Thank you. Thank you.

This is 17 — 17 Nov. AD 9.

And we're on the seventh lecture of the ACC, right, the seventh lecture day and that would mean basically on the 13th lecture. I figured out it would be a lucky number like that.

Thirteen is very, very lucky for me, very, very lucky — born on the thir­teenth.

Well, all of that is a prelude of course that I haven't got anything to talk to you about because I left my notes back in the office again.

Now, you're still goofing up on assessment. So, I've got to tell you all about assessments again and then we get onto something important.

Once upon a time there was a little thetan, and he knew everything there was to know. Had a potential knowingness on all fronts. He just had it taped and roped and so forth. He just knew everything. So he decided not to know anything so that he could make something and then know about it. And there you sit.

Now, going out on a mad passion of creation, he found that the best way to get a persistence on anything was to destroy it without picking up the original creation. Which made the original creation persist. So that the more you mocked up, the more you had persisting, because the method you used in getting rid of it was to destroy it, which required another creation on top of the existing, continuing creation. Got the idea?

Now, if you get the idea of accumulating an — of mocking up a motor vehicle, the possibility is you'll get something of the road back of one, or its exhaust fumes on anybody who is having a hard time with motor vehicles. You'll get something destroyed about the creation.

You get somebody who's had a terrible lot of trouble with motor vehicles, he'll mock up nothing but bad tires or rubber marks on the road, or some-thing. But it'll be something destroyed, which is to say, used, burned and overcreated. Got the idea?

You create the ashtray and then you have to make another creation which is breaking the ashtray. New motion. You don't stop creating the ash-tray. You still go on creating this ashtray you see, but now you create it in fragments. And then you create, to get it — keep it in fragments, you create the blow which put it in fragments. Got that?

Now, to reassemble the ashtray, oddly enough, all you'd really have to do is run out the blow which caused it to fragment. We get Effort Processing. The processing of impacts, and you'll have a reassembled ashtray. And we're talking now as though — just as though you have a hand in mocking up the MEST universe. I'm not talking about your banks. I'm talking about an actual ashtray, see.

We break this thing and we have to be able to reassemble it — to mock up the impact of the break. That takes one creation off of the ashtray. You get the idea?

And you'd have a reassembled ashtray. Now to get it and the fragments and the break and everything to disappear, all you'd have to do is be able to mock up an original ashtray. At the same time you would also have to be able to mock up a space and a location, not necessarily the space and location in which this ashtray was mocked up, but you'd have to make up — be able to mock up a space and location as good as the space and location in which you see this ashtray at this moment. And this ashtray would simply disappear.

You go pfmff

It would run through the whole cycle of coming right up to this point, being hit and broken, because these are all additional creations. But the orig­inal creation has to go running on in order to let any other creation have a grip on anything.

In other words, the original creation has to be here in order to let a new creation have a purchase on anything.

Now, when I say, "a new creation," actually, if I take my fist and break this ashtray, that's ... I must create some force, motion and change of posi­tion in order to break the ashtray. You understand?

But what am I breaking? I am breaking an ashtray. Right? So, in order to have an ashtray there to break it is necessary, you see, that the ashtray had been created in the first place. Now, there must be a continuous creation associated with this ashtray or it wouldn't persist! Right?

Audience: Yes.

One of the best ways it persists is by being alter-ised, alter-ised, alter-ised, alter-ised, alter-ised, you see.

See, one never broke up the German, pardon me, the German Reich. I know there was a big war, but the German Reich was not broken up. It was alter-ised. And you have the young students of Germany today, saying, "Well ..." Everybody is trying to sell them the idea Hitler was a very bad man, you see. And they say, "Well, this Hitler is a very bad man."

And they say, "Yes. We know he's a very bad man. Hitler is a very bad man, and he built all the autobahns and aren't they nice."

But he says, "Now it's a very bad thing to have a fascist militaristic empire. It's a very bad thing to have." And all the students in the German schools are told, "It's a very, very bad thing to have."

And they all stand there and say, "Yes, that's a very, very bad • thing to have. The proper kind of government is a good, solid, well-ordered, well-organized, military, cohesed, government under one leader! That's the best!"

Nahhh. These schoolteachers after awhile are giving up because they're not breaking up this idea. They're not breaking up this mock-up. And the reason they're not breaking up the mock-up is because they will not even permit themselves to admit they would be able to create it or would be will­ing to create it. They're bucking it. Most of their teachers are more or less, or were more or less ally employed, ally indoctrinated.

But they're hitting at the wrong man, the German Reich was not some-thing that came into being with Adolf Schickigruber — Hitler's right name. That was his real name.

I well recall going up to the Rhine and running punitive raids on Ger­man villages which were all organized under strong chieftains, and believed in strong, military might, and believed in this, and believed in that, and boy, they haven't changed one iota. That was way back!

This dramatization that's been going on here for a long time is an echo of the old create cycle which runs up to destruction, and then it's the old create cycle, and it runs up to destruction, an old create cycle and it goes up to destruction. You see, each time, boom, boom, boom, over and over.

Had you crossed the Rhine in 50 A.D. and talked to some of the better leaders of the Germanic tribes, you would have found any one tribe was or­ganized solidly, fascistically, and squareheadedly. That was the way they were organized. 1939, that was the way they were organized. And you keep going in and burning the villages, and keep going in and raiding the towns. Keep going in and laying waste the territory. Keep going in, conquering some sec­tion of it and falling back, and saying, "Well, they'll be good now." Here they go again!

That original mock-up is evidently too advantageous, too cohesive, and for that people, too correct. The only way you would ever get rid of this cycle of action is not by shooting every German alive because I'm afraid the next tribe of anything that came into the area would promptly form a German tribe. Because you never shot the thetans. You get the idea?

Well, you look for this communism. This communism to be so different and so strange and so altered, and so brand-new. Actually it isn't even brand-new in our generation, it's a hundred years old — German idea.

But it was just a German idea that was written up in Germany, and it's been going on for a very long time. The original communism was in Sparta under Lycurgus, and any modern communist philosopher borrows copiously from that Spartan. That idea has been running on for quite a while, quite a while in various forms and so on.

But oddly enough, Russia is not a communist country. It just has all the symbols of communism and pays, you know, lip worship to the idea of commu­nism and so forth. It goes right on being a Mongol horde. See?

Now, these things persist because who in his right mind would mock up a Mongol horde? Who would?

And of course, these things like the German Reich are dedicated to destruction. Why? Not even they would mock them up. See?

And unfortunately, the less willing people are to create something, basi­cally the more persistence you get because they go on creating it. See, they have to go on creating it. And then it's so bad, this create, create, create, it's so bad and it drags them down so, that they decide they will destroy it. And they create a destruction, and they smash it with their right hand, while busily con­tinuing to mock it up with their left hand behind them. Get the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, that's a bank. And that's all a bank is. It's all those things that have persisted over to the destruction end, which the person has destroyed, which he is no longer willing to create, no more longer really willing to make any of these things.

Now, when you hit the hot button on a case, you're liable to run into almost ... If you said, "What Mongol horde would you be willing to create?" you would get the full reaction of the pc if that was one of his buttons, see. And that would simply be, "None! Absolutely none! No Mongol horde of any kind, thank you."

"Overrun Europe, build pyramids full of skulls — God knows what else they do, but who'd mock up a Mongol horde, I wouldn't," the pc says, "No, sir."

You have to sneak up on him and increase his willingness to do so and thereby increase his ability to do so, by asking him this slippery question, "What part of a Mongol horde would you be willing to create?"

Well, he likes horses, so he says, "Well, I'd just as soon create their horses. They're nice horses. And I understand they had lots of gold and so on, I'd be willing to create their gold. I like that." And he says, "Well, I don't know. I think their weapons are kind of picturesque in the museum and so forth, I'd be willing to create one horseman's weapons." Kind of with a reser­vation to himself, "If I were armed with a tommy gun."

And he runs it on up the line, and the first thing you know, why, things have happened. He's seen mock-ups or blacknesses, and these blacknesses thin and thicken and get invisible and come back and get black again, and so on. And you're running out the automaticity — the destruction of a Mongol horde, you see. Zoom, zoom, zoom.

Actually all the time he would be able to create it if he were willing to, you see. His ability to create it has never diminished. His willingness to cre­ate it, however, is pretty darn thin. And so all he really gets — he fools him-self, he gets this destruction of a Mongol horde is all he gets, in one version or another, and he calls it a bank.

And he mocks up so thinly, and creates so thinly, and so forth, that you an auditor, you can't see it. People got to believing that the mind was all (quote) "imaginary," by which they meant delusory.

No, the mind has mass, it has space, energies, all sorts of things. See? Only we just don't do a good enough job of creation to put it out there where everybody can see it.

He'll use various excuses that it would "spoil the game." You can always get somebody to put up ... You know, it's very funny to take one of these cases, he's saying, "Well I — I can't — can't mock anything up. I don't see any pictures. No, it isn't real to me, I just don't mock anything up. Ha! Ha! Ah, really something. I never saw any pictures. You must be talking through your hat, there's pictures." And what he's saying "I've got them all smashed, see. I haven't got any pictures, they are all scrushed to death, you know. They're all invisible."

It's a very funny thing to run this process on him. This is a cure-all sort of a process. It's not a good, therapeutic process at all. It is just getting an effect on a pc.

You must differentiate between processes that do something for a pc, and processes which merely render an effect on a pc. A .45 bullet never did a thing for anybody's chest but it certainly rendered an effect on him.

So, you run a process something like this: You say, "Get an idea of put­ting up a picture as big as that wall and then get the idea it would spoil the game and don't do it."

And you just run that little one just a few times, and he's looking at some great, big 3-D tapestry, you know, of something or other, and bright colored, and sort of claws away, and scrunches and goes r-a-h-h-h ...

"Ah, phoohh, I got that off you know."

Now, you want to know why he hasn't got pictures. Well, he's on the create-to-destroy cycle.

But you can reverse his willingness with this trick, and make him get the opposite effect against his will. See, you can ...

Just like you say to somebody, "Try not to be three feet back of your head." And he goes boinnng! See?

And you say, "Try not to put a picture on the wall," which is all this gag is about, you see. And particularly on a black case, it goes spannng because that's what he's trying to do. He's trying not to put up a picture.

And you say, "Try not to put up a picture." It as-ises his effort for a moment and you get a picture! Because his effort is to destroy his picture because he's on this slip from create over to destroy.

But you see he didn't mock up the picture at all! All he did was lift the destroy off of a picture that he's perfectly able to put up! He's always able to put up a picture, just like you're always able to mock up a whole ruddy universe!

You can mock up dolls, spaceships, mannequins, governor generals, any-thing! See?

You could mock up also the space to put them in, the mass to make them out of, the energy to run them. Who else is mocking up all this stuff, the dinosaurs? Well all right. Just take my word for it. You don't even have to believe it. You don't even have to take my word for it. Try not to put a uni­verse here!

If you're having trouble with pictures, just try not to get a picture in front of your face right this minute. Nah, I won't sit here and process you. Did you see something kind of flicker?

Feel creepy?

You realize that a blind man is trying to see, trying to see, trying to see, trying to see, trying to see, trying to see, trying to see. And after awhile he's destroyed sight enough times that his "trying to see" puts the destruction on automatic and so he goes blind.

You can do the weirdest tricks with somebody's eyes.

You can say, "Get the effort not to see." His vision will change. I don't suppose it'll change very long because he'll flip it back.

But you just tell him "Get the effort not to see that chair." And "Get the effort not to see that chair." "That's good. Now get the effort not to see that chair."

Just do that a few times and all of a sudden, "My eyes, they don't work anymore. They're not quite right!"

Sometimes the spectacles never are right afterwards. See, he can't quite get the astigmatism back the way it belongs!

But just as efforts oppose efforts, so does a person create and oppose creations. See, it's not — destruction is so much a fact, it is so visible, it's so real. The whole world is busy running on it. The threat of destruction.

This is so real, the destruction to the world at large is a fact! It's a big truth. It is not a creation, counterposed by created force, or more simply it's not just a creation opposed by a creation.

Now, you take a Chinese pagoda, and it's sitting there doing very well. You put another Chinese pagoda just like it, smash it up and put it in — I mean, just smash the two together, you know, just put two Chinese pagodas in the same place. This violates one of the laws on which everybody has agreed, that "Two objects can't occupy the same space," which is pure non-sense, because I'm sitting here, and I'm sitting here. See? I'm occupying the same space as a body right this minute.

People tell me "I'm not an object." Well, all right, they haven't run into me lately. That's one of the tricks they play on you as a thetan, by the way.

Tell you, "You're nothing. You're nothing. You're nothing. You're nothing." You know. You, yourself, can't be anything.

I remember falling over a scrub lady one day while I didn't have a body on, and scared her half to death.

Usually thetans are so shy that they don't do this sort of thing. They ordinarily don't get run into very easily. And they go around — they don't go running into people if they can possibly help it. They know how they're sup-posed to handle people; they're supposed to pick up people at the beginning of the cycle and live as a people through to the end of the cycle unless inter­rupted by some co-opposed force. That's the way they're supposed to do, you know, it's "Now-I'm-supposed-to. Now-I'm-supposed-to."

I don't know why you can't begin life at thirty-two. I don't. It's no reason at all why you couldn't begin life at thirty-two, get younger till you were six-teen. Do you realize you'd probably wind up in high school with all those pretty girls with all that experience. Has its advantages.

Now, we can tell you the various phases of how the mind looks on a Tone Scale. And we can say, "Well, it goes down from a willingness to experience, to a willingness to confront only, you see, to a willingness to not confront, which is about where you get invisibility, and then a willingness to hide it because one can't make it invisible anymore so they turn it black, and then it goes down, and couldn't turn it black successfully and can't confront it and way up, can't experience it, so you get a substitute." Actually the invisibility is kind of a substitute for the picture. So it's actually a scale of substitutes.

Substitutional behavior for an unwillingness to experience. It's about the way it goes. And the guy goes down the Tone Scale.

The old time, wide-open case that had such beautiful pictures and you just erased them and erased them and erased them and ran them through the engrams and ran them through the engrams and they didn't get any bet-ter and they didn't get any better and they didn't get any better. What was going on here? Well, you didn't have a picture. You had a substitute for a substitute for a substitute for a substitute of a picture. See?

And if you'd persisted long enough on any one picture and not just erased that picture up to a time when it got murky or something, but just kept erasing it, and if you'd had enough control to hold the pc in the incident, you would have erased the next substitute and the next substitute and the next substitute and the next substitute and it would have all gone black. And it would have all gone invisible, and you would insist that he went through the whole thing again. He would have been looking at it. And then maybe more times and more times and more times and all of sudden he'd be right there. And he would have been running an engram. And that one would have run out! Because he could have gotten to the moment of inception of the inci­dent, which is what we always ask for, and run it through to the end.

Well, actually, finding the moment of inception of the incident was really enough if you found the moment of inception of the first incident and that's in there too — basic-basic. That'd be the first created incident at the earliest moment of picture track. And you could have found that and erased it, why, you would have gotten a decided change all the way up the bank, of course!

Now, just add up what you know about Dianetics to what — the stuff I'm giving you about create versus destroy and you'll see an awful lot about banks. Do you understand? There's a terrific amount here about banks. And it's not very complicated! Because the force to withhold is the unwillingness to destroy — destroy others or the effort to destroy the picture which might destroy others and it's a lot of things but it's a pull-back, rather than a dis­play.

So, the worse off a person is, the less he discloses, the more he with-holds. Don't you see?

It's very simple. The more destruction he skidded through to the end of, of course, the more he is suppressing. Because he's doing it.

So, the more withhold, the less pictures.

The more apparency of no bank, you see, and so on.

And of course, the withhold, the withhold, nondisclosure, nondisclosure, the backtrack is usually something he's not disclosing to anybody, including himself!

And this is so chronic that you take somebody who (quote) "Has no real­ity on past lives" and I'll show you, not according to present technology, but according to early technology, an awful rough case, according to early tech­nology.

The people who had the roughest cases with the most substitution, and the most wide-open, and the most dub-in, were usually those people who told you the quickest they had no reality on past lives.

In fact, they would get downright desperate about it.

I remember I had one of them on a couch one day, and he all of a sudden got the idea of a big shark — came along and bit him in the side. He got the somatic, he said, "That's it." And he sprang off the couch and ran like a star­tled goat. Too real for him, and he wouldn't believe it. That's all he said after-wards is he didn't believe it, he wouldn't believe it, and so forth. And the teeth marks that took shape on his side — he wouldn't believe those either. He was all bruised up.

Now why? What's this all about?

Well of course, he's just more withdrawn and more withdrawn and more withdrawn and more withdrawn, which is less disclose, less disclose, less dis­close, less disclose and he finally gets down to where he's only willing to disclose the last moment or two of time even to himself and you call that amnesia.

And there's no difference between whole track amnesia and present-life amnesia. And as a matter of fact you are indebted to that to the degree that that is what upset me enough, personally, subjectively, to start to get very interested in the mind and so on. Because I had a first dynamic reaction on this, too.

And my first dynamic reaction was, not that I, myself had better get busy and save my sanity or something of the sort but when I started wonder­ing a little bit about the mind, I all of a sudden realized that I was getting amnesia. I couldn't tell you my name in the second century A.D.! I just couldn't remember it! And I knew I was going nuts! You know. And I didn't have a clue anymore how you threw a javelin! You know, you pick it up this way, and you pick it up there and dahhh.

What's the difference between a Moorish, Greek and Roman methods of handling javelins? Why, I couldn't tell you. And I knew I was losing my memory.

Where do you find the proper pigment for blue paint? I'd forgotten.

In fact, I — it was a big fog-in, I couldn't tell you where I lived in 1102 A.D.

My memory on the earlier track wasn't so bad, but they — in spots — but I realized there was practically nothing on the early, early track at all. Noth­ing! What was this?

There were great big chunks like twenty years missing out of the track, see. And of course, the only oddity I had on this, and the only peculiarity I had on this, and so forth, is at first I didn't know that other people didn't have any whole track! And I didn't know it so much that I never even articu­lated it. I couldn't even get it through my head and it wasn't real to me or anything else, you see, that other people wouldn't be worried about this, too. It was a total meeting of unrealities.

I had no reality on their occlusion at all, and they didn't have any real reality on the fact that I thought, "Well, probably it's a good thing I'm researching this particular field because I'm obviously losing my mind."

During the war I remember vividly thinking about the Phoenician navy and how different our administrative system was than the Phoenician navy's administrative system and so on. And of course I'd been in my same rank for so long, that I was getting moldy. That was true of anybody who went out to the combat areas.

And I mentioned this to somebody. I didn't tell them — I didn't tell them I was remembering and so forth. I got dreamily reminiscent about the Phoeni­cian navy and the good old days, you know. They printed me up a certificate on the ship and they printed me up a commission, feeling sorry for me for being in grade for so long, you see. And gave me my original commission back as a lieutenant in the Phoenician navy with the date of rank, 1003 B.C. printed on it. Only it didn't seem very funny to me.

Only they didn't have lieutenants. Well, we won't go off into that. There was another way of designating rank and grade.

What all this comes down to was how willing I was to create the early track or to create the memory of an early track, which is all memory is. Now you have a reality on it because you know it is — was.

And you very often see something on the backtrack that you don't remember was. You assume. You don't know, you assume.

Well, you must be holding some kind of a destruction cycle over the top of your knowledge, too. There must be some wish to occlude it or not remem­ber it, so your destruction cycle actually included loss of memory. And when you think about it for a moment that's a very peculiar thing for a destruction cycle to include.

Now, how did you all get so you did that? How come you started adding "loss of memory" into the destruction cycle?

Well, that was because only if it was there, could you remember it. Hey, that's pretty wild, you know. That says, "no memory at all," that says, "MEST has to remind you that you have a memory." Look at that for a minute.

You remember this wall up here particularly well when you're looking straight at it. Got the idea?

Well, now just look at that wall for a moment and say, "Well, I remember that."

No, not "I will remember that." Look at the front wall, and say, "Well, well, I remember that."

Did something kind of go creak? Hm?

Did it brighten up?

Audience: Yes.

Did it tend to kind of go into the past and you go into the future or something?

Audience: Yes.

Well, some weird things happened with regard to that. But a person gets recognition mixed up with knowledge of. And now without looking at the wall, do you know it's there? Audience: Yes.

You know it's there. You see.

Only you don't have to look at the wall to know it's there because you know it's there. You knew you were looking at a wall. You get the idea?

Well, that basically is memory. Now, memory peels off to a point where you have to have a picture of the wall to remember that you looked at the wall.

See, it goes down from just "Well, it was there and that's that." You just remember it, you just know it, you see.

Down to have to having a picture of the wall to remember it's there.

And then that goes down to "destroying the picture." When you pass out of a certain cycle, you go past the cycle of action to the destroy end of that life, and the destruction of that cycle of action now results in a wipe-out of the picture.

Well, you see, memory is just memory. It actually does not require — at this level of the game you can face up to this — it doesn't require a picture, it doesn't require an object. You knew a girl once, you see, or you knew a guy once, you know, and you don't have to have his photograph in front of your face to know that you knew him! Or her, do you?

Audience: No.

Well, you just know you knew somebody.

Well, that's basically what memory is. It's not memory with an assist.

But as soon as memory gets into one of the vias by which we live, into pictures, and when the pictures then seem to be a life, we get a cycle of action through the whole life, and that life is destroyed, then we apparently destroy the pictures, but the pictures ... You know. Then we have some sort of recollection of the picture. We get the picture again, it's fogged up and unreal because it's not connected because the essential ingredient is missing. And the essential ingredient is knowing it was. So, that's the essential ingre­dient. It's no more complicated than that; it's knowing it was.

You don't have any mechanisms. It's cycle of action which carried it away, that's for sure, but you must have permitted knowing it was, to be car­ried away along with the cycle of action. Now, that's a funny thing to do.

But it's consequent to getting somatics and assigning agonies and miser­ies and all of that sort of thing to that particular life and being afraid you'll get them back if you even know about them again.

Now, basically, it was your sympathy for somebody else that you had hurt, or you thought you had hurt, which made you want them to not-know about what had happened. And that is the overt act of memory occlusion. Wanting somebody to forget or not-know.

Whole track memory and its restoration is based upon, basically, the rehabilitation of one's desire to let somebody else know, or his willingness to let somebody else know, too.

Come on, cognite!

_ Oh, I see, you thought I was taking a bicycle ride around the park. Come on! Come On! Come on! Come on! Come on!

The first step in memory occlusion is an overt against somebody else's knowingness. You don't want them to know, out of sympathy, meanness, orneri­ness, youness, or something else! You don't want somebody else to know!

And then by valence flips and by repeated overts and then realizing this was an overt act you suffer the consequences of your overt acts and the first thing you know you can't tell me your name in 500 B.C.! You're crazy! You understand that?

Audience: Yes.

Aw, people out here wouldn't think you were crazy! They're on such an inversion they'd think you were crazy if you could remember your name in 500 B.C., you see.

This is totally unreal and would practically terrify them.

But the first step in the rehabilitation of anything or anybody is a will­ingness to let somebody else know!

And you're going to make a case well which is sitting there with some data it's not going to let you know?

Why, that case is sitting in the middle of the primary aberration and has it in full restimulation! And you're going to cut through this thing? Hmm. The dickens you are.

The first step in the rehabilitation of any case, and I'm sure you've proc­essed people with high needles, high tone arms — I'm sure you've processed people with high tone arms and slogged and chewed and hammered and chewed up pictures and messed up with somatics and plowed into things and ... Hm? I'm sure you have.

And here and there done it without the tiniest, slightest change or gain. And the person just kept — come up a little bit and slide back, and come up and slide back. And you're beating your brains out! Much less your thetan.

Now, why was that? It's because you had avoided the primary step in rehabilitation: willingness to let somebody else know, which is the total reverse of what is wrong with a person which is unwillingness to let somebody else know. However misguided the motives are for an unwillingness to let some-body else know, it is nevertheless pretty destructive on all the dynamics.

"Well, I couldn't possibly tell my husband about that affair. It would kill him." It was apparently a rather pure motive, you know, "He'd kill me, too" is a part of it. See?

Well, it's a dual-sided motive.

"I mustn't hurt them."

Oh, there are people right here who went through all of their early child-hood knowing they mustn't let their parents know because it would hurt them. It would hurt their parents to know that you weren't the shining little angel that they thought you were. It would hurt them to realize the things that you did. Right?

Audience: Yes.

Well, then, don't tell me some time why your childhood is occluded. See?

You go through your whole childhood not letting anybody know. You are actually doing worse than that, you were suppressing somebody else's knowing­ness! Weren't you?

Audience: Yes.

So it was constant and continual overt acts against this thing I'm talk­ing about called spontaneous knowingness.

You just know, you don't have pictures! You just know.

Well, now as long as anybody believes that he has to have pictures in order to know, see, as long as anybody believes this expressly and exclusively, and that there's no other method by which to do this, then he is saved from letting anybody else know because he says, "Look! You can't see my facsimi­les, so therefore, well, I'm sorry, I'd show them to you if I could, but that's my memory."

No, no, no, that isn't his memory at all. His memory is knowing some-thing happened! Knowing something exists! That's present time and knowing something did exist or occur, that's memory. But it's simply knowingness and that's all it is.

And it isn't knowingness with "x" crosses that goes through five elec­tronic tubes and squirts out with a gimmigahoogit. No, it is just knowing. It's too elementary to be grasped in any other way than to know that it is that way.

Now, the more overts you have against somebody else's knowingness, or other people's knowingnesses, the more mechanisms you're going to adapt and adopt to make sure that you don't forget somehow. And without releasing knowingness to make sure it doesn't get forgotten.

See, finger — a string on the finger, notes on pieces of paper. Without releasing any of your own knowingness or memory, you see — without releas­ing your own knowingness and simply just remembering, you put down some-thing to remember.

Now, it's perfectly all right to keep notes because at your state of case it would be an heroic, an heroic thing to remember the whole ruddy shooting match. You get the idea? So, go ahead and take notes, it's all right with me. Well, for heavens sakes know what you're doing. You're getting a substitution for knowing, you know. Well, there's nothing wrong with that.

You do it all the time. I'm not trying to cry this mechanism down and say, "This is terrible!" But I'm going to say don't do it to a point where you yourself don't know. Because you're cutting your own throat.

Now, of course, you actually, most of you have taken notes so that you can tell somebody else sometime. And you've got an orderly outline of what went on and you can tell somebody else about it. But basically you may very well be in some via, method, rehabilitating your own knowingness by being willing through these notes to let somebody else know sometime. You get the idea?

Audience: Yes.

It's a two-edged sword. You go ahead and take notes.

But MEST 18 MEST and knowingness is knowingness and unfortunately the twain meet. And MEST can substitute for knowingness, which is one of the weirdest tricks that thetans ever figured out. You can actually substitute — this somethingness can substitute for a total nothingness.

But just knowing is the first and foremost road out. But you're not going to know while you know that you suppressed other people's ability to know! Got that?

Audience: Yes.

Because boy, does that one snap terminals easily — snick, snick. There's no space to keep it apart. See? There's no MEST to keep it apart. All the mechanical means by which you disentangle your overts from the other valence and so forth, these are all abandoned, and they just go (smack!). Got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Because your knowingness can be over there, it can be over here and so forth.

For instance, I can know all about this corner of the room while knowing in that corner of the room, while being right about here, as I was at that moment. You got that?

Audience: Yes.

Know about this corner of the room from that corner of the room while being here !

Well, why do I have to be here to know about this corner of the room while being in that corner of the room, huh? Why can't I, without being here, simply know about that corner of the room? Hm?

Now, why do I have to be anywhere in this room or out of it, in that corner or away from it, to know about that corner? Well, I don't. Do you understand?

Audience: Yes.

What I know about a corner, I know about a corner!

And unless I fall on very evil times the next few centuries I'll still know about that corner! Because what's time got to do with it so long as I keep from shutting down everybody else's knowingness as an overt act. You under-stand?

Audience: Yes.

So, basically, before you get to a cycle of action, which is mechanical enough, you're going to run into destroyed knowingness, and along with destroyed knowingness, when you first enter into the cycle of action, you usu­ally hit the pc at a destroyed end of the cycle, particularly on anything he can be analyzed on. And boy, you ask him to look at his bank in that condition, he thinks at once he's had it. Well, it sure looks that way, sure looks that way.

See, you ask him, well, let's see, let's take a food that you used to eat a lot of, let's see — oh, I know what it would be, milk. That's far enough back on the track. All right, very few of you are doing anything with milk right now. "Get the idea of creating some milk."

Now, some of you got a little automaticity on the thing, see. The funny part of it is, you actually did create the milk, but it wasn't m-i-l-k, which conveyed from me to you what I asked you to create! Was it?

Audience: Huh-uh.

Symbols and language always follow the fact of communication. Now, that's too slippery for some people, boy, they say, "That's pretty something."

All I use communication for is to confirm it. And that proves it to you. You know you heard it. Isn't that right?

Audience: Yes.

Because it doesn't exist in terms of time — that tape playing there — because people are concentrated in that direction, actually serves as an — will serve as an indicator of what to know about while you hear the symbols. That's pretty weird, isn't it?

This is why your mystic gets all mix — misted up. See, that doesn't make those sounds or words on that tape any less real. See, they exist. They're not delusory.

But let's not get so mishmashed as to say either that "They do not exist and don't have a reality," since they do exist, but to understand that by that we could understand anything without the bridge of knowingness. The knowingness exists; therefore we can know about it.

It's very remarkable. Man is in a totally compartmented skull, in a totally compartmented sorted out universe. The ideas of nirvana should never get mixed up with the ideas of MEST. There is a sort of a nirvana, but it isn't where all knowledge is. Right away, see, it doesn't even mean knowledge, but we'll just hobson-jobson this thing around, see. Nirvana, you see, would be sort of a mishmash of "where all the souls went" you know. But where they went! Aw, come off of it. How do we get a location mixed up in this?

The religionist comes along and he says, "Heaven is up there." Aw, it sounds like some old nut saying, "My thetan is over there."

You do a remarkable trick being yourself located. Boy, that's remarkable. How the dickens do you manage that? Well, don't think on it too hard right now or you'll go sprong! But that's quite a trick! That's quite a trick! Being able to locate yourself. To be in a position and look at some other positions! Boy! That's the most! Across space that you mock up! So that you can know about it, which you knew already. This gets to be kind of a silly game when you look this thing over.

But in the final analysis, no case could move anyplace while actually, in flagrante delicto, withholding information right now because that's one of the toughest aberrations there are.

And while this person is sitting right there withholding information, they just restimulate the whole track of withholding information. They go, "Dahl Audit me. I'll sort out pictures while I not-know anything. Because I'm not going to let you know!" And that's the overt act.

You could probably build somebody up knowing the technique and mechanics of the thing by running such a thing as "What would you be will­ing to let others know?" See. You'd probably build this up against time. You could probably rehabilitate it in several ways.

But all I'm trying to teach you is, you got somebody sitting in that pc's chair withholding information from you. He is sitting in the middle of the most aberration there is, which is, he's indulging in an overt act in not let­ting you know. And you're not going to audit him on anything until you get him out of that one.

Thank you.