict what people will say, particularly people of the opposite sex, because that in itself predicts havingness. And about the lowest level of it is trying to find out how people will react. What will they think? Well, boy, that is the shadowiest shadow that you have ever seen in your life. What will they think? That's real silly. But it predicts your future havingness. And you're protective of your future havingness to a degree — what the emotional reaction and what people are going to say and how they're going to greet what you do and greet what you say and all of that, that's very important.

By the way, it isn't true. It isn't necessarily true at all that you could get away with knowing a single line of data — just one thing. Let's take an extreme case. Let's take you, and we're going to invent the culture of Upglotta. It doesn't live on a planet. It doesn't have any kind of language that is detectable. It doesn't use symbols. And however, the people there are so crazy they think the people of Earth are going to kill them; and you're all of a sudden there, and you're going to process them. And you do have a little line that you realize that all you have to say to them is, "Upglolla, upglolla, upglolla," and that will promptly clear them, and they will be in good shape and they won't attack Earth.

Sometimes a case will have a face somatic — you won't know what it is — or a complete face numbness. It's just them trying to find out what somebody else is going to think. That's all. Why is he worried about that? Merely because it's going to influence terrifically the individual's problem in havingness.

Well, you could do that, theoretically; but you see, you don't know the language and you don't know what their behavior might be, you don't know what their customs are, and you don't know what the inner workings are. And so you sit there with about 99 percent of your attention on what might happen, and you forget to say, "Upglolla, upglolla, upglolla," because after all, there's no telling what they're doing. Now, that would be that sort of a problem, you know?

And that's all there is to it.

You just take an auditor and you put this "Upglolla" in his hands, and he goes out and he says to a bunch of people, any — expect anything to happen, merely because he doesn't have the other fundamentals to back it up. If he doesn't have these fundamentals, why, he's in horribly deranged condition with regard to an individual.

Supposing you didn't know anything about an engram. And you go up to this fellow and you say, "Well, all right" — and supposing you just didn't know a thing about an engram; you thought a fellow — you know, that brains were born in cabbage patches or something. And you didn't know anything about this, and you went up to some fellow and used this technique and — "gs-gmm-gugy" and he all of a sudden started to have a slight convulsion and then passed out. You knew nothing about havingness; you knew nothing about convulsions that might occur; you knew nothing about a facsimile. What would you do?

Well, he obviously can't go on running this technique because if he — it'd just ruin him, you'd think maybe. Or maybe there's something new and wrong and terrible and strange which has just occurred and somebody's changed all the laws of the universe.

Well, you could always think somebody was about to change the laws of the universe if you didn't know them. If you didn't have any inkling of what the laws of the universe were, why, you could think day to day they'd been repealed and shifted.

People could come along and tell you, "Well, people have changed their mind today, and the laws of the universe are all changed." And you'd just simply have to say yes, because you don't know what they were yesterday. And when they don't even tell you what they are today, why, you'd sure have to agree. Wouldn't you?

Well now, you'll get some character walking around, and you all of a sudden find out that this person can't even vaguely keep his mind on your processing for two minutes; he just can't do it.

You give him a little technique and he just is incapable of it. He keeps flying off the handle, and all of a sudden he'll break down and cry, and he'll do this and he'll do that. There's no consistency, and you don't seem to be able to get any control over him. No control. I mean, just — you keep saying things to him and other things keep happening, and you're not predicting that particle worth a nickel.

Well, that's because you wouldn't know that this individual might have a name, for instance, which caused him to bounce all over the track, or he might have a very deteriorated condition. He might have a deteriorated condition in the terms of arrival, to a point where he couldn't actually walk to a point in the room. You don't have any means or know why he isn't obeying you; you don't have any means of making him obey you just enough. You don't know anything about exterior direction. You're just lost about all these things.

And yet you'd have this little line. Just because you get something new that's a little bit faster, why, don't promptly forget what I've been teaching you here the last few weeks, because you're going to need it; you're going to need all of it. Sooner or later you'll run into it — crunch! And it isn't that you have to carry it around with you in your pocket, but you take a look at this data and you know what it is. All right.

What's this technique? This technique is Step Ia, first line. You almost sprung it out here the other day. It's quite obvious; it sits right in the material.

It's Straightwire on unfinished cycles of action. Now, isn't that a terrible thing? You've been learning all about cycles of action, and you've been doing it in Mock-up Processing and so forth, and yet didn't occur to you that you could do that by Straightwire. That's tough, isn't it?

And yet it's the most effective process there is. That's right, that's the seniorest process there is. That's why it's the first line of Step Ia.

And I've known for a long time — known for a very long time — that prediction, Straightwire on prediction, was very good. And I all of a sudden got it into line today on a tested basis and so forth, so I can give it to you; and it's just at the time when you need it.

You get the fellow to name three cycles of action he hasn't completed.

And then get him to name three cycles of action somebody else hasn't completed.

And then get him to name three cycles of action that somebody else hasn't completed for somebody else.

And you don't have to have in that three cycles of action for himself. Or himself having three cycles of action for somebody else. You don't have to do it that way.

Just three cycles of action for himself — uncompleted cycles of action for himself; three uncompleted cycles of action that somebody else has; three uncompleted cycles of action that somebody has for somebody else. And you go round and round and round and round.

Well, that's not very intelligible, is it? I mean, you ask this — you sit down, this preclear sit down there, you know, and he says, "Say," he says, "what are you talking about?"

You say, "Now, give me another uncompleted cycle of action."

And he says, "What? What are you talking about?"

And you say, "Well, it's very simple. The basic curve of the universe is start, change and stop." You could go on and on there, not be able to do that at all.

So the next one you have to run into is some kind of nomenclature that'll put this across to your preclear. Well, there's a lot of things — the way you can say that. Well, that's the basic way you can say that.

Now, one of it is, "Give me three things which you meant to complete which you never did." That's your patter.

And "Give me three things somebody else meant to complete but never did." That could be your patter too, couldn't it?

"Now give me three people you wanted to reach you — three people you didn't want to reach you," you could put it that way, too.

Well, there's a simpler way of putting all of it, see, a much simpler way. You could say, "Give me three goals which you never achieved; three goals you never accomplished. Somebody else, three goals you never accomplished. Three goals that somebody else had for somebody else that were never accomplished." Round and round and round and round and round and round.

Well, we're ready for that right now, because we've been talking enough about havingness so that you won't do the horrible trick of breaking up somebody's little red wagon. Because this technique would break up somebody's little red wagon rather fast. He'll start to run out engrams on it, because you're rearranging his havingness.

What's his havingness hung up on all over the track? Incomplete cycles of action. Well, if you have incomplete cycles of action, there you are — hung up.

What's "stuck on the track"? An uncompleted cycle of action. You know all this — I was talking to you about this a long time ago.

Well, the patter that best serves on something like this would be almost anything that would fit the frame of reference of the preclear, but it'd be just Straightwire.

And many a preclear can get this who would not be able to tell you where he is not. So that's why it's first on the line. He couldn't give you three places where he's not. But he can give you three things he meant to do that he never did.

See, you can use any kind of patter: "Now, give me three things you meant to do and never did. Somebody else, three things they meant to do and never did. Now somebody else, three things they meant to do for somebody else and never did," and so on. And you go round and round and round and round and round and round.

Now, you can Straightwire yourself on this, because you know what you're reaching for. You know what you're reaching for. Basically you only want this: incomplete stops, incomplete changes and incomplete starts; incomplete creations, incomplete survivals, incomplete destructions; incomplete reachings and incomplete withdrawings; incomplete duplications. And that's the "woiks" as they say in Brooklyn.

So your formula for that runs into all of that.

Now, it'll sort of run out and evaluate for the preclear automatically. But you would be surprised, if — that is to say, if he's a fairly bright preclear you could kind of start him running on this, you know, and he'd find out a lot of this in the course of the next fifteen or twenty or thirty hours of processing. But if he's steered just a little bit, you'll steer him right out of the engram he's in.

Why? What's an engram? It's normally in suspense because it failed to complete a cycle of action. He had an operation; he had an operation for "blugwug." And he had this horrible disease "blugwug," and after the operation he still had "blugwug." You'll find that in suspense; you'll find that engram sitting there, just waiting. You find it right there. All right.

We'll get into this one: He had, for instance, sinus trouble. He was operated on for sinus trouble; didn't end his sinus trouble. He was well for many months after the operation, and then all of a sudden got the same old sinus trouble again. Incomplete cycle of action. And that, in essence, is a failure.

A failure is a cycle of action which one thinks he has completed, which suddenly is demonstrated not to have been completed. That's a big failure — big, big failure. Because that's got a sort of a double-barreled effect on it. And those are the ones you find the individual stuck in — the double-barrel failures — because there's such a terrific tone drop.

You remember the emotional curve and emotional curve processing? Now, you have it in Advanced Procedures and Axioms and you have it in the Handbook for Preclears — you got material on this — emotional curves. There's a lot about it in there. That's very early material and quite vital.

Because this is the cue: it's how much difference of havingness per unit of time, is the formula of the emotional curve. Rate of change of havingness. When it's real fast, a fellow can get awfully upset by it.

Now, let's take the fellow who receives eight million dollars. He's poor, he's very poor, he knows he'll never have any money, and somebody walks in and dumps eight million dollars on him and it's all in cash. You know where you'd find that fellow? You'd find him in a hospital. You'd find him in an insane asylum. That's just as bad as the fellow sitting there with eight million dollars and his secretary walks in rather casually and says, "Well, the bank just failed and you're completely broke." Honest, he'll just keep sitting there. You've stopped time for him. Because the rate of change of havingness is too great.

I was telling you a little earlier about this fellow and the — throwing away all this mass of radioactive material. His rate of change of havingness — he did it, but his rate of change of havingness was so great that he got a tone drop from high exaltation down to annoyance (slight annoyance, but way up scale annoyance) and then all of a sudden he gets rid of that huge mass, and he went from strong, able, everything, to complete degradation — lower than a tramp or a bum. And he stayed that way for some thousands of years, which gives you some kind of an idea of what the rate of change of havingness will do to somebody. It will park him, but quick. Because it's too much mass, and no prediction with relationship to it.

Now, some fellow has just lost his father, and you've got the horrible job of telling him so. So you walk around and you catch him when he's sitting there — you sort of cheer him up, you get him to a point where he's being very cheerful about life, he's built up pretty good, he's real happy, and then you look at him and you shout at him suddenly, "Your father just died." Well, you'd probably kill him. That's probably what would happen to him.

The way to tell him would be to tell him slow. Let him find out there was something wrong. And then get him thinking about that, and stir it in a little bit more, and then tell him slow and tell him low and don't tell him all at once, because if you can stretch it across a little time, he won't get any emotional shock from it; he won't get a shock. If you let his tone come down a little bit, a little more concerned, a little more concerned, he can hit rock bottom and come back up again. That's because you haven't robbed him, in terms of rate of change of havingness.

Now, he has a father, you see, that's a mass. And you all of a sudden tell him this huge, powerful mass — this thing that carried him around when he was a little baby and supported him most of his life and so forth — you told him this huge, powerful mass is suddenly missing. And you tell him that quick and it's just liable to jar him completely out of orbit; he's never liable to get back into orbit. Preclear comes in, sits down in the chair, and never gets back into orbit.

You can say, "Three uncomplete goals. Give me three uncompleted goals. Give me three goals somebody else failed to complete," and you'll get into the same thing. But know its basic mechanic before you start running into it. But you can just run it and run it and run it.

What kind of cycles of action do we specialize in? Well, I've already covered that: start, change, stop, reach, withdraw are the most important ones offhand. You don't have to run emotion, you don't have to do much of anything with it. You permit him, then, to have unhavingness and havingness.

Now, incomplete cycles of action — a very important level of this is incom-pleted cycles of action on havingness and unhavingness. And you'll track right straight back to the basic curve on the case. And that basic curve is the service facsimile. The fellow has been running over this for ages. And you can Straightwire with this incompleted cycles of action on havingness, incompleted cycles of action on not-havingness, or unhavingness. And you can go right straight back through the emotional range of the individual down through the ages. And you get, in essence, a stripped case.

And this is why the fellow's upset — why he has ridges and why he doesn't have ridges. Now, I covered havingness a little earlier today, and I covered the ridge problem many times, and I told you something was wrong with the fellow's havingness.

Well, when a fellow gets down to the strata of being a Homo sapiens, his rate of change of havingness has all been unhavingness. In other words, it's unhavingness; and so he can't have hardly anything. So it's just at this level in Homo sapiens and a little bit higher that you find it's always a problem in havingness, never a problem in unhavingness.

But his basic cycle is liable to be a curve on unhavingness.

Okay.