You think of an elephant, you think "elephant." There's an elephant, mental image picture, only it's one you saw in the zoo or one that chased you a few generations back.
What kind of a universe is this? Well, it's very personal because those particular scenes and pictures actually do record and make a permanent record of — until a Dianeticist gets hold of you — events through which you have passed. You have a picture of something that happened.
Now, once in a while you actually mock something up or you get a picture of something you would like to invent — something of that sort — and you get a similar picture. That we call a "mock-up" — something that is not a picture of the physical universe.
Now, one of these mental image pictures we actually call a "facsimile," which means a copy of, and it's just a copy of the physical universe. And you will find out that the facsimiles which a person most readily has to hand are facsimiles he has taken or manufactured to record items which he is about to lose or is losing. And he cherishes those. He keeps the picture of the item, instead of the item he lost.
Now, if you had a universe of your own, I'm sure that the floors in that universe would be as solid as this one.
Now, just take a look at your own bank. Go ahead, take a look at this universe of pictures. Get a picture of something. Got it?
Audience: Yeah. Uh-huh.
All right, now, I want you to stamp on the floor. Okay, how solid is that floor?
Audience: Real solid.
Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
All right, now get that picture you had of something. Now stamp on it. Is it as solid as the floor?
Audience: Yes. No.
All right, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but there's a difference, isn't there?
Audience: Yes.
Now, the other fellow's universe may or may not be solid, but certainly there is something very comforting and reassuring about this floor. Would you tell me why it is that an individual gets sick to the degree that he cannot tolerate a physical universe solid such as that pillar? And why does he get well when you tell him he can have the pillar or to look around and find things he can have? In other words, when you increase his physical universe possession, he observably gets well. This is therapy.
Doctors dramatize this. They can't let people have too much, so they take little grains of barbiturates or something and they take little grains of the physical universe and little granules of the physical universe and little capsules of the physical universe and ... And they think it'll make some-body well.
Well, I told you that we Scientologists are always thinking big. We don't know how to think small and the theory is that if you can ... and make somebody well, well let's get him to take a building.
The question is: Does it work? Does it work? All right, you tell me, Scientologists, does it work to increase somebody's havingness?
Audience: Yes!
Ah, what the devil do you suppose does that? Is it actually true that this stuff that these floors and ceilings and walls are made out of are therapeutic in some fashion? Is it actually true that they are?
Audience: Yes.
Yes, well that's a peculiar thing. What's the matter with a preclear? What is the matter with a preclear?
Male voice: He can't have any planets.
That's right, he can't have it. And up here we have "Know" and then of course, we have "Not Know," "Emotion," "Effort" and "Solids," but we'll put "Solids" here. And under "Solids" we have "Think." Down here we have "Mystery." As an individual decreases in mental capability and ability he goes down this scale — "Eat," "Sex," "Mystery" — whatever it is. He gets stuck on some part of this scale.
Actually, if he were at the top of the scale and he could really think a thought, in other words, postulate a thought, he would be able to do some-thing quite interesting. He would be able to make that thought felt on anything else in this scale of Know to Mystery.
In other words, here he's thinking about something; up here he thinks at something. This is the difference between a pocket adding machine and a lightning bolt! This thing called "Solids" in a game condition is of course a barrier, or it's a missile. And when an individual can't tolerate a solid, he can't have a playing field and if he can't have a playing field, he can't have a game. And that's all you can say about it.
An individual who could think a direct thought, cause — a direct thought, by the way, is quite interesting — a direct thought is exactly a communication. It is cause-distance-effect. Cause-distance-effect. He thinks a thought — boom! Now, if he is very aberrated indeed he can only think thoughts that cause horrible results. It isn't necessary to think that kind of a thought unless you are hard to convince that you have achieved an effect.
These individuals who work so hard to achieve an effect actually are not achieving one or they simply can achieve a bad one. A nation which can only kill another nation on a battlefield is already so disabled that it can't really tolerate a game; it can't think a nice direct thought, and your cause-distanceeffect is, however, possible only up here.
Now, did you ever read a book written by a professor? I mean one of these real lovely articles that say, "This is the story about — this is the tale of ice ages. This is the cause and so on of ice ages. The ice ages begun, it is said according to Professor Wumph, at a certain period of time which by an analysis of the fossilized remains by the archaeology department of the University of Michigan did seem to occur. However, this is contested by Professor Spath."
You know, I well remember the first time — the first time I ever ran up against this phenomena, because it's phenomenal, believe me. I got into a state of mind — I wanted to write a story about the ice ages back in the good old days, so I, of course, went and got the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I opened it up and it says, "Ice Ages." So I read and that was what I read: "According to the fossilized remains of Professor Spath," why, and so on and so on and so on. And I read, read, getting groggier and groggier. I couldn't find in there anywhere where the ice ages had been caused by anything! Evidently as far as I could discover about these ice ages is they were being discussed. There was no description of when the ice ages began, why they began, what happened, no direct statement of any kind. But, boy, was there a lot of discussion! That subject of the ice ages was so thoroughly discussed that I was disgusted. In fact, I almost became allergic to ice ages.
Needless to say I wrote the story about tropical times.
Well, look at the difference — the fellow who writes about something and the fellow who writes something. Get the difference?
Now there is nothing wrong with writing something about something or discussing something — there is nothing wrong with this at all. It's a common pastime. It's perfectly okay, but don't seriously pass it off as the thing. In other words, because we write about something we are not writing the thing, you see that?
Male voice: Yeah.
It should be very clear.
A handbook on how to start and maintain diesel engines has great value. If you read it, you know how to run, handle and use diesel engines. Another book which gives types of diesel engines and their inventions and that sort of thing is actually equally interesting. There is nothing wrong with it. A fellow who is in good shape should be able to write all over the Tone Scale. But, how about the fellow who writes a book entitled How to Start, Handle and Maintain Diesel Engines and then starts it out this way, "The first diesel engine was evidently discovered or invented — whereas there is some question about this — by a Swedish individual who — however, in his own writings credited his idea to the Italians."
Chapter Two: "Diesel engines are said to be very difficult to maintain at times, but other authorities claim they are very easy to run."
Chapter Three: "In maintaining diesel engines there are many books available ..."
You see, he's written a book here that pretends to be here. Get the difference? In other words, the difference is that of honesty. If you write a book about something and say it's about that something, all right. But if you write a book about something and say it is the thing, you are being very dishonest.
There is a subject called — I forget its name — just a minute, it's phrenology. Phrenology. It's taught in most universities. No, it's not its name. "Psychic phenomena," I think it's called. It's taught in most universities anyway. I have forgotten — it used to be taught and it says that it is this book on the subject of the mind, when it is this book on the subject of the mind. You got the difference?
Male voice: Yeah.
That's a singular difference, isn't it? Because this book will never do anything else but shy away from solids. This material will never think or pose a causative thought. It's perfectly all right to write about things if you're writing about things and it's really necessary and interesting to have books about things.
You ever read a book about stamps? Well, it's perfectly legitimate to have a book about stamps; they're a lot of fun. A book about paintings, a book about this, a book about that — perfectly all right. But a book which discussed paintings from Rembrandt backwards or something of the sort, but had a title — all it did was discuss paintings and say what museums they were in and how much they cost people — and title itself, How to Paint and Become a Famous Painter, is a fraud. It's a complete fraud, see?
So, we have to differentiate between the professorial figure-figure material which pretends to be the subject and actually this. You see that? Well, it's all very well to look over that and run down those good people who actually are making a living. I wonder if they sometimes don't go on an interesting motto.
Anyway, an interesting book can be written on any subject under the sun — about it. But if the book pretends to be it, what use is it? What use is a universe which is only about another universe? What is it? What use is a book that is only about things except as a matter of passing interest? It's not a causative book, is it? What use really is a universe which is only about another universe? It's a sort of a discussion. What most people call their own universes are a discussion of the physical universe. And that which you have been calling and which I call "own universe" is only a false universe picture gallery of the physical universe.
I told you I didn't have anything very important to talk to you about. All I am describing is the actual anatomy of the reactive mind and that's dead so long that it's hardly any use at all.
So, do you have your own universe? Is there a universe that you can call your own universe? Is there one? Hm? Is there one, really?
Audience: Yes.
What is it?
Audience: This one.
Huh, you're right. That's your universe. Well, why do you think that you don't have a total ownership on the thing? That's because in the process of games, people disenfranchise people gradually, a little bit. They say, "You can't play this game. You can't come close to it." They say, "You have to have a deed before you can walk on this property." Get the barriers? "You have to pay a certain sum of money with the Recorder of Motor Vehicles before you can drive this car." You got the idea?
Well, it changes our thinking considerably on this whole subject. This universe — physical universe was evidently actually built by us. We built it. And then after a while we mocked up things that we couldn't stop often enough and we decided not to create that solidly anymore, and we stopped mocking things up that solidly. We stopped putting things together with that much glue and we said, "You know, we get in trouble mocking this stuff up and never unmocking it." Or "We sold ourselves and other people sold us a bill of goods and they told us we had to get out of the universe somewhat." And a fellow draws back at last and he only keeps pictures of the physical universe and he said that's his own universe.
Why can't you or don't you mock up a better floor, a better car, a better house? Why? When a bullet comes at you that's traveling mighty fast and you can't stop the bullet, why don't you mock up a piece of armor plate in front of you? You know, these bodies don't stop bullets well. There have been many clinical tests made on the subject. Well, why don't you mock up an armor shield to have the bullet go clang against it?
It's because you began to be intolerant of solids. That's the answer. You said, "There are enough barriers around already. I won't be guilty of mocking up another one." Here's this huge universe, huge, with a handful of planets in it and a few suns, and we decided there was already enough walls. There were already enough walls. We didn't need any more. Let's not be quite so solid in our mock-ups.
We ourselves as thetans are not solid. We therefore begin to find fault with solids because we cannot completely duplicate a solid, and a solid never duplicates us and so the communication formula is violated.
And a communication formula has this interesting fact connected with it. Here we have at cause a certain idea or entity. At effect, a perfect communication would have the same duplicate or entity, don't you see? Supposing at cause we had a small pebble; at effect we would still have to have a small pebble. When we have effect — small pebble — we would have a small pebble back here at cause. In other words, for cause to hit with a pebble, it is really necessary for cause to be able to tolerate a pebble back. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Covenant 83" or whatever it is. I'm not quite sure what the quotation is. You possibly could help me out.
Now, we have this situation here. We've got a problem in cause and effect. A thetan looks at a solid. Here's this board here — it's solid. I am back up here about three feet of my head — I look at that board, see the board real well. I sort of have a feeling like I ought to be a board. If I'm unwilling to be a board I don't see the board very well at all. You get what the problem is? Well, as an individual is disabused of the idea that he should mock up things, that he does own this universe — as he gets disabused of this idea, he is less and less willing to perceive it. And in view of the fact that if he doesn't mock it up all the time it isn't there as soon as he falls down on the job and stops mocking it up that solidly, he starts to have trouble with it!
Now, let's get the idea of a great big ice cube here — great big ice cube and we look at this ice cube and we realize that it's going to melt. If we don't put more ice cube there, we're not going to have any ice cube. Is that right?
Audience: Yes.
It's inevitable.
Well, what's the difference between that ice cube and that pillar? There is no essential difference except the ice cube leaves some water when it disappears, and the pillar leaves a headache.
When you become the total effect of the physical universe, you believe it is no longer your universe. You can still see it because misownership is at work, but you don't mock it up anymore, you don't assist it to appear, you don't keep time going clickity-clack, all because of what? Because you don't want to look at solids anymore. You think that solids are something you want to avoid here. You want to stay below it.
Let's think about walls, let's don't mock them up. It's very funny — we've had this for a long time, "Look, don't think." Got a car, it isn't running. You take it into a garage mechanic who is in terrible condition — the garage mechanic is. You run the car in the garage and he says, "Well, let's see, what could be wrong with that car?" Drive on, find another garage. When you get back the wheels will be off of it, too.
But you drive into a garage, drive your car in — something wrong with it — mechanic doesn't start arranging with you about the bill or anything. He-up with the hood . . . It's quite remarkable. Why? As one becomes allergic to solid masses, walls, books, brooks, pebbles, kings, cats and coal heavers, he stops looking at them. Some part of him is still mocking them up sort of back over here, you know. "I'm scared of that thing." See? But he can't remedy anything about them.
In order to solve a problem it is necessary to confront the solids connected with the problem. If you can confront the solids connected with the problem, you can solve the problem. We explain this in many ways.
A fellow is mad at us; he's going yap-yap-yap-yap, chop-chop-chop. We say, "I'd better not go over there and talk to him, he's mad. Better stay away from that." I believe Scientologists know better now. They have rationalizations and explanations for it. That fellow is over there chop-chop-chop and he's saying, "Hiya, Joe! What's wrong? Is something wrong?" Joe ... You see, confronts the solid.
Now, it isn't true that thetans are solid. They're not — they're not solid. I was talking to a thetan one day and he said something. He was using American slang or something and he said, "That's solid, Jackson."
I said, "What?"
He said, "That idea."
I says, "Is it? I can't see it."
"Oh," he says, "you're just being a purist." He says, "You belong down here in Hubbard's symbols."
But as we put this universe back together again, as we're willing to put this universe back together again, we can handle it, we can control it. There isn't anything in it which can stand before us and if we can handle it and control it, we can also make it disappear.
There is a process that rides right up here just below Know, which is Not Know. Auditors have a lot of fun with this process. They take a preclear out — it's very, very hard to train an auditor to run the process who himself has not experienced the phenomena. Very hard.
I've thought of several examples. Takes a preclear out and you audit him. "Well, all right look around here. Tell me if there's anything you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that wall, about that person, about this, about that." Person — "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing that curtains were hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that Declaration of Human Rights is hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing it had a light hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing this. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that," so forth.
He goes along — auditor is perfectly happy — nothing is happening. "All right, now, tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that person over there."
"Well, wouldn't mind not-knowing her head, wouldn't mind not-knowing her shoes, wouldn't mind not-knowing her dress."
The auditor says, "Okay, that's enough. Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that girl over there."
Preclear says, "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing her hat. Hey!"
The auditor says, "What's the matter? What's the matter? Something happen? Get a somatic?"
Preclear says, "I did!"
And the auditor says, "You did what?"
"I not-knew her hat!"
Auditor says, "You did? What do you mean?"
"Well, her hat disappeared."
"It did? How did that happen?" Auditor spends the next two hours trying to find out what occurred.
I was being audited on this subjectively one time by an auditor whose name I won't mention. And I really won't mention it because of the Code of a Scientologist, but I ought to.
He was giving me a quick assist. He walked into the office and I'd just got through talking to a couple of preclears. I wasn't auditing them; I didn't have a chance to. They came in the office, they were screaming at each other. They were both in training and they had gotten into an argument during an auditing session over some breach of the Auditor's Code. And they were in the contention that they were both — they were both auditors.
And I had just finished a couple of lectures — or anything like that — and they were so mad at each other. I was sitting there listening to this. I finally settled it; I said, "You guys, you think you are both auditors. As far as I can see you are both preclears. Go on back and find some more about it." So they did.
This other auditor walked in the office immediately afterwards and says, "What's the matter with you?"
I was sitting there at the desk, "Oh, no," you know. And I says, "This is just too much."
And he says, quickly, brightly, you know — coffee shop auditing — he says to me, "What wouldn't you mind not-knowing about what just happened?"
And I says, "Oh, I don't know, that they were standing there. Hey, what do you know, ha, I did not — wait a minute. What was I supposed to not-know? I've not-known it."
And he looks at me and he says, "The two students that were just in your office!"
So, at the next meeting of the board we yanked his thetan.
Anyway, you can actually not-know this stuff. Well, that's one action — it disappears for you. In other words, you remove your participation from it. This is an absolute phenomenon. There's another phenomenon which is of a higher level; that is merely the first stage of it. You actually can not-know such a thing as a pillar, so thoroughly, evidently, that nobody could see it. Something like this could occur. But certainly an individual can not-know it himself personally.
Now, you want to turn on mock-ups with some pc, all you have to tell him is, "Decide to put a beautiful mock-up on that wall. Now decide that if you did it, it would spoil the game and don't do it." And he makes these decisions in order and you just keep telling him just those same phrases. "Decide to put a mock-up on the wall — a beautiful picture. Now decide that it would spoil the game if you did it and don't do it." And he does this and he does this. He does this a dozen times and all of a sudden this fellow that has never had mock-ups suddenly has a 3D, full color, full visio, full smellio mock-up.
Evidently we keep thinking that this sort of thing would spoil the game.
Now, why can't you mock up a body right there, you see, that everybody can see? Why can't you do that? It isn't lack of talent. It's evidently merely aberration. An "aberration" is simply falling back from your fullest capabilities. You can run this one, you can say, "Now decide to mock a mock-up there that everybody can see. Now decide that if you did that it would spoil the game and don't do it." You just keep running this drill, running this drill, running this drill. All of a sudden he says, "Oh, no, you don't."
You say, "What's the matter?"
"Look, if I put that there, if I started mocking up mock-ups it would spoil the game. It would. I could mock up dollar bills that would pass. I could mock up banks, trucks, cops, armies, anything. There wouldn't be any game; it's a no-game condition. You would be able to mock up everything."
Well, I left him in that because it was in session. But a couple of days later I was having lunch with him and he went over this routine. And I said, "Did you — it ever occur to you that if I drilled on it too, it wouldn't be a no-game condition?"
"No," he says, "you're a friend of mine, I wouldn't go into contest with you." Well, evidently we are restrained for fear of spoiling the game one way or the other, for fear of as-ising the universe and so forth. But we get to a point where we are not aware of what we are doing, we hide it too carefully, we hide it too thoroughly and the next thing we know we can't do it. About then we become human. And a long time too late we send for an auditor.
But I will tell you what importance this little theory of universes has. And it's very important. In February of this last year I made myself quite ill. I was trying to resolve atomic fission, body reaction to, doing quite a few experiments on this line. Some understanding of why I was not in the United States will come to you when you realize that actually you're not supposed to do experiments with fission in the United States. There are some people down here that frown at it. I've written a series of letters asking whether or not one could indulge in experiments in atomic fission in the United States these days, and the government has answered them very promptly, but each time has said that I ought to go contact some nonclassified, nonsecurity university group someplace. I don't know what the university group has got to do with it. I was talking about practical research, and actually there is no answer. They say, "Well, maybe you can and maybe you can't, and is it — it's against the law, but maybe it isn't against the law," and they are quite confused about it. But there's nothing about atomic fission in Ireland, I assure you.
Well, anyway we were doing some experiments along in this line, and it was obvious that the best way to keep an atomic war from doing anything interesting to the country such as denude it of its population — which is, of course, I realize not as full an effect as a usual nuclear physicist would like to have a country have — I realize it's below his acceptance level, but it's the best he could do. You know, you've got to make allowances. He's a scientist, he has his drawbacks and his level of acceptance is — well, they're trying to figure it out now, so, they suffer for six or eight months before they finally kick off. But there are some humane generals around by the way who object to this. They say that it ought to kill everybody instantly. They have a much higher level of acceptance.
Anyway, I'm being very snide, but I don't think that the atomic efforts which are being made actually merit anything but very snide remarks. I don't know if you agree with me or not, but that's the way I look at it.
Well, I was trying to do what I could in order to discover whether or not auditing could actually proof a body up against atomic fission. In other words, could you audit somebody in such a way that when they were hit with gamma and the rest of it, they would not be badly burned or affected. Could you do this?
Ha, I learned it the hard way. I do not think it can be done. It is a total failure. That project dead-ended in February. And when I got well sometime in March I had to postulate a new line of research on the same subject. And I said, well, the silliest line of research, the reductio ad absurdum that would end all absurdities everywhere would be to solve atomic fission this way: All you do is fix a preclear up so that if he loses a body he could mock up one. And mock it up with a postulate that atomic energy doesn't affect it. See? Somebody drops a bomb on you, you mock up another mock-up, move over here and say, "Well, hello, Joe."
Well, life, when I am doing research, may not be sensible but it's always interesting. Well, that was — that was the one solution I put down. That was one way to go about it, one direction for research to take; and I wrote down five or six more, but five or six more, they just were nothing. I looked over the situation. If you cannot fix up a civilization so that it will dispose of its man-killing weapons, then the next step would be to fix up the civilization so that it would be defended against such things. But if you can't do that and both of these things have failed, then the next best thing to do would be to fix up its population and the food supply so that it wasn't too allergic to atomic radiation. And if you couldn't do that, let's at least cure some of the burns which have occurred. Well, we can do that; we're on safe ground there.
People who would probably die within twenty days, something like that, could probably be saved rather uniformly with some good auditing. We do have the only known cure for atomic fission.
Well, it may be the only cure but it's not good enough; it's not good enough. Too many people go up in smoke when these bombs hit. There aren't enough auditors around to patch them all up right at once, so it's not very good unless we got on an all-out program and squared it around. It's almost easier to go out on a program which actually takes care of the bomb itself, which insists on international control in a sensible wise, and straightens out this mad tangle. Nevertheless, it's a very good thing to have a cure.
All right, we are — a book
What this book takes up is — for about three-quarters of its length — is simply the cause and prevention of radiation difficulties. And the last third of the book, or a little less, takes up how you solve the serious — or less serious burns with Scientology processes. This book is in composition at this time and probably will be written — completely written in a few months, since my part of it has to be written after the other part is finished. It's a composite of practically all of the books on radiation that have been written, but more importantly it's a composite of armed forces courses on the subject of the prevention of radiation. But that book will be out in a few months and we'll at least have this little bit and piece in the bookstores for people to read, because there is nothing else for them there on the subject.
The US Government Civil Defense Program says the first thing you have to know about civil defense: "That in the event of an attack by enemy atomic bombs, you're on your own. There's nobody going to help you." That's right.
That's the first paragraph of their book — you think I'm joking. "Nobody is going to help you. You're on your own." In other words, the country is gone the moment an A-bomb goes boom. That is as far as I can figure out. That may not be their program but I have been given to understand that it is, by their own literature. They should write their literature a little bit better.
Well, this book — this book will be of interest to you because it will attract attention to you. People will be very happy to have about — to have some solution about this but that still was not a line of research, was it? And I was left in this horrible state — I was left in a horrible state. Something terrible! I was left with the only direction of search being you mock up a body — "Hiya, Joe." You know. Somebody burns down your mock-up — you'll have to be able to mock one up yourself. It's the only direction of research there was so I followed it — silly thing to do. And since March have wrapped up the subject.
Thank you.
So you see, it wasn't as silly as it sounded, but it led one into some other conclusions which were quite evident — that an individual, as he becomes incapable — as he becomes incapable of mocking up pillars, floors and walls, falls out of the game. He thinks about it, he doesn't do anything about it and he doesn't play it.
It became obvious that there were three universes: the other fellow's universe that he could mock up in addition to the physical universe if he were Clear, the physical universe that you and he mocked up and the universe that you could mock up if you were Clear. So, there is such a thing as your own universe, and it's very solid, but we haven't seen any yet. Now, that's quite important.
We mistake the reactive mind for our own universe. You see how that would be? Because it has pictures, because it has barriers, we say, "Well, that's my universe and the other fellow's reactive mind is his universe, and mock-ups, mock-ups, and then there is this big solid thing called the MEST universe." No, reactive mind, MEST universe, reactive mind is the way it is at this time, but it could be home universe, physical universe, the other fellow's home universe. Do you see how that could be?
Well, that's highly theoretical — that's almost Alice-in-Wonderlandish, a book we have become acquainted with lately. And these universes are possible.
But a thetan makes a reactive mind solid and comes into control of it. Or he becomes causative in making pillars and walls and houses solid and gets in control of them. And the road up evidently is simply to become better at it. We have the processes; you just have to become better at it. That's all. What's that take?
It takes a little practice and a few wins, a little reassurance. That's all. It's evidently a solved problem — requires to be placed into effect, however — with what disasters we don't know.
I can expect sometime in the future legislation that reads like this, "Scientologists will refrain from mocking up barriers across city traffic during rush hours." "A thetan who is married must not mock up more than one body every twenty years." "People who like pets must keep all the pets in their yard that they mock up." "Completely mocked-up fingerprint and identification cards are not acceptable at FBI." "Mocked-up money will be accepted only to the sum of 10 dollars only, when detected." "On anything mocked up, a 3 percent of current value tax will be assessed." Well, it wouldn't be a brave new world; it would be an awfully complicated one, but by golly it's in the direction of more game.
Well, that's this story of universes. It's something quite valuable. A person becomes a victim of a reactive mind or mental image pictures or engrams merely to the degree that he cannot tolerate their solids. He doesn't become a victim of their thought — he becomes a victim of their thought only when he cannot stand their solids. Do you see that? So if you make them solid the thoughts come off of them. You don't run the thought out of them, you run the solid into them.
When you can take an engram and throw it up against the wall contemptuously and have it go clank, your reactive bank won't bother you. Well, this is a new way of making a Clear. We used to have a — in the navy ... "Oh, God," somebody says, "he's going to get off into that." No, no, we're not going to get off on the navy. We used to have a signal system and there were code words that carried the communications through. There was "Roger," oh, I don't know "30s" and "73s" — there were all kinds of signals and symbols, and so forth, but they were kind of long and complicated. And I got so that when-ever I would sign off from other ships in my squadron, why, I would say, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out." The other boys started picking this up. We kept hearing, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out," as the final communication. That was, of course, a complete stop. That was a complete period. You shut off the set then and removed the tubes — full stop!
Well, I don't know why it is but some people have time tracks that run this way and some people that — have time tracks that run this way. And I have met a few nuts that went down this way. But we have been referring to this "Before and After Solids," are run on the engram bank as Over and Under, as a slang phrase, because obviously an indiv — most individuals you run on it have the sensation of diving from something when they get an earlier one, and sort of pulling back on the throttle and the stick at the same time when they get a later one. It's quite interesting, but you can take an engram bank and you can straighten it out and you can get it solid. It is a level of entrance of the preclear, because the solidity of the facsimile is probably more real to him than the solidity of the wall. A picture of the wall is more solid than the wall. Sounds incredible but it's true. He'd rather have a picture of it than the wall.
So, when he starts down scale he gets to a point where he sees pictures of walls with his physical eyes. He doesn't see walls, he sees pictures of walls. You start running a person on modern processes that hasn't been getting along well on processing, you can fully expect this to happen. The individual says, "Wait a minute."
You say, "What's the matter?"
He says, "The wall is rippling."
You say, "Yes, what's the matter?"
"Oh," he says, "it's moving!"
Did anybody have anything move today?
Male voice: No.
Well, it means that you had a — some kind of a picture of the thing inaddition to the thing or it was just all picture. You got the idea? And afteryou work at it for a while the preclear finds something very astonishing. Hedoesn't any longer see a picture of pillars or walls, he sees pillars or wallsand it's very upsetting to him for a while. That's right, very upsetting to him.Now, you can make an engram sufficiently solid — let us say it's anengram received on Brandywine in 17 — whatever it was. You can make that solid enough — if the preclear could hold it — that he sees himself fully and completely and utterly and only at the Battle of Brandywine — smoke, powder, flame and all — the British Redcoats lined up. Got the idea? In other words, he can construct a strata of time sufficiently solid that it fools him for a moment. He just goes all the way back into it, just boom! "What's this? What's this?" It's the Battle of Brandywine going on, of course! Yeah, but the Battle of Brandywine was 100 and Lord knows what — how many years ago. Or was it?
Well, if you say it was Lord knows how many years ago, you're saying, "You know, I can't bring that thing up fully solid. I can't make it now." You'll hear a preclear one of these days complaining bitterly, he is not in good shape. He can only get a thenness of the discovery of America. He's — feels rattled today, he feels upset, he can only get a thenness of the Spanish Inquisition. You know, he only gets pictures of the thing, he — you know, they're not very solid — it's not very convincing.
This sounds very peculiar but this is evidently an open sesame as to what the universe is about in relationship to time. We have many questions to ask. Do forms actually change? Is the Battle of Brandywine still in progress? Has the future been formed already and we are merely living toward it? Do you really mock up your own body or do you steal one? Terrific number of questions unanswered, but these are merely observational questions having to do with the anatomy of the physical universe, all of them more or less solvable. The trick is to get the procedures and the processes that solve them. We have those and that's what I meant when I said — I was very silly when I said, "The game of research is over." Now, the game of research might have been over, but that merely meant that the game was starting.
Well, you might say here we are at the beginning. Boy, if this is the beginning, what was that we've been through?
Well, the congress has begun by this time, hasn't it?
Audience: Yes!
All right. You're here, aren't you?
Audience: Yes.
All right, that's good.
You're in very, very good condition, you know .. .
Male voice: Sure.
... very fine condition. You're in sufficiently good condition that I have a feeling, I have a definite feeling, that tomorrow I'll really be able to pull out a good, beefy process. I have been going light on you. Trying to — what's the matter? Well, I have, I've been going light on you in order — so that — to let you catch up so that I wouldn't startle you or something of the sort.
But tomorrow after the first lecture — and I've got to look at that pro-gram again to see if there's anything . . . After that first lecture tomorrow, why, we'll be able to get in some processes that are effective. I've got you built up now to them.
There isn't really any more data to tell you about this congress and — given you most of it. There's hardly anything to take up. But somehow or other I think we'll manage to have a couple of more days. We'll get through them somehow. I hope that something will happen. Maybe you'll think of something that will be interesting.
So, thanks a lot for being here. Thanks a lot for listening. Good night.