How are you doing today?

Audience: Okay. Fine.

Okay. Well, we have some data to cover today. This is the twenty-eighth of January 1958. And we have the second lecture on this series on Clear. And the name of the lecture is "Man the Animal and Man the God." This is a lecture primarily about the Tone Scale and the eight dynamics, and how they are affected by what we are doing now, and the interpretation that Clear makes of these things.

It's quite interesting to note that we have had nearly all the answers for a very long time. And it's interesting that it was a combination of these answers, rather than a new answer, which brought about the making of Clear by somebody other than myself.

Now, we have this point — we have this point: A person who has no subjective reality on Clear or being Clear would be thought to have a great deal of trouble producing one. This has been almost a stable datum — data — with some people — a stable datum that it took a Clear to produce a Clear, and if you didn't have a Clear, therefore only one person could ever make a Clear, you see? And it was a round and round we go, and so on. Quite amusing.

Well now, the HGC has just produced a Clear as a routine action. Now, this is the first Clear that was produced as a wholly routine action.

And this pc was not one of the easier pcs. As a matter of fact, we have — we have several profiles on this particular pc, and these indicate that older processes were ineffective. Isn't that interesting? I mean, we had a case that tough, and we made a Clear out of him.

Now, it's very easy, you see, to take somebody who is almost Clear and make a Clear out of him. This is very simple. But to take somebody who is very low on his reality in general and who does not respond well to processing, who has a great many problems but doesn't even know it, that type of case — I'm not saying this HGC preclear was that bad, but to make a Clear out of such a person is quite a — quite an activity.

Now, to take an auditor who is not a Clear and have him audit somebody, and have this person then attain a state far superior to the auditor's is very interesting — unless we remember this one datum: And that is to say that an auditor is always senior to a Clear. See, that's true, you see: An auditor is always senior to a Clear. That you must remember.

Now, for many years I have contended that an auditor's case level did not terrifically influence the result of the case — and that was practically over other people's dead bodies. And in this particular case, we had an auditor whose own case — it's not bad, it's not good — auditor responds well to processing, but we're so busy around here, he's the cobbler's child: He just never gets any shoes, you know? And he sailed forth with a little bit of protest, one way or the other, to the Director of Processing. And he got optimistic after a while. And then after about — after about forty hours, he found himself looking at an E-Meter which no longer acted on anything no matter what the preclear ran. The auditor just assumed that Father and Mother and good old-time Scientology buttons — he just assumed that all these good old-time buttons, you see, would have some significance on them. None of them registered, but he ran them anyway and finished them off. And no meter reaction — meter in perfectly good working order, but on nothing did he get a bop — just a gentle, steady rise, up, up, up, up, up, higher and higher. And every time he'd think about something or something of the sort, why, he'd get another little rise on the E-Meter.

And the only thing that this Clear wanted to do, then — he thought — he thought Havingness was pretty good. And I think you'll find that most people, when they get up to that state they very happily will run Havingness. Of course, they want to go for broke, now, on the mest universe. You see?

And the funny part of it is, for the first some little time, the first few hours of this state, the preclear did not know it: He could see clearly that there was an awfully long way to go; he was now looking toward OT. And he could see OT with great clarity. But he'd sit back and make a remark like, "Boy, this is the most," you know? (Clearing didn't improve his English much.) But, "This is the most!" And he'd never felt like this before. And he knew a lot of things he'd never known before. But the one thing he did know is that there was a terrific breadth between where he was and where a thetan could get to.

Now, being able to see that is, to my mind, one of the conditions of Clear. Somebody tells you he doesn't know where to go after he gets to Clear — now that he's Clear he doesn't know where to go — you'd better take him back to sit in that chair. He's probably never been in-session.

Now, let's look at this. Let's look at this, as an oddity. This defies most of the laws that man thought he was running on. "It took a Clear to make a Clear," you know? But it's not that it's just a compliment to this particular piece of research and investigation, but it is definitely an overthrow of an old concept that people have had. An auditor doing a good job, at any point of the Tone Scale on his own case, can achieve any result he wishes. His results are not limited by his case. That is because he is aided and assisted by considerable weapons. His weapons are considerable, don't you see? His intellectual understanding is considerable. Even though his subjective reality is very poor, he still understands or can understand what this is about.

Therefore, there's really nothing demanded of his case, except perhaps that his case must not leap up in front of his face to such a degree that he can't stay awake in an auditing chair, or that. . . But it's pretty hard to imagine. Our training level today is so arduous, the discipline is so considerable that I don't think an auditor could get through it and then fail to make a Clear. You see?

One of the things remarkable about modern training is that it bypasses aberration. We have learned that training is not a substitute for clearing.

These are not horses of the same color. They're both horses but not of the same hue. Processing is one thing, I should say, and training is quite another. Training is a distinct skill which is not necessarily resident in the person at all. And we have learned that we cannot clear by training. Interesting, isn't it?

Now, that was something I thought could happen. We had a whole ACC with that goal: to clear by training. We didn't make it. We didn't make it because training is a third dynamic trained activity, and clearing is more germane to the first dynamic. You're working on two different dynamics and you do not attain a Clear first by a trained third. Do you understand that?

Therefore, I've just issued an HCO Bulletin to the effect that a student who does not seem to be prospering in a Comm Course should be sent over to the Processing Section. He should not be permitted to waste the next seven weeks of an HCA or HPA Course. He should simply be audited up to a point where he can be trained.

So to this degree you'd say case has some influence. In other words, if a person's case was in such bad shape that he could not be trained, then we have the condition that a person's case level has something to do with clearing. But you see on what a via it is? We're saying only that a trained auditor's case level does not interfere with creating a Clear — it's a trained auditor's case level.

Well, that doesn't mean that Joe Blow or Dr. Slinkowitz or ... One of my old pen names I used to raise the devil with psychiatry probably was one of the more prompting factors in a lot of these psychiatric jokes and so forth. I have never confessed where these articles have appeared, but they have appeared in several places under "Dr. Irving Cutsman." And Dr. Irving Cutsman has got to kill everybody in order to make them well. Well now, the point is he could not be trained, you see? He'd be an untrainable case. You even take an Academy Instructor, experienced, seasoned, hardened, and have him chew into this student constantly and continuously and rip him up one side and down the other side constantly, and put him in a brace and put him through the drills and so forth. And this could keep up for a very long time, and Dr. Irving Cutsman would not have become an auditor. You see?

There is a certain thing meant by this phrase or statement: "auditor," you see? There's a certain thing meant by the word auditor. Today it isn't just a desire, it isn't just a — well, having slept through a number of classes or something, you see? We know exactly what an auditor has to be able to do. He has to do all the Comm Course drills and he has to do all the Upper Indoc drills. And he has to be able to cope with the parts of man and the theory of Scientology — he has to be able to cope with this, at least. And he has to be able to perform the processes very exactly. And that is an auditor. That is an auditor.

Now, an auditor might be other things, and generally is — he generally is a theoretician in his own right. See, he sees things and he gets ideas about them. An auditor is not restrained to that degree, so he is not then merely a technician. He is capable of using his materials, of course, in other places besides an auditing room or a classroom.

See, I don't know, anymore, all the auditors there are. When I see somebody on the street talking to somebody or I hear somebody come in the door and talk to somebody, I know at once whether he's a Scientologist or a Homo sap — just at once (snap). It's the easiest thing to spot you ever saw. First place, the auditor would probably go on talking until he get what he wants or sees that he's got to go on another via. He has a — he's not as — quite as overwhelmed about talking to people and so forth. He recognizes them for what they are and he keeps on pushing in that particular direction. You listen to his general conversation, you find out that he's careful to acknowledge and he generally sees when the other person is out of communication and puts him in, very promptly. He's quite a realist on the third dynamic. And the mark is very apparent.

It might amuse you, sometime, to look around and see the difference between an auditor and a Homo sap. You just watch Homo sap walk up to another Homo sap and start "talking." He has no direction, there's a great deal of feeling that he probably isn't going to get there anyhow, and some kind of an automatic mechanism is put in the place of beingness in order to accomplish this sort of thing. You can conduct all sorts of experiments on people as to whether they are talking or something else is talking. But the main thing about it is, is you just get an ear for it. And you know whether they are or not.

Well, an auditor, then — an auditor, then, does have a very precise thing that makes him an auditor, and that is skill on the third dynamic. And that, at least, is demanded. And his understanding, of course, goes up into his own theory and theorizing and wondering what the score is and trying to look at things and tell what they are and so forth. But his case level has very, very little to do with his ability to audit.

Now therefore, we can ask the idea — this question: What would be the result of having a cleared auditor? What would you get if you had a cleared auditor?

Oh, you'd just get better and faster auditing.

What if you had an OT who was an auditor?

Well, I'll clue you: I don't think a person could ever attain OT unless he was an auditor. I really don't. He would still be bogged into so many questions that an auditor has already answered satisfactorily to himself that he would be restrained from attaining the state, don't you see? Because OT is out there into the third and up. And an auditor is already into the third. And it'd probably take a long time for somebody not an auditor to get anywhere past the third. Don't you see? And that auditor probably could get past the third very easily. So a cleared auditor undoubtedly could produce some rather whammo results, and he could probably go on up to OT with considerable ease.

Well, it sort of looks, if we look at it that way, as though there is a barrier of some sort which is resident between a first dynamic and the eighth. There must be something between the first dynamic and the eighth — some interposition which prevents somebody from graduating up the dynamics.

Now, here we've intercepted the dynamics from one to eight at the third. And here we find a person who is trained at the third and therefore, to a marked degree, has bridged it. Well, if he's bridged the third, he probably wouldn't have too much trouble into the fourth, don't you see? So an auditor is already at the third and fourth.

Well, if you watch auditors around, you'll see that they — most of them these days don't have too much trouble with animals. They merely use good communication with the animal and so forth. So that pretty well takes care of the fifth.

Well, an auditor is already accustomed to confronting the sixth, the mest universe. Get where we're going? And he certainly isn't terrified of the seventh. And he has his doubts about the eighth. Do you see that?

So in order to make something approximating an OT, apparently it'd only be necessary to clean up the first and second on him. Do you see this? So it becomes an easy job.

Well, very well. Let's examine, now, the anatomy of this from one to eight and see what we come up with. Let's take a brand-new look at the dynamics. The first dynamic is the dynamic of self. Second dynamic, the dynamic of sex. Third dynamic, the dynamic of groups. Fourth dynamic, mankind. Fifth dynamic, the animal world. Sixth dynamic, the mest universe. Seventh dynamic, the spiritual universe — thetans. Eighth dynamic, Supreme Being or infinity.

Now, we take this span and find, in the first place, that it was a more or less arbitrary and artificial method of compartmenting livingness or life so that it could be examined piecemeal. Now, you examine things piecemeal to keep from being overwhelmed by them. If you saw a pack of wolves tearing along at you, you would rather tend to split them up into individual wolves, right? And when you found out how to take care of an individual wolf, why, then you might let a couple of them get together and so on, until you could handle the pack.

By the way, there is no great trick in preventing oneself from being overwhelmed, so long as he pays attention to the gradient scale. Let's find out what it is before we succumb to it. Of course, that is one of these delightful situations that simply tells somebody he will never succumb to it. Because if he finds out what it is, he becomes familiar with it. And that gradient scale of familiarity will take him right up to the top, and he will not succumb to it.

It's quite interesting: It's doubtful if an animal would ever die from a bullet, very doubtful, if he had any ability to look at a gradient scale of a bullet. It sort of introduces the odd question that if he was shot a little bit every day, after a while he couldn't be shot. That's probably true, too.

The alcoholic is not a case in question because he's simply dramatizing overwhelmedness. See, he doesn't take in any gradient scale. But you could probably cure an alcoholic by making him drink, himself, on his own determinism. The situation made him take a drink, see? Well now, that's nonsense, but if he simply sat down and drank his way through the engram — oh, he probably would make it. He'd probably have to get up to a demijohn of rum in a day before he really felt that whiskey could no longer overwhelm him. Quite remarkable — being overwhelmed by anything.

But let's take a look at these eight dynamics and recognize that they are a system of compartmenting the universe so that it can be studied bit by bit. Well, therefore, they must be a gradient scale of the universe. And, by the way, they're more than a study mechanism, these eight dynamics are. We look at the universe and we find out that it has a gradient scale of approach in it that's possible. You look at yourself, you look at the other fellow, you look at other people, you see, and you can go on up this way. The eighth dynamic — we do a little jog there. Look at yourself, look at your future, you look at the opposite sex and the family. And then you start looking at a less specialized group, and we get the third dynamic. Now, is this more than merely an example of something?

Well, yes, yes, the eight dynamics are very much more than merely a handy way to study something, but we can still use them in a study line. We can say, "Well, if an individual wished to know the eighth, the Supreme Being, then, if you please, let him first find himself. Now, he cannot experience the eighth before he can experience." Sounds awfully dull, doesn't it? But they've been at it for two thousand years, of experiencing the eighth without ever getting hep to number one. Quite remarkable. The utter conceit of these people is sickening. And you'd think they had — that every morning before breakfast they walked up a golden staircase and shook hands with God. Well, they're remarkable. They're remarkable because their mandates and other things, more often than not, seek to suppress spiritual awareness of self — more often than not. And in addition to that, these men — these men quite ordinarily got where they are by self-interest. And yet we find this right next door to the eighth dynamic. It's quite remarkable.

Well, that's because — that's because these dynamics go: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And you could say they go, immediately after that — it doesn't matter which way you look at it because it can invert either way: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight; one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And you find out that after an individual who is already spun-in to the first dynamic, spins in just a little further, he falls into a false eight. So most of these organizations, these religions and so forth, have not been talking about a Supreme Being. They have been talking about their concept of a Supreme Being. That's a vast difference. If they had only said it was their concept of a Supreme Being, we would have honesty. But we're not going to find honesty at that level of the Tone Scale. So they represented this Supreme Being as being the only Supreme Being and therefore, to some degree, turned people away from any possibility of a recognition of the eighth dynamic.

Somebody comes rushing around and pointing his finger at you saying, "You have sinned, you have sinned. Repent, repent."

You ask him, "Why should I repent?"

"Well, you won't go to heaven."

That's an interesting answer, "I won't go to heaven."

A Buddhist would ask him, "What heaven?"

And he'd say, "Well, the heaven. The only heaven."

"Ah! To meet the one God. Oooh."

Oh, there's only one God, and he's a Baptist or a Methodist, huh? Well, by the first evidence, we see there must be a Catholic God, a Presbyterian God, a Baptist God, a Methodist God, don't you see? There must be a God for each one of these people because they are evidently all separate gods. And by their own testimony and the collection and the babble of their own work, we see we must be dealing with a number of gods. Perforce — must be dealing with a number of gods.

But they become very confused about that. They have the God of the New Testament printed in the same book with the God of the Old Testament, which I consider is one of the funniest jokes, and nobody ever seems to think it's a funny joke but me. Here we have this wild-eyed revolutionary who came in, told man which way was up, gave him a good road to follow, gave us the New Testament. And they print it right in with the religion he revolted against — which I consider quite remarkable.

But you would expect to find those confusions that low on the scale, wouldn't you? You'd expect to.

Here is evidently what occurs: We get a consecutive individuation. This is a very, very, very important subject. I do not know as much as I would like to know about individuation. I have been studying it now for many, many weeks. It contains some answers which are rather, rather sweeping, which we do not at this time have: The answer to valences and that sort of thing. The answer to what is a cell. The answer to a great many questions. It's not necessary for us to answer any of these questions, but it's fun.

Now, is this universe this way? Is it this way? There was a feeling of allness in you. In other words, you were willing to take responsibility for or be part of anything, everywhere. Not necessarily that you were the only one who had this feeling, you understand? But, was it not possible that you had this feeling of everywhereness? And you were perfectly willing to take responsibility everywhere. And then it dropped down to merely being willing to take responsibility for spiritual self, considering the physical universe a little different, see? Everywhereness. And then, "Well, I am a spiritual being and therefore I am not mest." Ah, we have an individuation.

And the next dynamic down from that is right where it belongs, which is the physical universe. See, one conceives himself to be a spiritual being. Well, after a while he decides that being a spiritual being isn't all it's cracked up to be, and he'd just as soon be this other thing called the physical universe. Now, of course, there must have been contest in there of one kind or another to make him switch. Perhaps you at last identify yourself with the physical universe as being it to a very marked, sweeping degree — a greater talent than we now possess.

And mightn't this have come down, then, to an individuation between self and something else? So that you conceive yourself to be a spirit and conceive yourself to be a body or a physical thing? And we would get into the idea of bodies, but these would split down and become species. And then we would find interest centering on just one specie, which would be man — and then finding that all man was too much to embrace and bringing this idea of bodies, you see — we've got the body idea right there at the fifth as the compromise between the seventh and the sixth. See, and from there on it's bodies.

And by the time we got to the fourth, the mankind dynamic, might we — our attention not have been totally fixed upon only one animal, one being, one type of body as being a body which gave more opportunity than other bodies, perhaps?

And then sliding down further than that and finding that all mankind was too wide an armful, to say "this segment of man — this tribe." And then perhaps the tribe too much of an armful, and we get just a clan in the tribe.

And then dropping down from there and deciding that was too much of an armful and embracing only the family, which would produce a future — a future tribe for which there was some hope.

And then losing all hope, fall back totally on self — self, a body, you understand — different than and individuated from all other things and with no responsibility for anything except self.

And then dropping below that and taking only responsibility for certain segments of the body.

And then dropping below that and becoming not even aware of a body.

Now, isn't that the course of individuation? Isn't it something like that, hm?

Well, at the upper range of this scale, we have one thing and the lower end we have another. At the bottom of the scale we have man an animal. Definitely, man an animal. See that? At the upper end of the scale, in extremis, we have man a god.

Now, it doesn't say that this individual is the ultimate god. Nor does it say that man the animal is as small as he can get. But, we have a below and above for these eight dynamics. There is a below and there is an above.

Now, we could define an animal as someone, something, that has no responsibility for anything beyond immediate physical self. That would be an animal. Possibly there are more apt definitions, but this happens to work in what we're talking about right now. The animal aspect would be a concentration on food for self, protection of self, clothing of self — total inflow. Now, amongst that would be an inability to feel pain anywhere but self. It's quite a trick to feel pain in the first place, but to feel pain only in oneself is quite remarkable.

Now, we don't think it's remarkable because for the last few thousand years we have, with perfect aplomb, been able to hit somebody on the head and not feel the headache. The truth of the matter is, that's quite unnatural — quite unnatural. It's just a method of wasting headaches.

Now, of what use is this to us — this span here? What use is it in Clear?

Well, there's only this: We have the explanation, in individuation, of unconscious actions, responses, activities and so forth. We have the explanation for it. Now, this is merely a theory — this idea of individuation. (The eight dynamics are no theory.) But this idea of individuation is a theory. It means that a person on a gradient scale stays alive as "that," but no longer has any feeling that he is "that." He stays alive as something but is no longer sharing consciousness with that something. You see this?

Now, this is apt to produce a conflict with the ideas of nirvana and other such Eastern ideas which, without any actual basis in fact, tells us that we are all one and that we broke down and became individuals. And that when we get all the way back up the line again, we will again be all one. You see, that's another theory of individuation. Now, understand that it is another theory.

I've stated it better than they state it in Asia. And they really state this one with circuity — and circuitry. I've had it explained to me across language bridges I could barely cross in the first place. And when I got to the other side of what they said was a bridge, I found myself in a chasm.

You get this idea, the Asiatic idea. And the much earlier confused track idea of individuation would be: We were all one person, thinking as one person we were all one person, and that's all we were. And then there was some sort of a blowup and a breakdown, and the bits and pieces considered themselves themselves, and considered themselves no longer the part of the one. Don't you see?

Now, I don't say this didn't take place, I merely say it's unlikely. Because you're you and I'm me. And if you wanted a very, very remarkable problem — if you were short on problems — just get the idea of how we're both, in the same moment, talking to one another. Now, that's quite a problem. And the easy, chichi, stupid way to solve it is say, "Well, we're all the same person in the first place." See? That's a real kindergarten way of solving the problem — "It's obvious we can talk to one another because we're all the same person in the first place."

Well now, we stand upon the brink, today, of final, sweeping and conclusive answers to such questions as this. So I will not belabor the point. There's no reason for me to do so. I merely call to your attention the unlikelihood of what I might call the "nirvana theory." Nirvana is something else than what I'm talking to you about, but it includes the theory here of all-one, and is ... The theory I'm talking to you about has, in the most part, been forgotten in the monasteries of Asia, and they only retain some kind of a claptrap nirvana in which you're mixed up with the rest of the stew.

Now, the main — the main point here is simply that individuation could happen this way: that there is no limit to the allness that you can be. And there is no reason why each one of you cannot be a total individual on all dynamics, without in the least interfering with any other individual. But it takes a complicated mathematical mind to conceive that sometimes, so people abandon it and say, "Well, when we get it all broken down — all the barriers broken down, we'll just all be the same guy, and we will all float forever in stupid, packed-tight forgetherness."

Now, individuation could be looked at in several ways. But I see no better explanation, at this moment, for the valence phenomenon or the phenomenon of you going on mocking up a bank and not knowing you're mocking up a bank, than this theory of individuation.

How is it that somebody is mocking up a bank, mental image pictures, things to victimize himself with all over the place, and doesn't know it? And more important, why is it that he has to be processed to find it out?

Ah! If he — if there wasn't some other mechanism involved here, all he'd have to do — I'd just tell you, "Well, that's the way it is," you'd look it over, you say, "That's the way it is. Well, hurray," and we'd all be Clear, see?

But unfortunately that isn't the case. That isn't the case. You can know it intellectually, but the you that you were — the you that you were doesn't know it yet. In other words, you're haunted. And you haunt you. Do you see this? Now, you set yourself up with a total personality and you say, "I'm just going to be just like Father." And then one day you say, "I don't like being like Father, to hell with that individuality." And you give it a shove. Ah, but you have the power of granting life. You have the power of granting life. And that personality is still alive. You've already endowed it.

Now, it isn't that every personality you make victimizes you. But when you become a personality that then victimizes you, then the personality obeys the person who is victimizing you, not you. Let's look that over. You decide you're going to be just like Mama, and then Mama cuts your throat in some fashion. You backed out of the personality. Now, Mama decides she is going to do something to you — betrayal. And this thing you set up which wasn't Mama but which was really a suborder of living being, oddly enough is powered by you and obeys Mama. And so you say, "I am haunted and there is something kicking me around I know not what of." Do you see that?

Now, this is just a nonuseful, rather amusing little sidelight on it: I don't know but what these things don't get squashed down and eventually become a cell. See, that's just the sidelights, it's amusing. But that might be the root of biology.

You can endow things with life, and then you can abandon what you endow. And the two actions together can add an awful lot of complication to the general picture. Not only does the person fall down the dynamics in actuality, but builds the dynamics all on his own and individuates from them — another action entirely. Look that over. In other words, you artificialize the eight dynamics and parallel the eight dynamics with your own individuations, at the same time falling down the eight dynamics. You see this?

Two things can happen at the same time. There are the eight dynamics. A person draws more and more into self, and then conceives self to be something else and goes into a look-into-it — a look-into-self — an introversion. At the same time he's doing this, he is setting up beings to be, you see? He's setting up these beings and abandoning them. And they're still alive. And he becomes a composite.

Now, it's necessary to understand the difference between self-individuation (the setting up of valences and the abandoning of them) and falling down the line of the dynamics. It's necessary to tell these two apart. Because the first one I mentioned might be anything — it has terrific randomness, it's anything you ran into, it's anything you decided to copy, it's anything you invented out of whole cloth and made. You said one fine day, "I'm going to be the idol, Baal." And one day you start speaking, a few thousand years later, in a rather brassy fashion — you can't understand it. You set up some sort of a living idol, don't you see, and then you fell away from it while still endowing the thing with life. And then one day you accidentally mock it all up again by some restimulation, or somebody mentions it to you — it's your mechanism, but they turned it on — and you find yourself speaking in a rather cavernous, brassy voice, and you say, "Where did that come from?"

Your innocence at this moment is not merely appalling but is actual. You are yourself, and there was another being. It's just by consideration that this occurs, but it isn't that you are faking it. There's no fakery about it. You did make another being, and it is now another being activated by you, but it has a life and a will of its own.

Now, it was only necessary to undo the accidental closure between the other being and self to undo the other being. Introversion — it is an inflow universe. It only became necessary to have the exact correct process, which undid the closure and the introversion, for you to take over all these things and blow your own chain of individuations.

Now, we ask, how did the eight dynamics fall apart? How did you ever go downhill on these things?

Well, funny part of it is, nobody else ever pushed you downhill on these things. Nobody else did it to you — for the excellent reason is they weren't in communication with you. They couldn't have done it to you. But you, setting up your own beings and images and personalities and then disassociating yourself from them, then brought about, in a secondary fashion, the fall away on the eight dynamics. Do you see that? Two actions went on at the same time. But you were unconscious of falling away on the eight dynamics. You were much more concerned with getting away from the monsters you had just set up to devour you.

So as you — as you pulled away and individuated from your own creations, the fall away occurred on the eight dynamics. You began to have more and more an individualized approach. Your protest against your own creations — which were no longer your own creations and no longer under your control — was such that you decided not to create. And so we have creativeness coming down the line as a common denominator.

Now, in that all you had to do was to be in the old individuation in order to take its life back from it or blow it up, then, keeping things from going away or pushing things in on self, of course, undid the mechanical principle and broke down the individuated barriers. And, therefore, as we break these barriers down, of old individuations, we simply have a person walking up to the top of the eighth dynamic, anyhow. We don't have to do anything about putting him on top of the eighth dynamic, then, except to knock out his own interferences with his own being there.

I call to your attention that we do not have to get somebody in some far clime or in some lost age to suddenly appear in the auditing room and do something in order to clear a preclear. This is very fortuitous. But it tells us, more importantly, that you must have done it in the first place because you can, sitting there in the auditing chair, undo it. Do you see? And we know enough about ownership and authorship, and know that things do not vanish unless the proper authorship is assigned to them. If we don't have the proper ownership of something, it won't disappear. Just misown something if you want it to get good and hefty.

And in view of the fact that the individual walks up the line on his own actions alone, we see, then, that he must have been the owner and, earlier, must have created all of the mechanisms which are suppressing him. Well, it's very remarkable that he would do himself in to that degree. And we can explain this with problems and games, and explain it in a lot of fashions, but the truth of the matter is, he actually has undone himself. That is what is remarkable. He has actually cut his own throat. And the funny part of it is, he really didn't want to do it. There's no stage of the game where he did not think it was, not a game but necessary to cut his own throat. The interchanges of ideas made him feel that it was necessary for him to take these steps and moves.

When you get down into the criminal capacities, why, we get the greatest oddity in the world: The criminal always thinks his crimes are necessary. You could reason with him ad nauseam, and he would still cling to the total belief that his crimes were necessary. Pretty Boy Floyd, when he killed a policeman, decades ago (and he was one of the gaudier killers of the Prohibition era) — in jail explained to the reporters how he was just an innocent boy trying to get along and that he had to do it and so forth. Cop looked in the car, and he shoved a gun in the cop's belly and pulled the trigger: He "had to do it." Well, it seems rather extreme.

But not only in a criminal strata — in an upper strata we have certain ideas concerning our conduct toward others and so on, and a thetan operates on rather a high ethical sense. And once he has given his word to help or cooperate, his word is his bond because his word is his postulate. Do you see that? So after a while, why, he gets this cause and effect cycle going and busily hangs himself.

It is such a confusing problem that it is very remarkable to find any order in it at all. That is the miracle that's happened. Why an individual should have victimized himself to this degree is easily explained but will forever remain a mystery because — don't overlook this fact — he is a victim.

And that's the one thing where you can go astray as an auditor. You could say, "Well, he did it all to himself because he himself can undo it under my auditing and, therefore, he is guilty or to blame."

No, he is not guilty or to blame; he merely did it all himself. Get the difference? He thought it was necessary to do all these things. And probably it was. But he is trapped. It does hurt. He is in awful condition.

And it's all very well to say, "Well, the condition can't be very important because now we can undo it." Ooh no, that is not the case. It is the most remarkable thing that ever happened that we can undo it. And short of that, there is nothing else known that will. Even death is merely another individuation.

A thetan had built, with the help of his friends, a trap that not — was not merely uncomfortable, but, not only himself, but nobody else could escape from. And you could theorize on this endlessly. But it turns out to be a mechanical fact that it is a trap, that he is trapped and there is nothing else anywhere that will set him free. And it's merely remarkable that this has occurred.

Now, his descent down the Tone Scale is, of course, from the point man the god to man the animal. That's his descent down the line. And it exactly parallels the eight dynamics. And tone parallels the eight dynamics precisely. And we never before — we knew these were interconnected — we never before had a positive relationship between these two things.

Now, his ability to outflow without impeding himself from outflowing, his ability to assume higher tones is all dependent on his ability to take ownership and authorship of everything that happened to him. But, doing that, all by itself, as a postulate, will not cure him. It'll kill him.

The mechanical activity in which you're engaged is the only one known at this time. I know some other ways of clearing people — I know some other ways of clearing people, but all of these ways, one way or another, handle the same factors as we're engaged upon — they handle this individuation, they handle this descent from the eighth to the first, they handle the Tone Scale and they bring about the same regaining of states.

A great deal of theory can be placed along this line. We can read or write a great deal of philosophy along this line, all of which is quite true. But we can ask this burning question of any of it: Is it effective? And, of course, as some later age may say about me — is, I was crazy because I believed in being effective; some later age might have this as an entirely different approach.

I read some columnist the other day who said that he saw no reason for anybody ever to be practical about anything. Well, that's his viewpoint. But I was trained, you might say, or believe or work in an entirely different field. And that is, when you do something, do it well. And when you engage in an activity, well, above all things, be effective in that activity.

And we, right now, are being as effective as we know how to be.

Thank you.