Now, I want to talk to you about some advanced theory. Just right straight out of the blue, I'm going to talk to you about the cycle of action, create, destroy. You already heard some of this at the congress. Right?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now I'm going to give you the real gen on it.

By the way, one of you — a seminar leader is busily reporting, "No more technical. No more technical. Don't like technical." It's all right with me, I mean, as the viewpoint of the seminar leader. But, this afternoon — or yester­day afternoon rather, a gentleman came in to see me and told me that that lecture had straightened it all out for him. And he'd come over here — he'd come over here — dragged over here you might say, and was totally unwilling to go further in Scientology and so forth, didn't see what he was doing and all that, and heard that lecture on create and destroy. All of a sudden it all added up, bing, and he's right in there pitching. Sees what he's doing now — going right out — help us all he can.

You'll find that technical lectures land in strange places, and sometimes some bird ... I'm talking to two-thirds of the audience, you know, and they — "Well, I really don't know what you're talking about" and so forth. But that remaining one-third will be getting it, be getting it good and heavy.

Any time you water something down, just on the basis that nobody will understand it, you are slightly guilty of an overt act, because you've kept it away from those amongst them that would understand it. So, you find me quite routinely saying, "Well, this may be too much for you or over your heads, and if so, why, that's rough, just bear with it and we'll be giving you something that's a little more for you very shortly." And then go ahead and give them gen.

But in a place like a congress, it's no place to come out with ACC data. Because you go too far along this line, you go too far that requires HPA level understanding to know what you're talking about, and you'll introduce a con-fusion, so there's a happy medium here.

Now if every HCOB that was issued to people who knew what they were doing was released broadly to people that hadn't a clue, here and there you'd get areas of confusion where they would be doing something that they didn't quite understand and shifting off of things and so on. And they ordinarily play the game just because we have something new, everything old is gone.

Now, that is a symptom of somebody who doesn't know the old. See? And people Q and A all over the place. But at the same time it is better to release what you know to the length of time that you can know it, even though the question's in your mind as to whether or not somebody can latch onto this. And we've just had an experience of this.

Now, I'm going to talk to you now about something that is very, very, very technical with regard to create, survive, destroy and so forth. And just all in a hurry here, I'm just going to — try to give you the total gen on it. Okay?

Works like this. There's differentiation and identification — identification, total and perfect identification is almost impossible, so more technically it'd be differentiation and close similarity. One can tell the difference or can't tell the difference. That's what we'd mean actually by differentiation and identi­fication. It isn't actually that the two things should be identified, it's that no — the person involved can't tell the difference between them, and that to him is identification. You got the idea?

He says, "A roof is a floor." Well, that isn't because a roof is a floor. That's because he's got these two things identified.

And oddly enough, this is one of the oldest data of Scientology. This is 1938. One of the first things I found out: that thinkingness was the conceiv­ing of similarities, differences and identities. That was what thinking was. And that all that went wrong with thinking was incorrect differentiation, incorrect similarities, incorrect identities. Got it?

Now, those people who show you a page out of Krishnamurti and tell you he said a lot of Scientology data are being very correct. But they don't notice he said a lot of other things, see. There is no evaluation of importance. And that is the rest of thinkingness.

Differentiation, similarities, identities and value — the degree of impor­tance between data.

Now, we say to a fellow who is about to go outside, we say, "It is raining outside." That's an important datum, isn't it? To a fellow who is staying inside we say, "It is raining outside," that's an unimportant datum, isn't it? Huh?

So, in most livingness, evaluation of importance is a moment-to-moment affair. Training, for instance, has to do with this factor. We discover that a fellow who was trained perfectly in electricity in 1890 wouldn't have a clue in 1959. You see, he just wouldn't have a clue. Now, he thinks all the things he learned in 1890 were vitally important. Well, they were for ni — 1890, you see.

Now, oddly enough some of the things he learned are just as true in 1959. But if he was trained so that he couldn't sift out the important, that is to say, basic or fundamental truths, and if it was all taught to him as one big mishmash that he just all had to learn — there was nothing more important than anything else — he's dead!

You see, the seventy years intervening there would be so great as to totally invalidate his whole education.

Now, a mind must maintain its fluidity in the assignment of importance, its fluidity in differentiating, in conceiving similarities and identifications.

When a mind is no longer able to sort out these things, you don't get thinkingness, you get machine behavior. Get the idea?

The fellow in 1890, with his electricity, didn't learn Ohm's law or any-thing else, you see, as any different than galvanic attraction or something stupid that they had in 1890, you see, only which since isn't, you know. Therefore, his education is of no value to him at all.

Therefore, any learning process or any livingness must be accompanied by inspection. If you omit inspection, if you omit deciding what is important, if you omit deciding how long it will be important or how fundamental it is or not fundamental it is, you'll wind up with a mishmash on any subject under the sun. Do you understand that?

Audience: Yes.

That's all aberration is! That's all it is. A person has gotten a mishmash amongst a bunch of data and can't differentiate what's important and what's unimportant in that data.

Now, in Scientology we have done the near impossible. Man didn't think it was possible — he couldn't have thought it was possible, or it would have been done long since. He would have broken down some sort of an anatomy of living­ness, giving its bits, pieces, parts, fundamentals and facts. Don't you see?

Well, now a lot of fellows like Lucretius, writing In the Nature of Things and doing a very important piece of work in Julius Caesar's time — oh, he talks about atoms and he talks about some of the darndest things. And you go looking this thing over, and you'll find out that this must have been a pretty smart boy. And that's true, he was a pretty smart boy. But he didn't assign the relative importance of any of these data, and there's an awful lot of data in there that doesn't belong there at all, and it just runs along like a river of water.

Now, there's a fellow by the name of Gautama Siddhartha — Gautama Buddha. And the Buddhists call it one date and the historians call it another date, but I suppose the Buddhists are probably right and it's something on the order of about 543 or something like that B.C., it's some such date. People are always arguing about this date and we don't care about that because it's an unimportant datum except to plot him up against existing knowledge.

And we find this fellow Gautama Buddha coming forth with a tremen­dous amount of knowledge. It was the most knowledge that had been seen, you see, at that time. And it tended to take apart beingness and livingness better than anybody had taken apart beingness and livingness.

And, by the way, he was going forward in the tradition of a monk (and this they get all messed up about because they talk about "the Dharma") and Gautama Buddha followed along with his knowledge in the tradition of the Dharma and all of this, and the Dharma was apparently this or that. And then they kind of overlooked the fact that there was a monk named Dharma about ten thousand years ago who gave the original Dharma, but it's called Dharma because his name was Dharma and actually is in the tradition which was followed by Buddha.

And once more — once more we get a tremendous number of truths with no evaluation of importance. Got the idea?

Now, what they've missed all the way along the line is just this one factor of evaluation of importance, and the ability to differentiate the important from the unimportant and to conceive the similarities of these data so as to bring about an orderly, logical inspection. There have been an awful lot of bright men along the line, but they neglected those facts.

Therefore in training somebody, if you neglect those facts, you're again handling — handing him some kind of a mishmash. See, you're compounding the felony all over again, see.

And if you say, "On some bodies the valences are impressed in sequence" — remember the old pictures in Scientology 8-8008 — "the valences are impressed in sequence on the body." And you say at the same time, "Axiom 10" — nah, believe me, those data are not of comparable importance at all. The other is simply an observation. See, the pattern of valences on a body and so forth, it's just an interesting look. Well, that certainly doesn't rank with Axiom 10, see. No rank between the two at all.

But those two things get, on importance, get identified. See, they don't identify the two data but they say they're on this same plane. And that is the first step to a total identification. So, eventually you get some sort of a datum emerging like this: "The highest purpose of the universe is to have valences impressed on the body." See, it goes insane.

But the first thing that drops out is the evaluation of importance. That's the first thing that drops out.

So, in teaching somebody you say, "This is an important datum" or "This is an interesting datum."

You'll read a lot of HCOBs, I'll say, "It's interesting that ..." see, it's not "important that ..." It's just interesting.

Now, people get all mixed up with truth and what's truth. And we've taken this up a lot of times and it's old hat, but I'll say it again because it's very easy to state. The only absolute truths there are, are Axioms 1 and 2. There are no other absolute truths!

And you say, "Absolutes are unobtainable." Well, unfortunately those two truths are obtainable. That's true!

And everything that proceeds from there is simply somebody's consider­ation, agreed upon, which has become a fact. You see how that is?

Axiom 10, "The highest purpose of the universe is the creation of an effect." All right. That's fine.

The cycle of action: Create, survive, destroy. That is the cycle of action. Fine, it's a fact. It's a fact! In a sort of a relative sense it's true.

But you see, you consider there's a thetan, you see, and he's the prime mover unmoved that everybody has been looking for. That's the prime mover unmoved. Okay? There's no sense going back of that because you just find another thetan, you see. Even if you found that all thetans proceed from one thetan or something of the sort, you'd still get to Axiom 1. It doesn't matter the subdivisions or split-offs or valence shifts or anything else of thetans: that hadn't anything to do with the price of fish. That's just what happens to thetans, you see. But Axiom 1 is still true.

And it's true that thetans make things. And it's true that they postulate. And everything else is the product of the postulates or the product of the creations, and all those things are products of the thetan.

So, Axiom 10 is Axiom 10 simply because you and everybody else said, "Well, the highest purpose of the universe is the creation of an effect." If you hadn't said it, you wouldn't be here. You'd be in some other universe maybe, see, where the highest purpose of the universe is lhlalb. God knows what that would be, see.

But the production of an effect is simply an agreement. It's a postulate which is agreed upon, becomes a consideration and becomes such a deep-seated consideration that is so overlaid with all other considerations and is so pounded in, it is so hardly hammered down that we can say it's truth. But remember, after the original truths you can take apart every other truth there is in this whole universe. And that is an important fact. That is so important that if you forget it, you'll someday be sitting up nights worrying about all the people you've spun in. See, because you'll keep telling people, "It's an absolute truth! Axiom 10! Unchangeable! Irrevocable! That's it!" Got the idea? Oh man, all you're doing is pounding in an agreement that's already drove everybody nuts!

Now, some idea of this is contained in this factor. The cycle of action is one of these things just like Axiom 10. See? It's postulated, considered, agreed upon, becomes irrevocable. "That's the way it is!" Boy, does a tree believe this. Wow! Boy, that tree is sitting there saying, "Create, survive, destroy, create, survive, destroy. I'm created by a little acorn that falls to the ground and then I survive for a long time. I'm growing, growing, growing. And after a while that will be all there is so I'd better put out another acorn and get another tree growing because that's the way it is. There's no other way to do it. That's it." A tree really believes that. Man!

But it's not an irrevocable truth. But for the purposes of understanding a mind it's fairly important. It's very senior as data, just like Axiom 10 is very senior as data. Quite an important datum because if you didn't know it, you'll never take a mind apart.

Now, one of the things that happens is a person gets to believing this real hard and after a while, as a thetan, mind you, the fellow thinks of him-self as having been created at birth and growing up and surviving and then dying! Oh, wow. You know, he doesn't say a body does this, you see, he says, "I do it." And he believes this so implicitly that he wipes out all of the past, and he doesn't remember past the point because you couldn't remember earlier than that because you weren't, see?

And you've got a whole Western society at this time absolutely dedicated to the fact — now, the Catholic church like everybody else is falling down the line into this. "When you're dead, you're awful dead." They send you to some-place to play a harp and brother, being in some cabaret playing a harp for the rest of existence is as good as dead. And they all believe that when you're dead, you're dead.

What a wonderful irresponsibility. The commissioner of works down here builds a dam that won't hold water and gives inadequate supply to the city because when he's dead, he's dead. He's real dead when he's dead.

I had a professor in a university, a professor of biology, of all things, at Columbia University, who is now dead, who told me that he didn't have to worry about the atom bomb because it didn't matter which way he was going to be killed, he was going to die sooner or later anyway. And he wouldn't have to worry about it.

Well, I pulled an overt act. I didn't sit there and say, "You nut. You idiot. I can see it now. There you are in Saint Vincent's Hospital in New York City saying `Wahhh.' And you didn't even bother to tell any of your students that they ought to do anything about this or have a better understanding of it because it didn't matter to you." You see.

Well, this commissioner of the waterworks, he has the privilege of living in a home that is inadequately supplied with water, having built the water-works. You get the idea? He becomes the effect of his own cause.

And people are always doing that. They say, "Well, I've got nothing what­soever to do with the future. That's just — I'll be dead, you know, I'll be real dead" and so on. "So it really doesn't matter what I do, so I don't ..." — that's their beautiful excuse for not contributing to their environment. You see?

So, this create, survive, destroy has a lot of believers. But someday just for amusement — why don't you run — this is not necessarily a therapeutic process at all — why don't you run something like: "Invent a cycle of action" on some Scientologist for an hour or two.

Boy, you talk about confusion that starts off there right at the beginning and he eventually flattens it out and he can invent one that's destroy, survive and at all times you go over rolly coasters or something, you know. He'll even­tually get one that's perfectly as logical to him as a cycle of action is, see. He'll say, "Well, it's just as logical to be, now. The thing to do — that if you destroy something you've created then it will survive. That's a perfectly good cycle of action and that's the way it is, you know." And he's perfectly — he's as satisfied with that as something else.

Something also will happen to his ideas of age and his body aging factors. It's not a good process, you see; it's just — it's just interesting and you run it on somebody for a little while, and you find out what I say is true. It's not an irrevocable fact, it's a fact that can be as-ised and knocked out and substituted for. Well, what kind of an irrevocable truth is this?

And yet the monk Dharma handed it out as an irrevocable truth. Knck, knck, knck, knck, knck, knck, knck. I wouldn't say the old boy had a pitch, or that he was paid by the opposition. You find these in the original Vedic hymn, you'll find that cycle of action. But, boy, in there, that's truth! Truth ordained by God never to be escaped from. That's it. You've had it, you poor mortal stupid you. That's it, don't ever change that because you're tam­pering with God! Horrible things will happen if you tamper with these great truths.

Matter of fact this Western society is — I'm sure here and there in this very room, somebody has been warned about tampering with the mind. One of the best reasons why you shouldn't tamper with the mind is you're liable to find out what they've been up to.

Here's this thing, this cycle of action. It's important to this universe at this time right now, that's an important datum, but you could do something with it.

Now Axiom 10 is an important datum too. And the oddity of it is, is they're evidently considered to be data of comparable magnitude because they mishmash. This is the rest of the gen I'm giving you here, see.

They identify! A person that just walked out in front of the building out there, you know, walks along with his crutches — just a person — has got these two things identified: cycle of action, and cause, distance, effect. They're the same thing. So, that any cause or source finds at its receipt-point, destruc­tion. And you look that one over. That looks pretty crazy to you at first glimpse. But if you talk to him you'll destroy him, because it isn't cause, dis­tance, effect. It's create, the survival of the line, destroy. So if you talk to him, you kill him! And if he talks to anybody he'll kill them. And that's why he doesn't communicate with anybody. It's so weird as to be almost incredi­ble. But of course, you'd expect an aberration of some kind to be incredible.

People don't communicate because they know what happens when they communicate; they destroy things. Got the idea?

Communication is cause, distance, effect. But this to them is create, sur­vive, destroy. That's a pretty low-scale case. As a matter of fact, you ask him to monkey around with lines any and he'll eventually have these things going from one corner of the room to the other — lines, boy, are they solid! Wow! Terminals aren't there, but the lines are real solid. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to have a very low-scale case to have this happen, see, the lines are surviving. Even with no terminals there, you see. The lines going from one corner of the room to the other corner of the room, one person to another person, boy, these are factual. Nothing else is.

Well, that's just the cycle of action and the communication formula, you see, twisted together. One is the other.

Now, in order to live you have to sing for your supper. There's a lot of advertising men believe this utterly, a lot of writers believe this, lecturers and so forth. They get it in reverse somehow or another.

But the communication somehow must never quite arrive. They can com­municate but it must never quite arrive at any actual terminal, because if it did that would be destruction. Get the idea?

Now, of course, as with any severe aberration, you can look this over from all of its various angles and you'll just find, oh, I do — I would not ven­ture to count the number of associations you could plot out. I'd say you could plot out two or three dozen associations consequent to those two important data being associated and plot out all sorts of oddities that people must think or believe. And other data that is undoubtedly mixed in with them, you see, such as "In order to survive it is necessary to duplicate. So, therefore, you mustn't ever have a different kind of body than what you had in the last life."

So therefore, somebody has moved over into the human race, is trying to work and act like a robot. Because to get create, survive, destroy, you see, part of the communication formula is duplication. So duplication has to do now with create, survive, destroy. Even though he thinks this is a brand-new cycle of action, he nevertheless is dragging a robot body up and down the streets of New York or Johannesburg or Melbourne, see. He never quite did join the human race because the cycle of action very successfully applied to robot bodies, you see. So, now in order to go through any cycle of action you have to have a robot body.

But, what — what's the significance of it? The total significance of it is he's got a cycle of action mixed up with a communication formula which has duplication mixed up with it. You got it?

People are always going around saying, "You look just like daddy," you know or "Your boy looks just like you" or something like that. And this is a sure guarantee that survival will take place, see? Well, just look at that as a mislaid piece of the communication formula and you've got it made. It does happen. It is very flattering.

For instance, it's very amusing to see little Arthur, he looks just like me. Very, very amusing to see this little boy going around and so on. I don't see much of him, about once a day, something like that. But wildly enough, of all the children, man, does he communicate with me. He is a chattering magpie, where his daddy is concerned. But he's got survival taped. See, in some fash­ion he's got the communication formula mixed up with it.

Well, whatever the score is, let's look at this as a nice, great big mish­mash. The production of an effect would be the destruction of a target.

What else does the military believe? And why is it that people when they get out of the military feel so caved in? See, they do. They do feel caved in because they're at the end of the cycle of action of the military. And the cycle of action of the military, of course, would be destruction totally, and that's peculiarly apt. Whenever you try to demob a bunch of soldiers, you get tre­mendous numbers in hospitals. Well, obviously they've reached the end of the cycle of action, and they're destroyed, that's it. And if you try to talk to them, why, they feel they're further destroyed, and if they try to talk to you, all they talk to you about is destructive — or destruction. Get the idea? Destruction.

Now, there's an understanding of human nature — these data are quite important. Now, it isn't that there's just an automatic slip in time between create and destroy on the cycle of action. That is an oversimplified statement.

What there is, is an identification between the communication formula and the cycle of action so that any creation winds up in a belief of destruc­tion. You got it?

Male voice: Yeah.

So that anybody who communicates to anybody is therefore trying to destroy them so the thing to do is to destroy anybody who is communicating, but the people who are communicating are obviously creating, so anybody who creates must be destroyed. You get how these various parts interplay?

This is sufficiently important to the artist or to anybody in a society that I am shortly going to write a book on this subject called The Rehabilita­tion of Artistry, and it'll probably be a very popular book. See? It's got good dissemination factors because an artist can latch onto this rather easily. He knows why the critics are taking him to pieces now. I know now why univer­sities destroy writers and painters. It's observable they do. There were two hundred and eighty thousand Bachelors of Arts graduated from American universities in 1949. Two hundred and eighty thousand Bachelors of Arts! Not one of whom could write, paint or dance. Why, that's fascinating! How could this be?

Well, I know how it could be because I know these jerks — I mean these fellows, these professors.

The kid pours his heart out in a theme, see.

"Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nyay, nyack." And after somebody has done that for three or four years of course he can't write anymore, so they graduate him.

Now, this factor came home to me when I was president of the American Fiction Guild before the war. And we did a survey, brought out, by the way, by a dining salon conversation and — afterwards we did a survey on this thing. And we counted noses and found that amongst all the writers that were making their coffee and cakes in America, nobody had ever graduated from a university majored in writing. But the only people who had, had become literary critics. And couldn't write. Isn't that fascinating?

Now, it very easily fits up into the big span, the big spectacular span of the actress who does a beautiful rendition, the Sarah Bernhardts and so forth of the world and comes out and does a terrific act and so forth and gets chopped up as a consequence one way or the other. Yeah, oh, that's very spectacular.

But when you realize that to hold down a job you've got to keep the job created, you realize that you must — if there's somebody around who is fairly low scale doing a skid, or an identification between the cycle of action and Axiom 10, that it would be as much as your life's worth to create the post you're on. Do you see that? And yet in order to do a job at all you've got to create the post, otherwise you're simply going to survive with the post. That's all mostly [most] government bureaucracies are doing. Nobody is doing a job, everybody is simply surviving on the job. The job must go on.

And boy, you give most governments and clerical bureaus or something like that something to do, brother, does it go on and on and on. Nothing ever gets done, you see. Because they're too close in.

Now, you get a very constructive fellow on the job and he says, "Gee-whiz. You're trying to build waterworks all over the countryside here. Well, let's see, I'll get some contractor friends and we'll go over this thing and we'll see how many waterworks we can build and what the thing will be in cost. And let's see, we could probably get a loan from the bank because this is good business and so forth and we don't even have — cost us a penny of the taxpayer's money we'll just go ahead and build these things, and all I've got to do is get the signature on the contract and just get permission from the head office here, a little thing like that."

The second that he presents this project, you see: "You're fired! Get out!"

He tried to do something. Well, don't think it's very strange that he got that way because he's on a job — a type of job he's never supposed to create on. The. job is merely supposed to endure in some fashion. And any creative action is met with a destructive bang. It's in a sort of a low-scale mishmash. You got the idea?

Well, now that — If you ever had an impulse to play the pinaner or any-thing of that sort, that's what cured you. You had some people around that did the skid.

See, you said, "Well, I'm going to learn to play the piano." And you sat down and you started to learn to play the piano and so forth. You were trying to do something new. In other words, you were trying to start a cycle of action.

Now, unless such a person had forced you to play the piano and was able to destroy you by getting you to play the piano, your own self-generated impulse immediately wound up with being destroyed one way or the other. You got the idea? People sit there and make sure that you never learned how to play the piano, brother. If you did learn how to play the piano, well, that was over everybody's dead body. You get the idea?

Now, just a few of these skids are apparently enough, because it keys you in. But what it doesn't key in is criticism and all that sort of thing and valences and all that. That isn't what it keys in. It tends to key in on you an identification of these two things: the cycle of action and creation of an effect in Axiom 10.

And you say, "Well, I better not go on trying to learn how to play the piano because I'm obviously over here in Axiom 10, and the effect being cre­ated is destruction of me." So therefore a "piano playing" is added to this growing pile of muck, all based on this original identification. See?

So, you added "piano playing" to it, and then you added "sculpturing" to it, and you added "painting" to it, and you added "choreography" to it, and you added "collecting wild flowers" to it and "collecting gasoline" to it, and eventually you start adding "holding down a job" to it. It's about that time you've had it, see. You just finally added together all the artistic pursuits there were.

As a matter of fact a graduate from the military academy of the United States, or from Sandhurst, of just a century and a quarter ago, had to be very good with a sketch pad. He had to be pretty good at sketching. And now we're not talking about engineering sketching. Today he has to be good at copying lines and doing engineering sketches.

He had to be pretty good. He had to make birds look like birds and bees look like bees, you know, he had to be fast on the draw. And some. of the sketches that have emerged from those particular areas are quite interesting. You'll find letters of the period and so forth — they're writing to some buddy or their wife or something like that in there — and you'll find over in the bor­der of the thing quite often you'll find a sketch of a Bengal Lancer or some-thing of the sort, you know. It's something they didn't think much about. A creative action or impulse was something they just didn't consider was very important. You know?

Now, I'm talking now about the military, you know, and the military is always downscale pretty far on this destroy business. Two or three centuries ago it was a peculiar officer that couldn't write or organize a play for his mess. People would have thought there was something awfully wrong with him, you know, couldn't write music. Not worth much — worth much — must be a sour, sullen sort of fellow, you know.

Well, you can trace this — all I'm trying to show you is you can trace this in modern times right straight back for just a few hundred years, and you will see that this identification has been catching up with great rapidity. And those things which are made artistically are made more and more to survive, demonstrating the anxiety of it.

It isn't enough to play a play in front of three or four hundred people and then skip it. Hell's bells no, the thing has got to go before VistaVision, get the idea? It's got to be filmed and filmed and it's a tremendous production and it gets in the cans, it's duplicated all over the place, and tremendous costs are involved in it, and there's tremendous lawsuits if anybody tries to steal any part of its songs — and even the songs in it, anybody down here in a cabaret that plays one of the songs out of Oklahoma you see, why, they have to send so much money someplace else. And, oh, man.

Now, in our present age, two of the most interesting art items are utili­tarian: the automobile and the house. And these are art items, but they're building them in there pretty solid these days. Art is going solid, which is to say create has moved up a little further on the survive line. Get the idea? It isn't so much original create — it's on the survive line.

Until we find, well, one of the great — this is not a trend that's taking place right now, this trend has been going on since about 1880, but we find a fellow like Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect who built the skyscrapers up in Tokyo that stood up in all the earthquakes, he put them on rollers. They know how to build skyscrapers up there now. All of his patterns of artistry and so forth. The older — had one of these houses in Arizona and he'd gotten up to a point of where he was — huh — the walls had to support nothing in this house. It was a rather lovely house. It was a copy of a Mediterranean cabana sort of, swollen up and built around a swimming pool with all glass fronts and that sort of thing. But it didn't have to support anything. The walls had to support practically nothing and he had them three and a half feet thick, one story structure, you know, with a little shed roof on it. Three and a half feet.

You find out they start nailing it into iron and nickel chrome and further and further. They just can't create something, you know, and then eat it up or something like this. It's got to be important, it's got to survive and so forth because they're starting to resist that destroy.

There was a time where a — when a cook prepared dinner, why, it all was squares and little whatchacallits and thingamabobs and three-tiered cakes, and the fish were all laid out and — and so forth, and good heavens you'd have thought it was a banquet for a king or something like that, but that was just dinner and it didn't take them very much time to do it, and they thought that was fun and so on. And you don't find very many cooks like that anymore. They've cooked that steak to survive.

Now, what this all amounts to is simply this. That you're basically trying to separate two key data: the communication formula which stems from Axiom 10, you realize, or is closely associated with Axiom 10, and the cycle of action. You're trying to separate these things out. And when you get these two things separated out, well, you've got it made.

Well, the way to separate anything out of a mind is to discharge its auto­maticity, get the mind to do what the mind is doing, that's the old saw. Get the mind to do what the mind is doing.

And what's the mind doing in this particular case? The mind is identify­ing an effect with a cycle of action. So, you run either sides of this — you run the communication side of it, "From where could you communicate to a (blank)?" and you'll get somewhere. And by the way, that's a good, stable, steady process, best addressed to immediate visible objects such as bodies or aches and pains of the body and so forth. There's no process quite as hot as that one, that replaces all the old Hellos and Okays to body parts, and-oh, there's a whole category of various comm processes but these things are all replaced by this comm process, "From where could you communicate to?" or any ver­sion thereof. That's fine, particularly on visible things. I've seen some fantastic things occur with that particular process.

Now, that process is about the best we've got on the communication level. It is the best we've got that is purely a communication process.

But there's another process years and years and years old that kicks Axiom 10 into full restim with a dull click. And you wouldn't believe any-thing as mild as this would have as much effect. And it was originally used in Group Processing, and you possibly have heard of it, but I doubt very much that you've ever run it on an individual pc. It's about 1954. And that is, "Look around here and find something that's producing an effect on something." Now that starts shooting the time track to pieces, in the weird­est possible way. It starts shooting people up into the future and so forth.

Well, what it's doing is restimulating the cycle of action. It's not neces­sarily the finest process there is, I mean, but it's a good process. It's not of comparable magnitude as a process to comm processes. It's merely one that addresses itself as the best process on Axiom 10 that is purely and simply the introduction of effect into a process. It's pretty good.

Now, it goes along with Overt-Withhold Straightwire which is a better process. It's not quite on the groove you see, of Axiom 10, but it's a better process, it does more. Overt-Withhold Straightwire, that's a very, very, very nice process. That can run on a specific terminal, can run on a general terminal-and run on any dynamic practically. A nice process because it's almost pure reach-withdraw, coupled with overt act-motivator ideas. A nice one. Of all the processes issued at that time, why, that one is most calculated to survive. That's very fine.

And 'then we get over to a process series that I will have to talk about at much, much greater length called the create series, not the create process, it's called the create series.

Because if we said "Create Process" we'd have old-time Creative Proc­esses coming up all the time and smacking us around. Well, it's actually a whole series of processes and it has to do with utilizing the characteristics of the slip, that skid on the cycle of action. It's very simple. You'd merely get the pc to create and confront anything which the pc is destroying or wasting. Simple as that. I mean it could be said in a breath, but that breath, I'm afraid, would take a lot longer to go on than we have at this time.

The slip phenomenon is something, until you see it subjectively or in a pc, you'd hardly believe it. Psssssheww! Fantastic. Fantastic.

Well, this fellow just can't think of pie, that's all, see. He can think of destroyed pie-you say, "Now, get an idea of making some pie."

And he says, "Yes, I have gotten an idea of destroying some pie." You know.

And you'll find cases just can't get it through their heads that you were saying, "Create some pie" because they know what you're saying; you're say­ing, "Destroy some pie." Got the idea?

Now, pie, that's an easy one to see, but how about this one. The Nihilists of 1862 developed in Russian universities and eventually swelled up into the various other lines which more or less gave an empire to communism. Well the Nihilist demanded certain things be done. They were the beatnik generation of 1862. They were. They were sloppy, they listened to sad music, they thought they were all weary and so on. It just sounds just exactly like Esquire 1959.

And they decided that many reforms must take place and that there must be a revolution. Well the czar by 1905 had granted every single reform proposed by the Nihilists, every single reform. They said that wasn't good enough, there had to be a revolution. That's basically all that's wrong with communism today, "There has to be a revolution." If you did everything the communist wanted, everything he wanted, you'd still have to have a revolu­tion. See, there had to be a revolution.

See, in order to create a new state it would have to be destroyed, of course. Got the idea? There has to be a revolution.

The czar gave them everything they were supposed to have. All the reforms that were ever demanded, they were all met and so forth, and they said, "Well, that's all very well, but there has to be a revolution! Even if you wound up in charge of it there has to be a revolution! Now when are you going to give us a revolution?"

And he didn't give them a revolution. He wasn't smart enough. He could have given them a revolution, you know, they'd all been very happy with it and they'd been sure ...

Now, a thetan knows when to start creating a new body, it's when the old one is destroyed. And that's an automaticity that you run into, and you'll get a pc mighty puzzled sometimes between creating one and destroying one. So much so that mothers very often have a hard time giving birth. You get the various identifications and associations regarding this.

Well, there's a lot to know about this particular create series, a lot of things that it does.

Basically the processes are very powerful, unbelievable! All you do is strip off the automaticities of the cycle of action, and the communication for­mula falls out of it.

In other words, there are several ways to attack this problem. First there's the comm processes, and you've got the various effect processes like — Overt-Withhold Straightwire is the best one of these. And then you've got this create series.

And these other two you will believe are the palest of pale and the slightest of slight. You wonder why you ever thought there was any punch in "From where could you communicate to a…?" and from Overt-Withhold Straightwire because this create series, this just blows the pc's head off. Particularly if you do it right and you pick your way exactly through the bank, and you hit the button right on the head, and you flatten it. You've got it made.

Now, if you don't do those things you just kill the pc and you yourself have run the cycle of action. And you would have to be audited on the Overt-Withhold Straightwire on the pc.

But the main thing to know about this rationale is the identification of some of the basic, most important rules and laws of Scientology, of course, results in the most aberrated condition. And we're pretty close to have walked into it when I found finally that the cycle of action was confused with Axiom 10. And so thoroughly confused that I wonder how anybody ever cre­ated anything, and that's basically why the whole universe is surviving.

When this class goes through if there's still a universe here it means we are pretty good at putting one back together.

Thank you.