Thank you.

Want to talk to you now about Axioms 6 to 10.

As you know, man is living, at this time at least, in the physical universe which he shares in common. Now, there are many people who believe that this is their own universe only and that there's nobody else alive in it.

However, we will just skip those and go over to the generally held concept that man is living in company with a great many other beings in a universe which is remarkably, from his viewpoint, large and solid. And as we look this over, its effects upon the individual become of interest to the auditor and do considerably influence cases.

Amongst the most aberrative dynamics, you might say, is the sixth. It is not the most aberrative, it is part of eight, but it causes a lot of upset in the individual — being in company with all these other people and so forth. But what do you know. The most single therapeutic dynamic is the sixth. The sixth is more of a therapeutic dynamic than it is an aberrative dynamic; it's quite interesting. The sixth dynamic is already known to be intensely curative. The medical profession depends exclusively upon the sixth dynamic to be curative.

Now, we take a more limited view. We say that the auditor plus the sixth dynamic can do remarkable things. We haven't wiped out the practitioner here.

You shoot somebody with pills of — serums, oddities, rare earths, something of this character, you clamp electrodes on his head and so forth; you might or might not be utilizing the therapeutic potentialities of the sixth dynamic, the physical universe. You might or might not be, see, but for sure they exist. It is certain that the sixth dynamic does contain therapeutic potentialities and these are enormous.

In the first place, it is the basic playing field for any and all games with which we are familiar. And a playing field is of course necessary to a game.

The only real regret on the sixth dynamic is the playing field for the game that was. In other words, it's yesterday's sixth dynamic; we regret its vanishment.

We think of that beautiful, beautiful battle with all of those dead men, you know, or something like that. That was way back in past history and it isn't here anymore. So we regret the continuous vanishment of the sixth dynamic. But at the same time, it would be impossible for the sixth dynamic to be a continuing playing field unless it did have time.

You could imagine the rather silly aspect that a ballplayer would present if he was trying to toss a ball in no-time.

Now, if you can envision somebody trying to throw a ball in no-time, you know then what we're talking about when we're talking about Axioms 6 to 10 — particularly those Axioms which concern time.

Time is absolutely necessary to a game. It is the most necessary commodity; it even comes above havingness. But because it's so ethereal and abstract, people have a tendency not to look at it very closely or to admire it. They just know it's going on and it's sort of totally automatic and there isn't anything they can do about it anyway, so they had better just keep looking at their watches and pretending they know something about time, rather than really taking a look at time.

It's quite a difference, you know, between looking at your watch and really seeing what's going on with time.

Now, the sixth dynamic can be this crudely utilized as a therapeutic agent: you can tell somebody to go out and walk around the block until he is interested in what he is looking at. It works. It really works.

An ancient native cure is to walk somebody along a road until they drop and then make them get up and walk back. And that is quite effective and is the only sure cure on psychosis.

The trouble is trying to keep a psychotic person enough in hand and enough extroverted to the environment to do any of the walking. They usually drop by the wayside or start hailing passing cars or stand and scream or do something of the sort; they're hard to direct to this degree when they're in their lesser stages but I have seen people get well even on that basis.

I have seen, mind you, a postpartum psychosis which a husband spent thirty thousand dollars on. Cost him his home, his business, his bank account, everything he had in the world. Naturally, paid over to a psychiatrist. Who else. And when he didn't have any money anymore, why, the psychiatrist in this case just told him to go to hell and get out of the office and take the woman too, naturally, you know, standard operating procedure.

And an old Negro woman took the young lady, who of course wanted to kill her husband and wanted to kill her baby and couldn't be trusted near the baby. And in spite of all the insulin shock she'd had and everything, the old Negro woman walked this girl way out into the country and kept her walking, kept her walking. Finally the girl dropped from exhaustion. The old Negro lady got her to stand up and made her walk back. And she got back, she was well.

I've seen the woman, and I know it worked. And I've also tried it myself latterly and have found it to be workable. But I found it to be unworkable when you can't keep them walking. In other words, there has to be some tiny, tiny awareness of the fact that something is being done for them one way or the other. There has to be some tiny awareness of the environment. When they're totally gone as far as the environment is concerned, they're very hard to help.

But the sixth dynamic is quite commonly looked upon as being something more of an ogre than a physician. And funny part of it is you could coin a postulate that would carry you along beautifully without further aberration from here to the end of this universe. You'd have to make the postulate because it isn't basically true, since you probably made the reverse postulate sometime or another. You could say living is therapy. Just make up your mind that living is therapy, and you'd live yourself Clear.

Do you see how that would work? That's because you would have the aid and assistance of the sixth dynamic which does give you an apparent playing field, which gives you the hope of more playing field and which shows you that there is something to be done, there is something happening and there is mass, that very precious thing called mass.

Thetan loves mass completely independent of anything else. You'd say he's mad to thus try to engage in this, but the thetan with regard to mass is in his basic game. And the basic game of course is "I'm going to make something that I can't duplicate and that can't duplicate me." See what a — what a basic problem this is. Lovely game. A thetan being nothing of course cannot duplicate a mass. And a mass being something of course cannot duplicate a thetan. Then the game is to stay in communication with it. Naturally, that's quite a problem.

The way you cure him of this game or the way you take away the ill effects of this game is simply to make him play the game some more, and that is the process we know as Solids. "What are you looking at? Make it solid. Look around the room and tell me something you wouldn't mind making solid. Oh, you've got it? That's fine. Make it solid." That just is all there is.

That's the extrovert. The introvert is, is "All right. You can ..." It isn't always true that you have to run him with his eyes open, but people in casual processing do better with their eyes open. They don't lose as much mass because they have the mass of the room all the time they're auditing. That's why we prefer they keep their eyes open, but there's no solid rule. If you start to take his bank apart, he will of course close his eyes, sooner or later.

You say, "What are you looking at?"

And he tells you he's looking at a picture, he's looking at some stuff.

And you say, "Good. Make it solid." "And don't forget the invisible particles," you remind him every now and then.

And he says, "The invisible particles?" at first.

You say, "Oh yes. Yes. Make them solid too."

"But I can't see them."

And you say, "Well, all right. You open your eyes. Now look from here to the wall."

Fellow does. Looks from here to the wall.

And you say, "Now, make all the air between you and the wall solid."

He works at it for a while, he says, "I can do that." But nothing proves it to him that it became solid. You see, nothing proves it to him. And as a consequence, he is not totally convinced about it.

But big massive facsimiles sometime get pinned to the individual by invisible particles. So we make the big facsimile solid and there's a bunch of invisible particles between the person and it. We don't make those solid and after a while these invisible particles pile up and themselves accumulate a mass. So he then has what we call a ridge. And we don't quite know what this ridge is. Well, it's composed of particles which were once invisible to him. You follow this as a ...?

Well, all of that preamble actually is really necessary to an understanding of Axioms 6 to 10. And Axioms 6 to 10 are relatively simple Axioms but they shouldn't be neglected because they happen to be above knowingness. That's an interesting joke, isn't it?

If you knew all there was to know the way most beings consider knowingness, which is data and so forth, you would still have above your head Axioms 1 to 10. Do you understand that?

So you could run all of the thinking processes there are and all of the conceptual change processes there are or that you know about, up to Axiom 10, and the funny thing about it is that you would still have hanging over your head Axioms 1 to 10. Follow me? Because these things are above think; they're above thinking.

And these Axioms are quite important and therefore very often neglected because they are above think and that means they are Effort, Emote, Perceive, Not-know and Know. And that is then the Know to Sex Scale, the old Know to Mystery Scale.

And, you see, that covers from Mystery and right above Mystery is Sex and above Sex is Eat and above Eat is Symbols (a symbol has mass, meaning and mobility, the 3 Ms), you see, Symbol and then Think and then Effort and Emotion and Perception — Look — and Knowingness. Of course Not-knowingness fits right under Knowingness. That's total knowingness way up to the top, see, total knowingness.

You don't know a datum, see, you would just totally know. And it's different because our level of knowingness is knowing per time unit. "How much do I know in this second?" you see. That's man's level of knowingness — a datum separate from other data.

When he runs into time, he's all right. He can park his postulates around in MEST time, you see. But when he no longer is parking postulates in time, we get total knowingness way up to the top. So you see, there is a difference there between that know up there and the lower know which is really think.

So if we knew all the data there was to know, we would still have Axioms 1 to 10 to cope with on a subjective–objective level, because you don't really just know them.

Now, we have done the fantastic thing of codifying, at the band of Think and Symbols, data which exists only above that level. That's why Scientology knows more about life than life does.

That's a fabulous thing that has occurred there. It didn't matter how simple those were or how difficult. It's just the fact that you get all the data there is to know and then you've got ten Axioms above it.

And you say, 'Well, aren't those data, too?"

That's right, they're also data. And that is the miracle of Scientology.

We have converted these upper strata into the lower strata and we can understand this upper strata and therefore tackle it without going into a total unknown the way everybody did before us.

And those Axioms are very easy, and there is only one change from the Axioms as they appeared in Creation of Human Ability — two change, one's typographical. And that change, the major data change, is in Axiom 6. Axiom 6 is: Objects consist of grouped particles.

That's plain to see. If you took enough particles and pushed them together tight enough, you'd have an object. You cut all the hay off of a field and you pile it together into a bale and you have an object, whereas before that you had particles. Very simple.

But a later discovery has been made here. I discovered something else which is utterly baffling: objects can also consist of solid masses. And so that should be additive; the Axiom there isn't rewritten, but that should be added there. I guess you could say, "Objects consist of grouped particles and also of solid masses." And that probably is the proper statement of the Axiom.

We are so immersed in the unproven theory of nuclear physics and Newtonian physics and Aristotelian materials and so forth that we are prone to accept them without too much question. But it isn't true that electrons and so forth get together and make an object; that isn't the total truth. It can happen, but it doesn't ordinarily.

Now, an object can shed small bits, which therefore makes it appear that objects consist of small bits. I mean, don't you see that that wouldn't follow at all. Just because an object sheds small bits is no reason just because a dog sheds hair is no reason he's made of hair. But it can shed small bits without being composed of small bits and that's rather easy to do. All you have to do is postulate it that way.

Nuclear physics right now is up against this and banging its head to pieces. You can also take a lot of small particles and make an object. And most of the masses that a thetan finds himself immersed in are invisible particles which have grouped together and made some sort of a mass. And he finds this rather difficult to take apart because they were invisible as particles. He can also say, "It appears," and there isn't a particle in the whole lot, it's just a solid mass. Do you see that?

It's very probable that the first body ever mocked up was not composed of cells; they were probably invented later. Probably it had no guts, no heart, it didn't breathe, nothing; it probably simply moved around, did very well.

Now, we get down along Symbols and people invent things so that you can have more game with things, and we probably got organs and glands and explained them all and made it very complex and quite interesting. But actually there is, and you can find on the whole track, bodies which are simply solid mass, no particle consistency there at all — it's just solid mass that has motion and — as simple as that.

Now, that doesn't say that this is the optimum body. It doesn't say that the present complexity of bodies is an optimum body, but it says it is not necessarily true that a whole consists of parts. That's an Aristotelian assumption and is not warranted and is not even really reasonable. A whole does not consist of parts. A whole could be made into parts, that's true, unless you postulate otherwise.

But evidently the early thetan manufactures, you might say, were simply entireties without particles or parts. And you have the phenomenon then of solid masses which don't have internal particles. And this is a great relief because the physicist tells you that — right clearly, he tells you quite outrageously, that every solid mass you see is composed of small particles which are in motion. Let me call to your attention he's never seen them, nor does he have to hand data which warrants or justifies his atomic or molecular theories. Do you follow me there? It's pretty abstruse you might think, but this really discharges you from any obligation of knowing anything about physics at all. It's probably totally invented. You see a wall look solid, it is a wall and it's solid; that's all there is to it. It isn't necessarily composed of anything. Got the idea?

You want to mock up a clam on the beach, you mock up a clam on the beach. It's not necessarily — not necessarily does it have any separateness or parts amongst itself; it is simply a clam.

Now, you want to invent the science of biology, first the thing you must do is invent the idea of bivalves and digestion, that it has to have fuel — that is a necessary invention — that the fuel has to convert, which is quite a game. Don't you see, the things are additive to that. But you could simply mock up a clam and say, "That clam will now live forever and thrive," and it probably would. As a matter of fact, you probably have done so on the backtrack and some auditor will come along and run you on Solids one day and you say, "Ha! Well, there you are. That was certainly a nice body. There it still is."

Individuation and compartmentation is, of course, part of the phenomena of games and is a game condition — taking something which is whole and making parts out of it.

Now, life had been so compartmented and was so scattered and dispersed — so individuated, one might say — that it was impossible to get any understanding of it. What we've done with Scientology is try, then, to view life as a whole once more. And we have done so, and if you'll look at what we're doing with cases these days, you will say with considerable success.

We get into time — there actually isn't any reason to take up time beyond exactly what it says there; it's just simply considerations. And time is of essence very simple, it's: Time is basically a postulate — it's a consideration — that space and particles will persist.

And you know you can run time just by saying, "It will now persist," which is to say go through a series of such. Continuous postulates. You can always add the word continuous to almost any concept. "Get the idea now" — you're having him look at something; instead of running Solids, you run Continuous Solids. "Look at this and get the idea of continuous solidity. Look at this engram and get the idea of continuous solidity." And it speeds up the running of the bank tremendously. You've just added the old postulate of persistence back into the appearance of the thing. A thing can appear without persisting — get that very clearly. You have to have an additional postulate to make it persist and that postulate is time.

And what is this thing called time? It's saying something will keep on going. Now, time in agreement with one another is another phenomenon and that's a goingness which we all consider is taking place. It's keeping on going and we all say so, and then we get a time continuum common to all of us that is merely just a persistence.

Axiom 8: The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.

The way you find out time is happening, the commonest way, is to change the position of a particle in space. But that's apparency. If something is simply standing there in space it actually is changing spaces and changing masses if it continues in one place without motion. But you can go above this and you can have another postulate above this Axiom. You can say, "This thing will have continuous time without any apparency." In other words, it's going to stand there from here on out. Well, however, it does have to have other particles related to it so you can tell which was here and which was on out.

Nine: Change is the primary manifestation of time.

And that's certainly true. And if you run this in processing, you run somebody on change that's having a bad time with a grouped track, you'll discover his track will start separating on him. In other words, he's having trouble with time, you run change, he comes off of his difficulty with time, which rather proves this Axiom which was formulated, by the way, a long time before a process arrived to prove it.

A process in my hands might prove it. That would prove nothing but it'll prove it in your hands too, which is important.

And then we get to the highest purpose in the universe and that's Axiom 10: The highest purpose in this universe is the creation of an effect.

It is written incorrectly, by the way. In Creation of Human Ability it says, "the universe" and it's "this universe." That's merely the highest purpose in this universe which, of course, makes it a games universe. From that Axiom proceeds the idea of games. This isn't included in the games theory. The games theory proceeds from Axiom 10.

Now, a knowledge of these things is quite essential. It is unfortunate that they have to be studied, but in view of the fact that Scientology actually now contains a knowingness above knowingness, you want to know what that knowingness is, it's those ten Axioms.

And the best way to study that knowingness above knowingness is to observe, with the guide of the Axioms, that these take place. And then you have a reality on the situation and your ability to handle these things is then materially increased.

We built a ladder before we had climbed it. So you want to learn where the ladder is because the ladder that you've got mocked up alongside it might not be it, you know, and yours might have a busted rung.

But if you mock up a better ladder, that's in your total field of choice and it's — nobody will argue with you a bit. But don't mock up a better ladder on top of this ladder, because you're liable to cause somebody to slip on some grease or something of the sort.

This has proven out now over the years and aside from the changes I've mentioned in this lecture is unchanged to this time, which is quite remarkable. The only change there, really, is that you can mock up a solid object that doesn't have particles, that the MEST universe objects might, all of them, be totally solid with no atoms and molecules. There might be some that — composed of atoms and molecules and some that aren't. And this is a new discovery which simply enriches these upper ten Axioms of Scientology.

Now, below that level, we have particularities and interpretations of these ten Axioms and you should know those too, but you should certainly understand these first ten.