Thank you.

The subject of the lecture today ... I want you to make a note of this, write it down in your notes. The subject of the lecture today is Scientology. Just write it down now.

This is the fifteenth lecture, 1st Melbourne ACC.

The difficulties surrounding your cases at this moment are thinner today, I see, than they were yesterday.

Audience: Yeah.

That's right, something happened, huh?

Audience: Yeah.

Well, what do you know. What do you know. One of you students must have shown the Instructors how to do it.

Now, it's quite customary to see things happen on an ACC. And your Instructors, they know their business, and the general state of affairs with regard to auditing today is sufficiently sharp that you've got to be pretty sharp to follow in along with it. I think you already realize that.

There's something else going on here that didn't used to go on. In a large number of cases you'd sit there and you'd grind and grind and grind and grind and there would be one little change, see. And then you'd grind and grind and grind and grind another twenty-five, seventy-five hours and you'd get another change. Pc doing all right, and coming up scale, and living better, and everything's fine — everything's fine.

Now, you'd better reacclimate yourselves, that's all I've got to say. Your expectancy of change should be increased because you've slowed down your expectancy of change to match what you could do in the past. So, let's just speed it up again.

As I told you, I — as a matter of fact an Australian, Ray Thacker*Editor's note: a staff member at HASI London at the time of this lecture. who is the most ... What? You don't even clap for a fellow Australian?

Anyway — noticed that after I got through working seventeen, eighteen hours a day, I'd slowed down a little bit, so she decided she would run some Havingness on me, and she'd come in the office and run some Havingness and I've already mentioned this, but I'll punch it home here, and she was quite upset! Case change, case change, case change, case change, case change, see? Flat! It upset her! She couldn't find out where to stop! And one night instead of auditing me fifteen minutes, audited me about two hours and forty-five minutes because she couldn't find a flat place, she said. Because just too much change was going on. Unnerved her, upset her!

Now, of course, some of your change is mirrored by your tone arm. When you bring your tone arm down somewhere in the vicinity of the Clear reading for the sex of the pc, why, you know it's fairly flat. But don't get so alarmed at change. Now, if your pc suddenly grows horns, take it in stride! Take it in stride. Don't flip on the thing.

Probably the worst squirrel operation in the world ever happened in Scientology — down in Los Angeles. And the fellow down there — onetime writer, oddly enough had been an enemy of mine for years. And publicly a friend, but privately one of the worst enemies. Editors used to show me occa­sional letters you know and say, "What's this guy got against you?" See, you know he'd write in and comment to editors on my stories and all sorts of things like this, you know. Of course, when he came into Dianetics and Scientology, he had too many overts. He was just riding on top of these overts. And he'd like to be inside but he's got to be outside because there's just too many overts, you know.

It doesn't matter what you try to do with this fellow, he's still got overts, overts, overts. Got the idea? So therefore, he has to dream up motivators to explain his overts. And they're inexplicable, except for this. I used to make more money faster than he ever dreamed of in writing and occasionally he would get a letter from an editor saying, "I'm very, very sorry, your novel has been rejected. You'll have to send it someplace else because we didn't think you were going to send it and Hubbard sent us one, and we're printing his." See?

Now you get something like that going on, there's practically no way to reach it with an auditing session. Overts, overts, overts. You get the idea?

Well this results in alteration and alter-isness. The basis of destruction is alter-isness. And when somebody would like to destroy you, but can't, all he can do is alter-is you. Got the idea?

Oh, we see this in various ways. Entheta, you see. Here's an auditor sit­ting in an area doing all right. Some other auditor isn't doing all right, so they start accumulating overts against this auditor that is doing all right. The next thing you know the person committing the overts gets madder and madder at the auditor. This fellow has never done anything, you understand, to this other guy. Maybe even sent him some pcs. And the more that B does to A, the more overts, overts, overts pile up into the more anger, anger, anger. You got the idea? It's a one-man fight, there's no other fight going on over here, see?

Boy, it begins to look like a cyclone is happening in this vicinity. This fellow goes to bed at night and bites the pillow, you know, and screams to himself, you know. And while auditing a pc or something like that — lets out little yips occasionally. And this is alter-isness.

Destruction as we know it in war or in anything else, is simply alter-isness of the creation. It is not the cessation of creation, it is the alter-isness of the existing creation.

That's why I've been talking to you about busted pagodas, you know, and broken ashtrays and all that sort of thing, you see. Actually the ashtray is still being created because its fragments are still there. But somebody has alter-ised the creation, you see. And they call that destruction. And when done very, very, very spectacularly, they call it war. But alter-isness — alter-isness is the keynote of all destruction.

And any person who has a great many overts against another person starts trying to alter-is. Get the idea? He starts to alter-is the other person. He alter-ises anything the other person is doing. You see? He alter-ises any-thing the other person thinks. He alter-ises any other thing the other person has as a reputation and so on. And it adds up to basically what looks like destruction. And this basically is caused or can be caused by no more than an overt. In other words, you get this silly situation where one overt breeds another overt, which breeds another overt, which breeds another overt, which brings about a bad opinion.

Actually, you shouldn't let people commit overts against you because they'll kill themselves. Got the idea? Just — just as a humanitarian gesture. Now, very often we're very slack about that. For instance, I particularly care nothing about overts by somebody or other. If I did we wouldn't be here. But, it's inhuman not to reach out and get somebody who is doing something like this and patch them back together again because they need patching.

A husband and a wife. Wife one day is walking down the street and, her husband is a blond, she's always been attracted by brunettes, you know. Mar­ried this guy, loved him dearly, everything is going along all right, and she sees this brunette guy, see. She says, "Whew, boy. Oh, wow!" You know. And then she says, "Ah-ah! I'm a married woman. Yep. Well, it would have been nice."

That night she's sitting there, you know, and the husband hadn't been feeling very friendly these days, he's worried about business or something of the sort, you know, and he's sitting there reading a magazine or something, muttering to himself about somebody he's committed overts against, you know. And the wife's sitting there and she suddenly remembers this guy with the black hair, you know, and she says, "Oh, wow, you know, that — that-that ... What am I doing? He's a good husband. He's faithful. He's loyal. He's decent. He's everything. And what am I doing something like this to him? You know? Well, I'll straighten out. I'll toe the chalk mark." All her own voli­tion, you see. Noble.

Couple of weeks go by and she sees one of these physical culture maga­zines you see. It's sitting on the stands, you know, and there's somebody with tremendous biceps, you know, curling up, the neck muscles all taut, you know, and she says, "Woooowwww! you know. That's pretty good, you know. Wait a minute! What the hell is the matter with my husband!"

Now, she gets this all explained, just because her husband doesn't look like that, and therefore so on and so on, and she's got it all explained, and that's why she's annoyed with her husband. That night she's serving up the — the roast beef and the mashed potatoes and something like that and he notices they're slightly underdone because she has been a little bit abstracted while getting dinner, you know. And he says, "Dear, I wish you'd do the roast beef a little bit more next time."

"Crab! Crab! Crab! You're always chopping at me!" Here it goes.

He goes around and he says, "I can — what have I done?" See? "What have I done?" He can't think of anything he's done so he skips it. Well, she's just a little bit out of sorts, you know.

Well, because she barked at him, and jarred at him and was upset about him, now she can be more upset about him. You get the idea?

Now, this has a rather unexpected twist here. Eventually, if you caught her in a moment, and you said, "What color eyes does your husband have?" She wouldn't be able to answer the question. Got that? She's flashed back and flashed back and flashed back, you see, and piled up overt after overt until she's alter-ised, not only the circumstances and condition of the thing, she's actually alter-ising his appearance.

You ask her to make a mock-up of him, something like that, and it goes flick! flick! birrrooommm! boom! boom! tsiisss! She doesn't quite see what this mock-up is. You see. It's her father, it's somebody else, it's somebody else, it's somebody else. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm.

That's the way it goes.

Now, that's basically because she understands very clearly that he thinks that her thoughts would be an overt against him. Just untangle that one. Got that?

It begins because she thinks, you see, that her thoughts would be consid­ered by him to be an overt act against him.

Oh, I remember a denouement which went opposite way to on this sort of thing. The fellow was married the second time and he'd been thinking to himself, "Wow!" and he'd been doing this, and he'd been doing that, and he had — he had a very nice wife. She was very properly brought up, she was a very delicate, sweet thing, and so forth, and he didn't want to hurt her. And she had been raised in a Latin country. He didn't want to hurt her, you see.

And he had a very pretty secretary in the office, you know, and he got to a point where occasionally, why, he'd say, "Wow!" you know, and went up higher, and higher, and higher.

Years went along and his marriage was all disintegrating, and lying all over the floor, and never in the bedroom. And ... Excuse that, I mean, I just .. .

And one day she flew in his teeth. Said, "What kind of a man are you?" She says, "You're no catch. You never have been! You can't appreciate women. I have never seen you make a pass at a woman since you've been married to me. What is the matter with you?"

Her overts had eventually added up to being critical of him because he could not appreciate her looks or beauty, obviously, because he didn't appreciate women. I remember very well his keeping her happy by taking his secretary out to lunch occasionally. And that's right. And she felt important about it.

So, people's ideas of what an overt act is, shift all over the place. See, they shift all over the place. They could be some of the most remarkable things you ever heard of.

But we all seem to have, per school training and religious training and other things; we've all been given to believe that the other fellow has a stand­ard pattern of what are overts.

In other words, there's overt one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight, you see. And if you do these things, then he will consider them overts. You got the idea? And then, he will start to alter-is you because he's now got a motivator. This is (quote) human conduct (unquote) as understood by — oh, I don't know, psychology, Freud, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Paul — lots of guys. See? They got it all figured out. So part of your education is what the other fellow will consider an overt.

And on that basis, we get unreality, and we get alter-isness, and we get mutual co-destruction. See, because there's no agreement on really, "What's an overt?"

There's many a wife who has overts against her husband or many a hus­band who has overts against the wife or many a child who has overts against the parents. They're absolutely certain that if disclosed, that would be it, that would be the end of the trail, man, that would just be that. Wow!

It's almost an insult, one day, to say to Dad, you know, "Well, Dad, last night after you were asleep I swiped the car and went joy riding with two girls." You know. Because you can't stand it anymore, you know, you say, "I did it."

It's almost an insult because it doesn't match up, you see, with your strain and pain on the situation.

And he says, "Well," he says, "did you get the tires pumped up?" He says, "I've been meaning to stop by a service station." "Glad to see you're taking an interest in girls, son."

The fact of the matter is, what another human being will take as a con­fidence is so much greater than what it is commonly believed, that there's hardly anything couldn't be patched up except maybe murder. And the "bulls" probably wouldn't let this be patched up. Pardon me, I meant the cop-pers. They probably would not like this. They would probably say, "gas chambers" and that sort of thing.

I'm always amused at cops. I've worked with them quite a bit here and there and so forth. Been in intelligence and such things. I'm always amused at cops. They're so upset really at any plaintiff who is really mad at the crim­inal. They get upset with the plaintiff. All the criminal did was burn down their house, you know. And they want him arrested, and they want him jailed, and they want him given the limit, and they want to sign out the war-rant, and they want him ta-fra, and so on. And they say, that person there — not a good citizen, doesn't show proper spirit and so on. Just seen that time after time, you see.

And I've also seen circumstances where you come in, and bring some young fellow or something like that in, and he's so-and-so and such-and-such and so on, and he wants to see if he can't get it squared around. Good heav­ens, everybody gets busy, you see, and they get it all squared around, they get him a suspended sentence or something of the sort. You know, you ... It's quite weird. You'd say, "But these are the ravening wolves."

Well, there's only one way to play law, and that's either play it for reha­bilitation, without very much punishment, or play it the whole way. See?

You find somebody stopping the stagecoach, and so forth, why you just put a bullet in his leg, and a neck arou — a rope around his neck and string him up to the nearest tree, you know, bang! And leave him there.

You know, if you — if you're going to do it by punishment, you have to do it all the way by punishment. Do you understand? It can't hang up halfway and still have law and order in a community.

And I don't know what the law is all about now but you could fix almost anything with the law I'm fairly sure. I'm not even sure you couldn't fix mur­der with them. Providing you didn't cause them a lot of trouble in coming and finding you and resisting arrest and all that sort of thing, you generally get this thing patched up. Quite interesting.

So, even on the third dynamic, we have a considerable tolerance — even on the third dynamic.

About the only ones that get short shrift are food animals. See. Run them up the chute to the slaughterhouse and knock them in the head and make them into steaks. Nobody thinks in that direction.

But there's a great oddity takes place in the zone of food animals; there's the joy of being eaten. Darnedest thing. They count, utterly, evidently after a while on being knocked off and going through the boiling pots, you see. Apparently has its own stupid compensations. Providing it doesn't change and people don't start using infrared cookery or something. That would probably be a shock.

Got the idea? It's a constancy of some kind or another, is something that people can come to endure or almost any dynamic can come to endure one way or the other.

But what they can't stand is mystery, unreality, failure to have agree­ment, failure of communication, so forth. These are the bad things. Deeds, taken by and large, aren't near as rough, not nearly as rough, as the cut comm which ensues.

So, when a person thinks an overt thought or does an overt act to another one, it cut communication because they then can't express every-thing to the other person. And to just that degree they go out of communica­tion with the other person. The other person senses a mystery hanging around their heads, you see. The reality goes down because the alter-is has already come into being. So that we can classify alter-isness (if I'm not going too fast for you) classify alter-isness, as cessation of communication, alter­ation of reality or perversion of affinity. So, any one of these three things then brings about an alter-isness and on a cycle of action we find alter­isnesses add up to destruction. Got it?

So, when people see cut communication, perverted affinity, twisted real­ity, no agreements, they get much more upset than actually if the other per-son had come in and taken their watch down to the hockshop and pawned it. Got the idea?

You see, evidently the act of taking the other fellow's watch down to the hockshop and pawning it, is understandable. But the fact of a watch suddenly disappearing, as one isolated incident, not connected with the fact that the fellow who stole the watch is now out of communication in some fashion, these two things you can't do anything about. Got the idea?

So it takes the full combination here to add up to totally strained relations.

But people can understand taking somebody else's watch — oddly enough can understand it. Isn't it weird? Isn't it utterly incredible then that there'd be so much cut comm if there's that much tolerance?

And you ought to look around sometime and find out just how much tol­erance of deeds there is, because it's fantastic! It leaves you breathless when you start examining this thing.

And I remember one fellow came aboard ship, an expeditionary vessel one night, and he was dead drunk, and he beat up the gangway guard, and he roused everybody up in the crew's berthing and he threw liquor all over everybody and set one fellow's clothes on fire. It took practically the total crew to subdue him! It all happened so fast I was just in time merely to complete the act by sitting on his head. And I said, "Well, you blankety-blank-blank!" You know, in true sailor lingo. "We'll fix you but good."

So the next day, why, we fished him out of the brig, sober, secondhand and repentant. And I'm back on the quarterdeck, and instead of bringing him up to the quarterdeck, they hauled him in the waist, you see, and four of the men come forward to explain to me that he was just drunk, and that you could buy more clothes, and he was ordinarily a good fellow. Well, listen, it was their clothes, it was their crew's berthing, you see, and it was their liquor and everything.

Made a tough problem in justice. Tough problem in justice. As a result all I did was masthead him where everybody could see him, you see. Which hadn't been seen (this happened to be a sailing vessel) hadn't been seen since the Royal Navy in Lord knows when; send somebody up to the truck and make him sit there in nowhere. You know. Well, that was all they would toler­ate doing to this man.

Now, that's quite remarkable when you get to thinking about it.

But, now let's look at a different picture. They come in from ashore, you see, and they come back and find everything messed up in the crew's berthing, and somebody's liquor splattered all over the place, and somebody's clothes have been set afire, and they can't find out who did it or why or any-thing else. Now, oddly enough, they at that moment all fall apart. They're all kind of mad at each other. Got the idea?

If you're an agent provocateur or saboteur, to drive a society apart or around the bend, all you have to do is make peculiar circumstances occur so that any workman in the place might have done it. Never bring in a foreign-made bomb. You get the idea? Always make it out of somebody's local Wool-worth thermos jug, you see. The bomb won't do much but the fact that somebody would do something, that it would remain a mystery and that nobody could spot the thing, would do a great deal.

Does this make sense?

Audience: Yes.

Now, if you get killed you can always go get another body. Of course if somebody kills everybody off on the whole planet, you've got other problems.

I hate to go into space opera but cross-association — I know how rough this could be. I don't know whether I ought to tell you this or not. Maybe I just better leave it as a withhold.

But about one hundred eighty thousand years ago I was given the assignment of guard captain to a planet in the Big Dipper area that had been totally washed with radiation. There was not a living thing on it except trees. I had a guard company of just a couple of hundred men. We had some helicop­ters and there was still some mining to be done, so they moved in some mining crews. There was nothing else on the planet. Not a thing, except some trees.

Wow! It just went on for decades. We did such a good job of guarding it because there was no trouble, ever, you see, that they just forgot to relieve us. It actually did, it went on for decades. There was nothing on that planet.

Now, it had been hit with something that had killed most plant life, all insect life and so on. The most dismal thing you ever wanted to see. You see? Because nothing ever processed the soil. The trees were evidently no longer capable of propagation, but could only stand there, you see.

Never a fly flew in your coffee cup. See? Never a bird sang. There was nothing. And it was like sitting in the middle of a grave.

The mining companies knew better than to leave people there in the mines for more than a year because they'd take them out almost totally psy­cho. Huh! Of course, we were under the government of the nearby planet, and so of course, they forgot us!

I remember going out on maneuvers at first, you know, everything all spit and polish, shined up, lowering dogs on helicopter slings, you know, low­ering dogs in order to track things, and placing electronic cannon here and there, and setting it all up. And just terrific maneuvers, you know, in case the planet was ever attacked, you know.

And dawn till dark, you know, and you'd gather up all the equipment, and gather up the dogs, and go back, you know, and you'd set everything up, and oh my, after about twenty-five or thirty years, why, the way we went on maneuvers, you know, was to ... It doesn't need to be painted, it had been alter-ised.

But the spectacle of widespread death, total solitude, no randomity, nothing to do, that sort of thing .. .

If I could just get some of these crackpots that were in class with me, get somebody like Sneezechev and Wisenstein. If I could just magically trans-port them to that planet. It's still there and nothing's grown on it yet. And just let them sit there for thirty or forty or fifty years and contemplate diplo­matic failures. They'd change their minds.

Now, that's the reverse, that — that is, you might say, an alter-isness that is so great, so tremendous, you see, that nothing ever rises again. It has the appearance of total destruction, although it isn't total destruction. It's just the fact that it has brought about almost a total no-change. It's been hit so hard that it doesn't change thereafter. You got that extreme?

All right, now let's look at it over here. Oh well, fellow walks down the street here and somebody takes a rifle or a pistol or something, and shoots him, and he leaves and goes over to the maternity ward and gets a new body, and yeah, that's — that's fairly comprehensible randomity, you know.

You go on living, there's something to do. Not all the goals and purposes are gone. There's still enough mishmash, and back and forth to round about, that there's some reason for living. You know? And you've just hit another barrier and you know you can get over that one.

Well now, compare that with something much lighter: somebody goes out of ARC with you. All right, now over here on the other side, compare some-thing so destroyed or so alter-ised that it just is a total solitude. There's no change at all. Got the idea? Well, you're looking at plus and minus randomity. And too great a destruction brings about minus randomity. You got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Hm?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now change, minor alter-isness, you run into very easily with today's processes. Now what are you changing? You ask this fellow to "Get the idea" (or something, whatever auditing command you're using) "of creating" what-ever it was that fell out of the assessment.

And at first as you run it, it goes straight up to the minus randomity, no change. Now, you've noticed that, if you had the right button, it went totally up to the destroyed planet, that's — that sort of an idea, you see. Man, was it quiet! You know. Nothing was happening!

And a little bit starts to happen and you see the pc put on the brakes. And a little bit starts to happen, put on the brakes. And a little bit more starts, put on the brakes again!

He's running up against this minus randomity on the other side of the total destruction. That's where he's sitting. He's sitting in a no-change area in destruction. You got it? No change in destruction.

Now, earlier processes never hit this stuff worth a nickel. You could hit them overtly! You could run them out as engrams. You could do this and that with them and so forth but we didn't have processes that just turned them on, whap!

This person has given you the same answer to the auditing command time after time after time after time. Tiny little variations of it. You know? It didn't amount to a hill of beans. Time after time after time, keeps giving you this — kind of the same answer. Nothing much seems to happen to the case, except the case doesn't feel so good. Have you noticed that?

Audience: Yes.

No, nothing big is happening! And it seems to be kind of deadly and he thinks if something did happen it'd be pretty bad, and what he's mocking up does or doesn't associate at first in his mind with this thing that he is creat­ing or being willing to create and he just can't quite tie this thing in. He's just got a field, and there the field sits, you see. And out here is some ran­domity of some kind, you see. Oh, there's a little, tiny shift in the field and so forth and a little more randomity. You get the idea? Tiny stuff.

But the basic state of case is right there. See, he doesn't grow wings out of his shoulders right off the bat.

You'd say offhand that casewise he was hung up a little bit if you expected a rapid change! Therefore at your first look at the Creative Series, the Create Series of processes, your first look, your expectancy — old proc­esses, they chewed away on the fellow and they made him a bit better, you got the idea? Your expectancy hasn't been too much upset in the first running of the Create Series. It looks about the way it ought to look. Got the idea? There's been no heroic, big change in the pc! A little change and he feels better, and he feels sick now. And he .. .

It's not uncommon on the Create Series, if you run this process particu­larly, "What part of a body would you be willing to create?" And of course you get all the leftovers of bodies, you see, after a while.

But that one will run differently than, "What part of a madwoman are you willing to create?" or "What part of an ashcan are you willing to create?" or something like that.

"What part of a body," even runs differently than, "What part of a couple?" See? You get the total, interiorized sort of a look at this thing, and you get these hang-ups. Well, that's because the thought of creating keys in first — oh, sometimes you get a rrrrrr of that very early run, which is hardly worth bothering with, is just the first end alter-is of brrrrr. He gets lots of answers, and you get the automaticities and so forth. Well, it's hardly worth worrying about because he's very shortly going to move into the minus ran­domity beyond the point of destruction. You're going to be sure there's a case hang right there. You understand?

Audience: Mm-hm.

And I don't say you'll always run into the automaticity at the first end of it. And I don't always say that you'll run into a total case hang but it's within my experience that these are phenomena which are very common to this par­ticular type of process. I've done quite a bit of processing with it.

And it looks like you've got a case hang-up. You're not getting much change for a while. And that finally moves back, this is if you've got the real terminal, see. And that finally moves back to too much case change. It goes from plus randomity, brrrrr, to minus randomity, naaaa, to plus randomity back to minus randomity. You got the idea? It's just too much change, too little change, too much change, too little change. You know?

So, you can be fooled with this particular process, you can be fooled with it, or this type of process, into believing that something is flat which isn't. Or you can believe that it's not improving the case, which it is.

You see, you can believe, "Well, it couldn't possibly be getting any improvement in the case because he just seems to sit there and look at that black field and he's been doing that for the last nine hours. It's just — black field came in and it hasn't gone out, and there it is and he seems to get little changes and occasionally twitches. But needle seems to be awfully sticky. And oh, I don't know, we probably ought to run something else, don't you think?"

Well, I'll let you in on something, there's no other process known to man that will do anything to something that the Create Series began. Got the idea? You've had it.

You've pushed the fellow up, of course, to the extreme destruction of the object he was assessed on. And the extreme destruction of the object on which he was assessed is represented by the calmest calm that anybody ever heard of. It sure is calm around there. Black, yes. Invisible, perhaps. Little rockets that go by occasionally but hardly anything else happening. He's in the area of total destruction. Got the idea? The area of — of destruction beyond the point when destruction so violent that nothing could happen afterwards, took place.

Any case you get in the chair, sooner or later, you're going to run into such a zone. The case was destroyed so thoroughly that after that there wasn't anything to destroy at all. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Fellow didn't have any more sense than to become a space pirate or something, you know. Robots, robots fell. He said, "Oh, good, robots. At last, we're going to have some fun with this case — we've got him all set up to run­ning robots, that seems to be the one." It would be interesting to run, too, you know. It sits right there in neuter gender and so on, interesting to run.

And you say, "Can you — what have you got a picture of?"

"Oh, I've got a picture of a robot."

"What's the robot doing?"

"Oh, well, he's fixing something, or he's doing something. Yeah, I can see it, yeah ..."

It assesses, but he can get a picture of the robot. Well, you should ask the question, "Whose picture is it?" Isn't his. And if you consult him you will find out that the robot is doing things on its own determinism and he is sim­ply an interested spectator watching what the robot does. And he's going to be kind of huh! interested in what the robot does next. Got the idea? He hasn't got anything to do with the robot. Not him!

Now, you're looking at a lower area of substitution, one or more substitu­tions below bottom. See? And one or more substitutions below his bottom leaves something on total automaticity, very often quite visible, but with no communication of any kind between it and the pc. Got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Beyond the fact that he could see it if he wanted to look, you know. Robot's going around fixing the wires, polishing shoes or doing anything he's supposed to do but it doesn't have anything to do with the pc.

Now, here's a very good case assessment trick. If the pc has got such an object or such a mock-up, you should monkey around in that zone with a further assessment. Got the idea?

I know, for instance, one case that I'm waiting to jump on, clear back .. . Pcs have had it when I audit them because I ordinarily remember everything they ran, you see, and when they don't. This case was clear back in 1953, January. And I asked this person to mock up a dog. And the person kind of went "Heh-heh-heh!" And I said, "What's the matter?"

Well, the person said, "I got the dog, all right."

"Well, what's the dog doing?"

Said, "Heh-heh-heh," you know. "Oh, he's standing there, he's got some kind of a big bow on him and he's got something going around his neck. And he's throwing it around his neck this way, and so on. Heh-heh! That's real cute." I said, "Well, where's the dog now?"

"Oh," he says, "I see what it is, it's an alarm clock. Got an alarm clock around his neck and he's reading the time, you know," and so forth. And I said, "Well, what's the dog doing now?"

"Oh, it's gone away somewhere."

That person has an animal area valence that's right there, see. It's either a dog or it's some animal associated with a dog, of more or less the same order of magnitude, see, because animals of that magnitude when they appear in the bank just go on asserting themselves and doing what they please and appearing and disappearing at will. Get the idea? It's actually a solid automaticity.

I don't know how many levels of substitution below zero, but that's it. Now, just above that is total destruction. See, just above that you start to run "What part of a dog wouldn't you mind creating?" You'll get birwwww! zup! zup! zup! "Bulldogs, yeah, I've got bulldogs flying off the wall. Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs!" And then all of a sudden, bong! "No dogs. But I can't get a dog. I haven't seen a dog for a half an hour. I don't know why you keep run­ning the command because I — dogs? What's a dog?" Dong!

"Well, what are you looking at there?"

"Well, there's just this great, black sphere."

"Well, what's happening?"

"Nothing. Absolutely nothing."

And you run it and run it and run it and run it and run it. What have you run into? You've run into an area of total destruction.

You've run into the barrier between the life when the preclear could run dogs, and such total destruction occurred to the pc's running of dogs, that after that, "Dogs?" See, even if they were around, one couldn't take any responsibility for them.

"Feed a dog? All right, Mama, if you say so," and leave the hamburger on top of the refrigerator, you know. "Don't quite understand dogs."

One manifestation that goes along with this is, "Ha, dogs are funny, they're so disobedient. I'm very interested in dogs because they're so disobedient."

In other words, there's a likingness of the no-controllingness. All of this is, is, "Isn't it wonderful that I don't have to communicate with or have any-thing to do with dogs. Because if I communicated with anything that had to do with dogs, I don't know what'd happen to me! Ha-ha!"

Wow! See, so you'd move — such a pc, running, "What part of a dog would you be willing to create?" you'd run him into the total null. Get the idea? Sooner or later he's going to hit a null.

Now, I don't care whether that null lasts fifteen minutes, a half-hour, ten days, see, of processing. It doesn't matter, you're going to hit a null. Then you're going to hit some more activity because we don't know how many inversions down, see, this first automaticity we found was.

And what we do is get plus randomity, too fast for the pc's control; minus randomity, too slow for pc's control. You see? Nothing there to control, is there? Just all black. Got the idea?

Plus randomity — pc tries to make a dog stand on a chair, you see, in a mock-up. The dog runs down and gets back up, and runs down and gets back up. You know.

"Did you make the dog stand on the chair?"

"Oh yeah, for a minute." They didn't tell you the rest of it. Which is, the dog went around, tipped over the chair, picked up the chair in his mouth, carried it outside .. .

See, but they did do it for a minute, see, that's getting pretty good. That's one substitution level less.

Well, these substitution levels actually have between them the total destruction levels, which is to say the total minus; the plus, the minus, the plus, the minus, the plus, the minus. And the pluses get so they're not quite so plus and the minuses get so they're not quite so minus and eventually the mock-ups, so on, are visible and come under the control of the pc.

Unless, of course, the pc was already sitting in a total minus randomity which made everything black and they couldn't see any mock-ups. Well, if that was the case and it didn't move, you made the wrong assessment! Get the idea?

Now, a black pc can always be assessed back to the right terminal for that blackness. It isn't the blackness will shift, but it's practically the only thing that will register very differently on a meter from everything else. But it registers the same as the first dynamic. A little law involved in it.

So you go from plus randomity to minus randomity, from plus randomity to minus randomity. If you're not getting either one, you see, you've got some kind of an idea that a case should change uniformly and routinely at so many changes per hour, you see, because you've got too many — so many auditing commands per hour. Well, you just get rid of that idea. You got the idea?

If you're running these new, hot processes, you're going to get too much change per hour, or too little change per hour, and either one is upsetting.

Now, don't think there's a standard rate of change of case! Because cases that are in pretty good shape under a little bit of processing change like mad, no automaticity involved with it, they simply change! Got the idea?

Automaticity is where you've got mock-ups and other things going on without the volition of the pc of any kind, you see.

And the longer you audit the case, actually, the more rapid the change is which comes under the control of the pc. And you eventually get it to a point where the pc can choose his plus or his minus randomity, and the degree of. He's doing it, in other words. Got the idea? He gets up to a point where he's doing it.

The reason things have gone auto — on automatic lies solely in the fact that people think they have been totally destroyed while being them. And that's the whole answer.

A fellow was being a concrete mixer and he's being a pretty good con­crete mixer way on back on the backtrack, Arslycus, or someplace, you know. People would throw sand and gravel at him, and he'd mix it up and so forth, and one day the lightning struck! Well, it struck within his tolerance at that time, which was pretty high, and so that made an awful lot of lightning. Something happened! Somebody really fixed up the concrete mixer. You got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Somebody really fixed it up!

After that, all was silence for a long time. Now, you pick up the concrete mixer, you find out he couldn't, himself, mix concrete with a hoe. This would not be possible for him to put some water and sand and cement, and so forth, in a box and push it back and forth. He just couldn't touch the hoe! That's it!

He'd stand there stupidly waiting for the hoe to mix the concrete or something, see. He just knows better than to be any part of anything that mixes concrete. I'm giving you a ridiculous example but there it is.

And one day, why, you have a mechanical concrete mixer in — on the place and you tell this fellow to "Go on over and start it up, Joe."

"Who, me?"

You know, the idea of going over and ... Well, you've never put it to this degree in this society but the fact of the matter is, is he'll find some way of not doing it unless driven right up to it with a whip, and if he put his hand on the starter buttons and so forth, and started to start the motor, there is a distinct possibility that he would fall over in a dead faint. You've walked him back onto the chain toward being a concrete mixer, haven't you? Hm? You've just walked him over toward being a concrete mixer. That's enough to move him into one of these totally quiet areas. He just reactively doesn't do any-thing because he knows he can't be a concrete mixer. See, he's been taught that he can't be one, so therefore, he can't be one! Therefore he can't mix concrete! Therefore that's that! Period. Real period, full stop, to that level of beingness.

Now, as you strip off creation valences, to ask a person to create some part of this thing is actually fairly easy for him to do, oddly enough. Right up to a certain point when he goes into a freeze, or all of a sudden he feels his head going wog! wog! wog! "Wait a minute, he'd better stop this process because something is happening! Something is happening! Oohh-oohh! Oh, that's better!"

You just ran him, you see, into being a concrete mixer. Of course, every-thing a concrete mixer does has nothing to do with him, so it's on total auto­matic. So he's the total effect of being a concrete mixer. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Take a race car driver that's flattened out a brick wall, plus an automo­bile and himself and so forth and you'll — you'll find some remarkable reac­tions to automobiles after that if he's still fairly sane and in there pitching and that sort of thing. Well, he keeps automobiles in pretty good repair, and he does this, and he does that. And he does things to automobiles and he pays attention to how they run. But gee-whiz, that's only the first substitute down. See?

Now, give him a few more of these, you see, and automobiles — they just run all by themselves, he doesn't have anything to do with them, you know. Wild.

You say, "Put some gas in the tank."

"Oh, I meant to do that." You know?

If you actually took him up and forced him to say to the person at the petrol station, "Fill up the tank." He'd probably faint. He'd have a horri­ble pain in his stomach or something. See? You'd totally break through this. You'd break him into something and without auditing you'd practically ruin him.

Well, it gets finally down to the lowest-lowest-lowest. You could get into a point at some low substitute level on the Scale of Reality and the pictures and views of engrams, which of course go from picture, to invisible, to black, to substitute picture, substitute invisible, substitute black. That's the way that's — that set of sandwiches apparently runs. You just keep going down, you see — down the scale of substitutes, further and further and more and more unreal.

He comes out one day and he walks straight into an automobile, he goes thud! You pull him aside and you say, "What do you mean, you walked into an automobile. What's the matter with you?"

"Oh, did I walk into an automobile?" And he will say it very foolishly, "I didn't see it." It's alter-ised to a point where it no longer has visibility to him and actually does not reflect light through to his eyeballs. Fact!

It isn't an idea he's got, the thing just — he no longer is capable of receiv­ing the reflected light which falls on automobiles, and that's it! And that's a low, low, low level.

So, don't think there are few things to be taken off a bank; there are many things to be taken off a bank but you want to get the one that's available and run it. And the first areas of the run are tougher than the later ones.

But you'll go from plus randomity: too much action, automaticity and so forth — invisible, black: "What is it?" Um-dum-dum-dum. Nothing's happen­ing here, you see, to all of a sudden, brroooomm, he says, "Oh, that's too fast, boy! That's too fast!" you know. "Well, nothing's happening." "Well, that's too quick." "Oh, nothing's happening." You get the idea?

And you've already seen some of this, I'm sure. Although some of the cases that you're auditing right now have been, by other processes, kicked into — kicked into one of these minus randomity areas on the body line. And when you audit them very little happens. Till all of a sudden they go splash! Got the idea? Something starts moving!

Well, the Create Series will pick them off and move them up through these minus randomity areas providing you're on the ball with assessment. If you're on the ball with assessment, why, you'll always move them through the randomity areas, and if you're not on the ball with assessment, why, I don't know what you'll do.

Thank you.