We have, now, actually covered the mechanics of all of this. And these actually, really, all the mechanics there are. You take this and define them, you get the precise definition of each of these things, you know that precise definition and you understand that, you're — you're there. You're in, see? Just like that.

What's survival: That is duration of beingness. That's all — duration of beingness. And what are the dynamics? Those are the — you might say — the impulses of beingness or the compartmentation of survival.

You can take survive as an urge — a thrust through time, you see — and if you knocked it apart into eight sections you'd find that each person was trying to survive as all eight within himself.

So you see the eight dynamics are the parts of an individual effort to survive.

Now we have eight dynamics as parts of the whole MEST universe, so that we have two universes here. We have the universe of the individual and we have the universe of the universe, the whole thing, and each one of them is described by eight dynamics.

And don't think there are things that you will find in the whole universe that you don't find in the individual or things which you'll find in the individual that you won't find out in the whole universe.

This is the old, old, old, old theory of the microcosm and the macrocosm; very ancient, only we've got it carved down and whittled up and laid out and made out of — from a jigsaw puzzle into a nice picture, and it's a good orderly picture.

What is the internal world? It isn't an internal world in the first place; it's a potential universe.

And what is the universe? The universe is the same pattern, and so we have the whole, and any God's quantity of parts which are the same as the whole and have the same potentialities as the whole and are really the same size as the whole. And here we have a case where the whole is not the sum of its parts. The whole, in this case, is the sum of all of the wholes there are.

So for — we get interaction of survival where the individual identifies his own universe with the entire MEST universe and from this identification, from this mistake, derives the first aberration. It's a mistake.

He, you see, has the total potentiality and conduct of a deity, and then he looks out and finds out what is described as a deity, so he assigns his potentialities to the deity and gives them all over and then depends upon this idea of a deity exterior to himself. Only it's not exterior to himself. Now you see, he mixes up his own godliness with godliness.

In Philadelphia, John and I have a — had a joke. If we ever — we ever happen to get in a wild mood and blow a few buildings down, or something of the sort, you'll hear of a little sign being left behind, and the sign will say, "You have abandoned your godliness!"

That person who is aberrated has abandoned his godliness all right, but he has given up his own potentialities and dignities over to some exterior thing which he can't control.

Now, he can control himself as his own godliness. He can control that, and he thinks he fails because he can't control the universe's concept of it. So he thinks he can't control his own beingness, his own dignity, his own serenity, benignity and so on, if these can't be — because he can't control a thing they call "god" somewhere, you see?

And he gets these two things identified completely and after that he can't be serene because he depends upon some exterior, uncontrollable, inexplicable being to direct his destinies and give him serenity.

The only person who will ever give him serenity is him. And the only way he'll ever get thoroughly controlled is to become dependent upon the MEST universe counterpart of one of his dynamics. That's a big mouthful right there: "The only way he will fall under control and become less self-determined is when he has become dependent upon a MEST universe counterpart of one of his own dynamics."

Here we have the preclear with eight dynamics, and we find out that his second dynamic is in terrible condition. What is the first thing we can adjudicate about that second dynamic? He has become dependent upon the MEST universe counterpart of his own second dynamic for the sensation known as the second dynamic.

I actually — I mean, I could probably go on saying this for the next ten hours, and I probably would have told you all you'd need to know about auditing, except for the mechanical tricks. So let that one kind of sink.

Wherever he is aberrated he has become dependent. You can shorten it to that.

If he becomes dependent, he cannot control. Dependency is, in essential, an abandonment of control of an area.

You want to know why he is having difficulty and seems to have his engram bank crawling all over him; he has placed so much dependency upon his engram bank, he can no longer control it. It's boss, he isn't; it's cause and he's effect.

He himself is memory. He is memory, not his engram bank. And when he says, "My engram bank now is memory and I depend upon my memory to tell me what to do," he is abandoning, then, control of his own memory. He has become dependent upon his engram bank to have a memory.

And wherever a person has permitted a dependency to swing into being, that person has to that degree become aberrated.

But mind you, you could let a 50 percent dependency along the eight dynamics exist, 50 percent of a dependency, and you would be at optimum action. So don't think that dependency is bad! Dependency uncontrolled and misunderstood and not understood by the individual is thoroughly bad!

So what's bad about dependency? It's knowing or unknowing. You know you're dependent or you don't know you're dependent. If you don't know you're dependent, that's bad because there is a hidden influence. Hidden influences are what have cut you off from all of your dynamics. We'll go into that further.

But let's not be puzzled about what's wrong with a preclear, and when we take an assessment, let's be very positive about this. All you have to assess in terms of the preclear, to get and bring into being and break out into the light any data you want, is right around this word here depend versus self-determinism. You're trying to return to the preclear his self-determinism; therefore, the enemy to his self-determinism is dependency.

You can find the moment a person has made a postulate to become dependent and just flip out that postulate and have him rather turn from dark to light.

What dependency did he elect? Now, of course, that's just lucky shooting. And we don't want much lucky shooting in auditing. We don't have to have lucky shooting in auditing; it's fun to do it sometimes.

With these other techniques, we just get all the shots in. We just work it and all the shots fall out of the locker. That's all there is to it.

So here is your unit of two — dependency versus self-determinism, and we are in, then, into the period and area of behavior. Now, we've got the mechanics of this, and we see that there are two terminals necessary. We see that two terminals are necessary to get perception, to get communication, and so forth. We see that we've got to have two terminals.

And everybody in the universe is under the delusion it's all single and everything is single. Well, we can undo this singleness, this single factor with a technique known as Admiration Processing. It came in the front door and went out the back door so quick that we could barely have time to tip our hats to it because much better stuff showed up immediately.

Why did it show up instantly? Well, it's all we had to do was apply a little Admiration Processing, and we could see more about the mind than we'd ever seen before, so it was a necessary step, but we saw it so quick, that it wasn't necessary to practice Admiration Processing.

So this walked in the front door, and we find out that there is a way to solve the unit-beingness phobia. In other words this universe is sitting here pretending to be a one-terminal universe and it won't discharge or run out unless two terminals exist. At least two of everything have to exist. Things will run out.

If you're having trouble with your car and you're mad at your car, just mock your car up twice sitting alongside of your car, and just make it sit there, and then keep putting cars in there, and it's played "Put your car back there again every time it starts to fade out." It'll fade out.

Some of you will start to put a car there and it'll be gone, and you'll say, "I can't get a mock-up of a car." Oh no, no, cars are just so scarce that you've just got to keep putting a car, a car, a car, a car, a car. Finally, what do you know, what do you know, you're starting to get a car there. You also get a somatic that sounds like a crankshaft in your head. But that's all right, you've got — you've got one car, one car sitting there, and you've got . . . Now if you work real quick, you can get — keep this car here and put the second one — no, they're gone. But now if we keep on working with this we'll put this one car here, and we put the car, car, put it there, put it there, put it there; now we get that second one there; we get a shadow of it, now it's more there, now, you have two cars. Gee, they disappear in a hurry! Two cars, two cars, two cars, two cars, two cars, two cars.

You say to the preclear, "Well, how do you feel about a car?"

"Cars are all right. What's the matter with cars?"

Hm, no pay for the auditor.

In other words, those mock-ups: And you people that are having trouble getting mock-ups out there, all you had to do was just keep putting mock-ups out there. They're disappearing faster than you can put them there. They disappear almost before they get there. And so you don't think you're putting a mock-up there, but you are. And if you'll just sit there and doggedly keep putting it back, although you — it's gone so quick you don't even see it — all of a sudden one will appear. And it will be there for a split instant and the next one will be there a little longer, a little longer, a little longer, and after you'd put another three or four hundred there, you'll probably even get a single mock-up, and then you can get two mock-ups, and all of a sudden you've got two terminals.

But they disappear as fast as they're scarce. And you get mock-ups as fast as you disabuse your engram bank of the scarcity of them. Because they actually — what happens is evidently the engram bank drinks up the mock-ups. All right.

So we have scarcity versus abundance. So the first scarcity is a scarcity of terminals, and everybody gets one terminal. Well, there's a way to work out the one-terminal proposition. You can work one terminal. Just get and mock-up on a three-levels principle, which I'll go into right now, admiration of one terminal. And there you're really working on two terminals, but that's all right. You just admire anything enough and it'll disappear.

For instance, you can correct a mock-up in various ways and one of the ways you correct a mock-up is a very simple way. You simply keep admiring its defects!

If you say, "Now, we put a mock-up there. Now, we'll admire the fact that it isn't there." It'll appear. There you're doing the same thing. You're feeding form and energy into the bank until it stabilizes. Only this time you're feeding what the bank is really hungry for, which is to say, an admiration particle. The bank is really hungry for those admiration particles or any kind of a particle because they're collapsed lines and it's just like throwing a dry sponge into the bathtub. If you then put it into a dry — a dry sponge into a dry bathtub and you started — you throw a cup of water, you'd just be utterly amazed at how much water you could throw on that sponge before you got anything into the bathtub. Well, that's what your engram bank's doing.

Now, you could use Admiration Processing, and you could process on single terminals, but it's not necessary to do so. All you have to do is use double terminals, mock up your terminals identical, and you have automatically sympathy and mimicry. Out of that you'll get your engram bank run out.

The goal is not to run out an engram bank but it happens rather incidentally and automatically that you do run out the engram bank. So let's skip going into the past. We're just trying to find present time. We're going to find present time by curing scarcity.

And, of course, there's going to be scarcity every time you have a dependency. Believe me, the surest way in the world to get something scarce is to depend on something else for it.

I don't know whether you've had any experience in sending children to stores to buy things. But you know doggone well that you'd get a lot more from the store if you went yourself.

Now, there's one of those — that's scarcity. Scarcity occurs because people want attention. People want attention; they say, "Look, my attention is valuable. Therefore you should want my attention." And so they say, "Well, you don't want my attention? Well, it's so valuable it's now going to be scarce."

"The only one of its kind in the world" is the first sales talk, and that's given in terms of attention, so you get attention there.

Now, it is — it's fabulous what we go into here — it's very simple but you start depending on something for attention, now you're really done.

Just try and mock up members of the family and make them — each one of them — look at you, and watch what happens to their head. They're this way and you say, "Nope." From this way zzzip. And you say, "I'm going to make Mama look at me, one way or the other" and you're just not able to. And after a while, after you've put enough mothers there .. .

By the way, the trick is just to put two mothers there and make them look at each other; it'll run it all out. But if you were just to mock-up single Mama to make them look at you, they're just — heads are all over the place. Papa, same way; teachers, the same way.

In other words, one couldn't determine how much attention he was going to get unless he shot people or something.

But one could do this: One could walk up to the buffet — one could walk to the buffet and take the very fancy china vase that was imported by Uncle Jociba from Canton and smack, he got attention. There's various ways of getting attention. That's not a good way to get attention because you're immediately told that it was bad, you see? "That's bad to do that, so we mustn't do that, so that's bad." And right away we find out what's bad over there. Breaking that vase was bad. And so we're not supposed to break vases, so after this, if we got spanked enough or something, we got corrected; in other words we got run back into the past so that we could go into the future.

The correction of a child — now get that as a definition of what dives a psychotic back into the past — it's correction. He misfigures for the future. He knows he's been wrong because loss has occurred. Now he wants to remember it so that in future futures, he will not again make the same mistake and lose. So he's predicting the future from the present by addressing the past. And this is very silly.

That's experience, I know. And the whole world runs on it, I know. But if you take the level of determinism of individuals who have been corrected a great deal and the level of determinism of individuals who haven't been corrected a great deal, and you'll find out that you have two entirely different levels — the one who hasn't been corrected will have a much higher level.

The MEST universe does the most uncompromising correction; it's much worse than Mama.

When you step out into space in the MEST universe in a body, you fall. It corrects that error right now by punishing it. That's an error and you mustn't do that and so you'll remember the fall and therefore you won't step out into space again. The answer to that is "What you doing in a body?" All right.

Now, our first level of thought on the thing is, is here is an individual. All right, here's an individual. Has he got any space? No. Has he got any energy? No. Has he got any thoughts about anything? Not particularly. Has he any havingness? No. What's the first thing he gets? He gets some space. That's the first thing he gets; he gets some space.

How does he get some space? Well, the first way you get some space is to put out some anchor points. And he could put out as many as eight anchor points and he'll get three-dimensional space. If you don't believe it, count the corners of the room, you're sitting in three-dimensional space and so you put eight anchor points and you've got three-dimensional space. This is spacation.

Just by getting a preclear to view a space and put out eight anchor points and hold them stably in that space, he gets the doggonedest feeling of pleasant, happy serenity that he's had in a long time. Why? He's not depending on any other anchor points to hold his space out for him. He's there, that's his space. And he — so he's got some space.

Well, that's the original way he got some space. Then he got argued into depending on something else for an anchor point to hold his space out for him — first mistake and first identification.

You could say the first trick and the first betrayal on the track was somebody coming along and taking one of your anchor points and putting it in their pocket and putting up one of theirs in its place.

All right, now you know there is somebody out there, and you've got a vague idea that says, "This — this shouldn't be" so you pull in the anchor point and you want to look at a picture of this fellow, and of course this anchor point is a picture of this fellow and it's a different picture; it isn't the fellow. And so, but you don't know that yet — and so you put that out again, you pull in another anchor — there's two fellows out there. There must be two fellows out there because we've got two different pictures. Then all of a sudden, maybe you'll find there is only one fellow out there and that means you've been wrong. That means something is wrong with your anchor points. There's something wrong with the way you handle your anchor points. And there is the introduction of the hidden influence.

What's the hidden influence? His taking one of your anchor points and putting one of his own pictures in its place. That would be something like that, you see? That would be a hidden influence. You didn't know that had taken place, so later on you're wrong.

In the same way, you look around the MEST universe and you find you're missing some data. You think you have to find that data in order to find out what's going to happen. You think you've found that data. You bring this data that you have found into your bosom and you compute on that basis, and you say, "It's perfectly all right to have John over for tea tomorrow." You compute on that basis. But at 10 o'clock in the morning, your good friend John is found to have written a check against your account which overdrew it and has just left for the country with your wife. Boy, were you wrong!

Now, what's one do when he's wrong? One says, "Where's all the data? There are hidden influences around here, because I can't be wrong, my anchor points can't be wrong, so therefore something's wrong and there's something influencing my anchor points. There's something disturbing my space by influencing my anchor points and what it is I can't find out, but if I yank them all in and take a look . . ." And there is the first analytical loss reaction. After a while every time you lose something you immediately drag in all your anchor points — Pam!

And so you find a person who has lost too much with his anchor points all stacked up in front of him, coal black, he's hiding behind them, he's protecting himself with them and he won't put them out again. Why won't he put them out again? Because they won't come back, you see? He's already lost something.

Well, if he puts out more anchor points, of course, it follows, naturally, everybody knows, he'd just lose them. It never occurs to this fellow that he can manufacture any God's quantity of anchor points required. He could fill up a universe full of anchor points. No, anchor points are scarce too, eventually. And it's on the scarcity of anchor points that a person loses his ability to perceive!

Of course, one wants them scarce because he's afraid of what he'll perceive now after a while! Everybody's been telling him it's bad over that way.

And this is your next theory — the theory of the "hidden influence" comes about in this fashion. Somebody says it's bad over there. All right, you might have found it out yourself. You put out a bunch of anchor points and you pulled them in and you were looking at them, and you said, "My, isn't that a pretty sewer! Well built and so forth. Pretty odor, pretty strong; interesting, very interesting."

Somebody comes along to you and says, "That's bad! You don't want that! Why, nobody has those!" And of course you want to be kind of same as other people, because then you get admiration and anchor points and interests and randomity and these other desirable things and you say — you say, "They — they don't have these? These — this is bad, a sewer? Oh, I don't see — see anything bad about it. What's bad about it?"

"Oh!! It's just bad!! I mean, it's got germs in it!"

And you say, "Germs!? What's germs!?"

"Well, germs are something that you can't see."

And you say, "Oh, I don't want anything to do with that."

You've been wrong and there's something bad over that way.

Now the next time you have some anchor points in the vicinity of a sewer and so forth, you say, "It's a sewer. It's bad." What do you do with this? Do you put this facsimile where it belongs in the file of perceptions of things perceived, or do you throw it away? Or do you suddenly say, "That's bad, I've got to get rid of it," slap, and close its terminals with no admiration?

You're looking at it with one terminal, it's the other terminal. You say, "That's bad;" it closes. So what do you eventually wind up with? All the pretty pictures? No, you don't. You wind up with all the bad ones because you won't look at them anymore, and this is not taking responsibility for, you see, same thing.

So you say, "Those aren't mine, and I don't like those, and that's bad, and I don't want anything to do with them, and if I put out anchor points they'll just come back with bad pictures because everybody knows, so I won't put out anchor points anymore because I'll just lose them and they'll only bring back bad pictures anyway. And I'm — I'm very weak and I have to depend upon everything and if I depend on everything, everything will be my anchor points for me."

And boy, if there is any willingness in this universe, it's to be your anchor points for you. Look how willing I am! Well, anyway .. .

Here we have here, then, a picture of dependency on evaluation. And if you can get somebody else to evaluate for you long enough, you won't know anything and you won't have any anchor points.

One of the fastest, easiest routes I know to Step VII is just to let every-body around evaluate for you unqualifiedly along this fashion: from the past into the present.

I'm not doing a job here, I might say in passing, a job of evaluation. I'm handing you data. You can drop it or pick it up or use it. You'll find the data is effective because it's track data. I am discussing track data. I'm not telling you how bad it is or how good it is. That's the type of evaluation which I am decrying here, is the type of evaluation that tells you, "You didn't know how bad it was." That is real bad.

So you have somebody around you all the time and saying, "Well, you really don't remember but when you were three, you were the worst little child in the neighborhood and when you were five you chased somebody down the street with a butcher knife. And you chased this person all the way down the street with a butcher knife and the neighbors had to pull you off and everything, and my, you don't remember this?"

Of course, the truth of the matter is, it didn't happen. It might have happened to Mama who was telling you this or it might have happened to Uncle Joe. It just didn't happen to you. But there was so many chilluns around that Mama got kind of confused. For some reason or other mamas get confused. They seem to have a habit of being very confused about data. And they keep feeding the kid data that the kid really doesn't — the kid knows it didn't happen.

And — but the kid, because it's Mama, and they're very dependent upon Mama for food, clothing, shelter, admiration, everything, you see, they have to take that datum. It's not right, that datum isn't, and they can't make it fit but that's what Mama says. Because Mama is so many good things, Mama also becomes all kinds of evaluation. She can evaluate what's bad.

And the next thing you know, the child depends upon Mama for evaluation, so he's got big circuits set up which are Mama circuits. And if you want to restimulate this preclear, he can hear Mama's voice talking to him giving him some advice every once in a while.

Every once in a while you'll get a preclear who walks around the streets and his mother's voice is going on and on and on inside his head. He doesn't know it's his mother's voice; he's got some strange voice inside of his head which tells him what to do. Socrates had one. It's not so uncommon. That's a demon circuit. All right.

It evaluates for him because he has to depend on something else to evaluate, so he'll carry an evaluation mechanism along with him. That is just one of 8,767,533,622.95 methods of being logical. That's logic — mechanisms by which you can evaluate for you about the future out of the data from the past. And you figure you can be logical and logical and logical and logical and more logical and more logical and if you can think it out and figure it out, if you just think long enough, and you think long enough, you'll what? You'll find that hidden datum.

Now, basic logic runs like this: Let me give you an example of basic logic. Here is the genesis of logic, evidently. Terminal one looks at terminal two, and terminal two insists on looking at terminal three. And terminal one wants terminal two to look at terminal one, of course. All right.

Because there's a scarcity of attention, you see? That's the first scarcity. So — it never occurs to him if he wants attention that bad, why doesn't he put a mock-up out there?

Anyway, he's got this terminal two which keeps looking over here at terminal three and he's trying to distract the attention of terminal two so that terminal two will look at terminal one.

How's he do it? He tries to look pretty, doesn't work. He tries to hum a tune, doesn't work. Little boy walks on his hands on top of the board fence, doesn't work.

So he figures and he figures and he figures, and one day he finds out that terminal three is vulnerable to the fact that terminal three customarily, every night before he goes to bed, takes a bath. He's a sissy in other words. And now he can tell terminal two, "Look how bad it is over that way. You shouldn't look over there at three."

Now, terminal two still insists at looking at terminal three. He'll figure out some more reasons and some more modus operandi by which he can make terminal two look away from terminal three by convincing terminal two that terminal three is not to be looked at.

See, at first he tries himself to invite the curiosity and desire for attention and now he's going to enforce it. And he enforces it by inhibiting attention on terminal three.

Well now, he just might as well excite terminal two's char — terminal two's curiosity is liable to be so excited that they hadn't been really looking at terminal three before, but now they're just anxious and hungry to look at terminal three. That's the backfire on this technique.

All right. So he says — this doesn't work. So he finally finds one that does work, and he says, "You know, he has outbursts of fits. Any time he's liable to have a fit." And he finds some other kids and they corroborate this. They say, "Yup, terminal three has fits." Terminal two says, "No." And looks at this person but doesn't really want to look at this terminal three because this terminal three has got what? A hidden influence. He's liable to break into fits at any moment.

So you don't want anything to do with that, so terminal two may or may not then look at terminal one. But if terminal two looks at terminal one you can get an interchange of communication which is itself energy. And the business of living has to do with that interchange of energy amongst beings or amongst mock-ups.

You can have just as thorough a flow by throwing out a whole flock of mock-ups as you have live beings. And every mock-up is probably just almost as alive as the people. It's very interesting. This universe multiplies like mad; talk about rabbits. Anyway .. .

Here is something much more important. Your mock-up, by the way, doesn't have the duration that bodies have and that's about the only principal difference between the two. Anyway .. .

We have, then, a distraction of attention and an invitation of attention. In other words, the desire to disperse attention when fixed and the desire to fix attention when dispersed is in essence the highest level of control.

One comes then into possession of attention by dispersing it when it's too fixed and fixing it when it's too dispersed. And if one can do this with somebody else's attention continually, continually, continually, why then you get this situation accruing of control. And what do you know, that's hypnotism.

Very interesting, but you get fixation of attention and you get buried data and so forth. Why? Because of hidden influence. That's all. You got more hidden influence.

So, not only bad now at terminal three, but it's bad over at terminal sixteen and it's as bad at terminal eighty-two and it's bad at terminal infinity and the next thing you know it's bad also at terminal two. Terminal two then has it bad all the way around, so terminal two has got it so bad all the way around, there is hidden influences every place that are liable to cave in because it's so bad.

What's the hidden influence? The hidden influence is, you bring in an anchor point and find out it has something bad, so therefore you don't want to look at it so you rig up some kind of a mechanism so that you get a look at an anchor point before it has come in and looked at, you see — a test look at — and the test look at says that's bad so you set it aside and you say, "Well, that's — something about that." Now you don't say what's bad about it, but it becomes a hidden influence so the entire memory track of an individual becomes filled with hidden influences because he is picking up things that are bad.

Then, you control people by hidden influences. I had a capitalist tell me one time. Capitalism is a barbaric sort of a philosophy that was once practiced in one of the more ancient countries which has since decayed. But it's an interesting philosophy. It has to do with the fact, if you can make every-thing scarce enough and scare everybody enough, you can own everything.

And this capitalist, who was a very famous capitalist, told me one time, "Well, the trouble is, you're not making it scarce enough. You really want to..."

You know, I thought Thorstein Veblen was talking through his hat on a lot of these things and so forth till I started to associate with the pigs — I mean the fellows. And I was perfectly capitalistic for a long time; I'm not communistic now, I don't care for either side of the same dichotomy, thank you, but anyway .. .

The point is — the point is that this was true and I mean, all this thing about the capitalist indulges in fear and scarcity and if he can get scarcity and fear going, why, he's all set and he can control.

And here was a very successful capitalist telling me that what I ought to do with Dianetics and Scientology was to make it very scarce and then use only that material in it which scared people. Then it would be successful.

"Now, what the hell do you mean, successful?" I said.

"Well, you'd sell lots of books!"

And I said, "Well, what's successful about that?"

And he said, "Well," he says, "you'd make lots of money."

And I said, "What can you buy with the money?"

And he looked at me and — like I was crazy or something. And he says, "You can buy — you can buy — what's the matter with you?"

I says, "Well, I don't need all that money."

And he says, "Well, what's the matter with you?" He says, "Success — money!"

And I all of a sudden found out that I had challenged the two, identified terminals of capitalism. And what are they? "Worth is money" and that's all. Do we go on from there anyplace? Do we look any further than that? No, we don't have to look any further than that, because we've got it all figured out and it's right there.

Only people could be starving, you know, and you could have a whole pile of gold coins there, and there isn't a single thing that you could do with the gold coins but make bracelets. I don't know if you've ever tried to eat a gold bracelet or not.

Commodity, consumable commodity is worth something. Building material is worth something. Money isn't worth anything except as it will buy. Well, what do you know. Here is a philosophy where the money is the thing. It is the thing! I mean it — it isn't anything the money will buy. It's — it's it. We stop right there at that point.

What's this got to do with scarcity and abundance? Well, the scarcity begins to be the thing. What's this fellow got? He's got scarcity.

Have you ever seen a Case V start telling you rather proudly about his lack of perception? He's the worst case . . . A scarcity is now the thing. All right. Well that's — that's what it comes down to. He has become dependent upon his own scarcity. For what? For attention!

You can say with honesty that a Homo sapiens or a thetan will do any-thing for attention. Anything — bad, good or indifferent. And when it gets too scarce, he goes to the doggonedest extremes.

Upscale he will get attention by being ethical, admirable, honest, just, ethical in general, because he's got an enormous abundance. He's got an abundance of attention. In the first place, he doesn't need much attention. He can get attention and therefore on these other matters he isn't under terrific stress.

He starts going down scale and so he can only get attention by saying, "It's bad over thataway," and finally he can only get attention by being bad right where he is — by knocking something off. And so you get the dwindling spiral and you could really count — this dwindling spiral of attention is "What will a person do to get attention?"

You see the terrible extremities some people go to. Some people will even solve problems relating to the mind to get attention. Anyway, anyway .. .

We have, then, something that has been scarce all the way down the line. Mock-ups do two things, incidentally; two very, very wonderful things. The mock-up put in present time brings the preclear, whether he likes it or not, into present time, and if he makes enough mock-ups, just like that, he will eventually come into present time. They won't run anything out or any-thing but he'll just get used to being in present time. He'll say, "You know, it's not so bad in present time. I always thought I was back here in 1495 but here I am in present time with a mock-up."

The other thing it solves is scarcity of attention. You can always have mock-ups looking at you. There's no difficulty in getting a mock-up to look at you. It's all you've ever had to look at you anyway. You had mock-ups.

You mocked up a mock-up over the person who was looking — you were looking at who was a mock-up anyway but it was your mock-up that was giving you attention, and this was stimulated by the fact that the person was giving you attention, which permitted you to put a mock-up over him again. But if you were good enough, by the way, you could put a mock-up over him so much that you made them turn the same way and face you with your mock-up. That would be pulling their head around with an energy beam. You actually could do this. This is not a very involved thing.

But the dwindling spiral, then, is the scarcity of attention which is measured by, for the auditor, and here's another little point you can put down and remember, with a communication lag index of how sane is the preclear. Let's take a look at his concentration ability. What is his ability to concentrate? What is his case level? These two things are comparable — his ability to concentrate and his case level are right there, and what is that measured by?

Of course, a person can concentrate, you know, with his circuits, so to speak. A person can also sit still, totally blank; that isn't concentration.

Duration of mock-up. But this doesn't work exactly in ratio the way the communication lag index does. The mock-up is there and it's gone; it's there and it's gone; it's there and it's gone. You all of a sudden hold — haul ahold of this preclear and you say, "Hey, wait a minute. Make the next one stay there." All right, it wasn't that you had to feed him mock-ups, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang! because he was so good at it and so forth and so on. They just didn't last any longer than that and he had to cover up the fact they wouldn't last by the fact that he had to slap new ones down there all the time and he didn't want you to know he was doing this so he just kept — he just wouldn't hold one. Simple, very simple mechanism.

Concentration, his concentration really was poor. But let's — let's get this; what am I talking about when I say concentration? Now immediately this will make lots of big sense to you. Concentration on present time, please. What is the preclear's concentration on present time? It's how long he can hold a mock-up mocked up in present time.

By the way, people can hold up mock-ups mocked up back on the track or into the future sometimes when they can't hold them in present time. Your first impulse of your preclear is to put the mock-up into the past rather than in the present.

So their concentration is the duration of the mock-up in present time. And you'll find out this measures pretty well with various other things, such as their mechanical aptitude, and so forth. And it will also be how good they are at handling their anchor points; throwing their anchor points out and bringing them in. It tells you that pretty well.

How much blackness there is in the face of the preclear has very, very little to do with the case, by the way. It is a coincidence. How much loss has this person suffered? This person has suffered as much loss as he has a density of blackness surrounding him. He has lost as much as he is surrounded by blackness. So that's incidental. It's incidental because the blackness is too easily banished. You can banish the blackness and still not have your boy in good shape, see? So let's not concentrate on that factor of blackness or occlusion as being much of an index or measure of anything, you see?

Now, let's use, then, our communication lag index and persistence of the mock-up in present time or controllability of the mock-up in present time as the ability of this preclear to be in present time, and gauge our case in that fashion.

Now, give you just another brief, little statement here on the factors we should know mechanically. Now we have to know these various definitions here that I've given earlier this evening. We should know them very well. How much of a definition do we need for reality? We know reality is agreement and disagreement. Now let's add something to that. Let's say agreement is ability to co-act with or mimic or be mimicked by.

If you were in complete agreement with the MEST universe, you would be the MEST universe, wouldn't you? Well, now you could be the MEST universe, then, two ways: You could be it by self-determinism or you could be it by enforcement or inhibition. You could be it under your own will or because you had depended on it to such a degree that you had been forced to become a slave in it. That would be two kinds of beingness, then, wouldn't there? There would be the beingness which you determined and the beingness which you were forced to be. And this would be determined by whether or not the beingness was elected on your own self-determinism. The ability to be, by your self-determined action would also be measured by your ability to un-be by your self-determined action. So the ability to be and the ability to un-be should be comparable.

And then there would be the enforcement or inhibition of being: pre-vented from being or enforced being. When we take the sixth dynamic, we would find out that the MEST universe by its own mechanical action eventually forces a person to be something but it doesn't let him un-be it; or it prevents a person from being something and won't let him be it. It makes him un-be it so that he can never be it.

In other words, you have then what with the MEST universe? You have duration of condition. In the MEST universe you have a duration of condition. In self-determinism you can select the duration of condition. You can be some-thing for a long time or be something for a short time or you can un-be something immediately or you can un-be something slowly, anyway you want to go about it, you see?

But the MEST universe on enforcement and inhibition, your dependency on it, makes you be it or prevents you from being it, and then if you are it, you can't un-be it and if you aren't it, you can't be it. In other words, it makes a static or enforced condition.

And self-determinism depends upon the person's ability to be or un-be anything. Be or un-be anything.

And now we'll go into some — well, let me tell you the rest of this, so these things — the goal of auditing is the pc to present time; the sixth dynamic is the most aberrative, beingness is space; you need two terminals and space is a viewpoint of dimension; anchor points are these other terminals, which — it doesn't matter whether you call them an anchor point or a terminal, interchangeable term. And we've got a fight going on, a scarcity versus abundance on all dynamics, in any dynamic interactive, and we have dependency versus self-determinism on all dynamics or any dynamic.

All right, let's look this over a little bit further, and we find out that self-determinism depends upon the ability to be. And we find out that beingness in [is] space, so we have another index of the sanity of an individual, is how much space can he make. That's very simple, how much space has he got and how stable and well controlled are the things in it? Because if the things in his area are not stable or uncontrolled, he's not making them in his space. That's all there is to that.

He doesn't control the space but he's trying to control the object. And you wonder why these mock-ups just go all over the place and so forth. They're in something else's space. He doesn't have space out there.

Make him build some space. Make him put a couple of anchor points out there. You say just — this guy maybe can hold a couple of anchor points, you see, and he still can't control the mock-up sufficiently, so just make him put down a couple of guidon flags out in front of him, like that, and plant them — mock-ups.

You just say, "Let them stay there, fellow."

And he'll sit there and he'll "Ahhh-ahhh-ahhh-ahhh — yeah?"

"Well just hold them there."

"I don't like this," he'll say.

"Go on, hold them there."

"You know," he'll say, "I'm getting uncomfort — . No, I'm not either. I don't know if I like this or not."

What have you done? You haven't told him what you've done. You've just made some space. You put two mock-ups out there, you see, and you made some space with them and he's in that space whether he likes it or not. Therefore, you get Matching Terminals as something which very covertly makes space. You never mention it. You set up the terminals out there and let them run out.

You're letting them discharge actually. You're letting them discharge energy but they are really making space.

So the first law of beingness: before you can be anything you have to have space. If you can control that space, you can be anything you want in it, if you can control the space.

And controlling space would mean to be in it or not be in it. And you see controlled space — it's very surrounded space down in the jail, but it's not controlled space. You can't be in it or not in it at will. Sometimes you go down and want to go to jail and they won't let you in. Sometimes you go — you don't want to go to jail and they have you down there, I mean, they're very unhandy about this whole thing.

The whole philosophy of the MEST universe is what you don't want, we're going to give you and what we give you, you don't want. All right. Not much difference between that and jail.

Anyway, we have beingness then as another key.

Now, hold your hats on this one. This is a new one to you. It's kind of snuck up on you; I'll give you it in the last few minutes of play, and let you spin all night, hah!

Now, to be anything, the thetan also has to be able to be that space, doesn't he? And your first condition of being anything is to be a space, isn't it?

Well, that's real good, but you see, ambition is the desire to be some-thing, isn't it? Well, the first definition of theta is that it is something without location, size, shape, mass, wavelength, weight. I've got news for you. You know, you're never going to be anything.

And yet, look at this. You think it's bad to pretend to be something. Oh, you think that's real bad to just pretend to be something, not really truly be it. Everybody is — everybody sneers, you see, at something that's only pretending to be something.

The best a thetan can ever do is to try to be something or pretend he is or think he is something. A thetan never became a body. He will never be a body, not if he practices for eighty billion years will he ever be a body. But he can pass through a period where he is pretending successfully to be a body.

What determines this pretense of success? Do people believe he's a body? Oh, they believe him, then he's successful. That's the only test.

So have you ever been able, all the way down the track, to reach any ambition toward which you ever attained? No sir, because you could never be anything, you see? You couldn't be anything, but you could only try to be convincing as something. And you knew that all the time. You knew that all the time. You knew you could never really be anything, but you could sure put up a good show.

And the hidden datum that is waiting, the hidden influence that is waiting to smack any preclear, is that one. That's waiting right there to jump him, hard. He's never going to be a body. He never has been a body. He isn't John Doe. He never will be John Doe! He can only try hard to be John Doe!

And he goes on and he tries hard to be John Doe but he never finishes the end of a cycle of action. He never puts a completion, a complete and absolute stop, on the line.

John Doe dies and the thetan pulls out and says, "Well, that's that." That's interesting, isn't it? He didn't die. He even stepped out immediately before the end. He never became John Doe.

Now, you want to know why your past life might be covered up and you don't remember it? Now that's a bad failure; you knew you were never that one. But you're going to be this one so this one you're willing to remember because it hasn't yet been proven to you that you can't be it.

Any day now, you're going to wake up and find yourself John Doe; that's a big ambition. Any day you're going to wake up and find that you are the person whose name you bear. My, that would be satisfactory.

Now, you're going to ask a V to move out of this body? He's trying like mad! He's got himself 90 degrees convinced that he's part of the MEST universe; that he is this body; at last he is something! No, he's not!

You as an auditor come along, and you're going to back him up and say, "You know, you're not!" Uh-uh, he isn't going to like this. He'll just try to be harder.

Well now, there's a reverse action on all this beingness. That which a person tries not to be, he becomes. That which a person tries to be he fails to become. Because that's the MEST universe, it has reverse flows in it, and it works backwards.

Why is this? "It's bad over thataway," you see? The MEST universe action "bad over thataway," dependence, so on. You bring something in. You say, "That's bad; I don't want anything to do with it," and what do you know, you find yourself saddled with it.

Why is that? It's because you wouldn't take responsibility for it.

So what have we got here? Between the thetan and a body we have a closure of two terminals. Between the thetan and any form of beingness, we have a closure of two terminals.

So anything the thetan says, "I never under God's green earth am going to become a motorman. I wouldn't be a motorman or anything of the sort!"

After he's — if he's mad enough about this, you see him a few months hence, and so forth, and you say, "How are you doing Bill?"

Bill says, "I'm doing all right."

"Where are you working Bill?"

"Oh, the Street Railway Company. I'm a motorman."

And you say, "Now, wait a minute, now wait a minute, Bill. You said you were never going to be a motorman!"

"Well, I know but I didn't . . ." and so on. He's got a lot of rationalization about this whole thing.

It's a lead-pipe cinch that he's going to become a motorman!

Now, if you kept saying for years and years and years, "There is one thing I'm never going to be under no circumstances, would anybody ever find out because it's the one thing I'm never going to be, I'm never going to have anything to do with bodies! I don't want to be a body. I don't want to have any-thing to do with them. I consider them vile; I consider them dirty, nasty, mean, ornery, they're no good, and so forth, and I'm just never going to be a body, not as long as I'm around!" He's a body!

Why? He says that he won't be something. If he won't be something, he abandons an area of space and takes no control over that space and, you might say, might as well say, he made a sort of a vacuum in it. A vacuum which he's trying to pull out of. Any anchor point he has, then, he's pushing away from that space and if he pushes away hard enough, all of a sudden any points that he has left over will draw him right square into the space and he becomes a motorman or he becomes a body.

Why? Because he won't be a body. That's the one thing he wouldn't be.

So we find the girl who is going to be a good girl, you understand. She's not going to be a bad girl; not like — not like Amy Lou. Amy Lou is vicious, wicked, mean, ornery, a dog and so forth and besides has a terrible habit of putting her hat on and then taking her hat off, and putting her hat on all the time.

And you meet this girl a little bit later and she's taking her hat off and putting her hat on again and taking it off and putting it on.

And you say, "What's the matter with you?"

"Oh, nothing."

You find out she's having six affairs too many and so forth. She is going to be a good girl, she was. She was trying to be a good girl.

If you can get somebody to try to be good hard enough then, if you can just really get them straining at trying to be good, they'll kill themselves off with badness. And if you can get somebody just being downright determined he's going to be the most vicious person on Earth, he winds up an angel. It's fabulous.

Why? Because that is evaluation and a determination which is based upon adjudication of what is good and what is evil and the thought that you should abandon and that you cannot tolerate anything that is (quote) bad (unquote).

What happens when you abandon something? It just means you refuse to take responsibility for it. And what does that mean? That's just refuse to have any anchor points in that area. So what's that do? It just creates a complete vacuum in that area, and the first thing you know, they're there.

Now, because you won't touch that area, you won't try to get out of it. You don't want anything to do with this area so you're not going to put out any anchor points, aren't you? You just, "The heck with this area; I don't like this area; I don't want anything to do with it!"

By the way, did you ever look at a body on a dissection table? Some of you here may have dissected a few bodies. I see a couple of faces.

Well, you see, if you were — supposing you had a bunch of guts and livers and kidneys and hearts and lungs and so forth hanging up in a closet, and you walked in in the dark and walked into them. Would you like that? Hm?

Where are you now?

That's just the one place you wouldn't be, isn't it? See? So a fellow gets in the midst of all this and he isn't even going to put out a single anchor point or do anything about this at all because he don't want to touch it!