Well all right. Okay. Shortest day of the year. Dec. AD 11. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Now somebody wants to know if this lecture's in sequence, they'll have to look up and find out when the winter solstice is and they'll have the date.

At least we have the feeling now that the sun will be coming back day by day and minute by minute into this far northern clime. At least we can look forward now to the days getting longer and a little more sunlight all the way along the line. And I similarly hope that's true of your cases.

Now, today's lecture has to do with, again, suppositional material, which however you will find very valuable. I gave you another lecture of this character.

The probabilities — and I label this very clearly "probabilities." This is based on experience and observations. And whether they are probables or not, you'll find all of this material of considerable use.

Let us take up the Goals Problem Mass head-on and find out what we are doing with. In other words, what is this thing we are doing something to.

It might assist you that the probability of the composition of the Goals Problem Mass is not a single package. I've already told you that earlier. I've said that you've got your most available material, but this has been disclosed to view, and this is very interesting data.

Your first package on this looks like a small circle called the terminal. (Small oval — terminal.) And now, you have this next circle which we could call the oppterm. And we find that this terminal and all of its peculiarities is a valence with all of its crimes and antecedents and so forth, called the terminal.

All right. This is a whole package in itself. It is a personality. It has idiosyncrasies. It has types of overt. It has moral codes. It has all of these various things. It's a very complex package. It's extremely complex. It is a complete personality all in one fell swoop.

Now, if you were to audit out these various characteristics of that particular personality, and all of the crimes accumulated over the last many trillennia, you would have a very long job ahead of you. And it has constantly been borne in upon me over the years that you audit out the valence. You do not audit out the characteristics of the valence. That is what you are trying to do. You are auditing out a valence, not the characteristics of the valence. That is something for you to remember.

Otherwise, at some fell stage, you can all of a sudden go slightly mad and look at all the characteristics that a waterbuck has and everything that goes into the makeup of waterbuck. And start to audit these out one by one, as an approach route, and you won't make it, because they are all there because they are a package called "waterbuck." And that is a terminal.

And when you audit out the terminal, all that other material blows with the terminal, you see? This is something on the order of a billion to one, you see? You throw out a billion characteristics and incidents by throwing out one unit, which is to say, a terminal. Now, that is what you are doing essentially.

Now, this opposition terminal is what keeps this terminal suspended in time because it makes a problem. Without this terminal going up against the opposition terminal, you don't have any mechanism that will suspend the first terminal in time. The only way you can suspend this terminal, "waterbuck," in time, you see, is to also have another package of stuff — "tiger," let us say. And we've got this package called "tiger" here and this package, of course, is in itself a complete package. And it also has a billion characteristics and now-I'm-supposed-to's and moral codes and all the rest of it. But being in opposition violently to our terminal, waterbuck, we have then a terrific concentration of attention by which nothing else can get as-ised.

In other words, the waterbuck can't as-is anything else because he's totally concentrated on the tiger, and the tiger can't as-is anything else because he's totally concentrated on the waterbuck. But it's the whole subject, tiger, and the whole subject, waterbuck, that you are trying to audit. You are not trying to audit out the characteristics of a tiger or the characteristics of a waterbuck. But you are trying to audit out these two packages in their conflict, one against the other. And as soon as that conflict is tripped or triggered or imbalanced, it, then, tends to blow and disintegrate. There is nothing can hold it in space.

A problem floats in time. It has its own time track. It floats in time. Everything appears to be "now" about this problem. You get people who have tremendous problems. They have got to get everything now. They can never get anything tomorrow. They can only get it now. It can only be done now. They can only be audited now. They can only be cleared now. You see, it has got to be now. You see, because there isn't any time. They know better than to try to clear themselves tomorrow.

Well, what causes this? What causes this manifestation? It is simply the problem characteristic of the oppterm and term concentrated upon each other, floating in time, makes a no-time situation for the pc. So he has no time. He has not got time to walk across the room and pick up a sandwich. He just doesn't have time to do it. The sandwich is over on the other side of the room and there he is, but he can't do it, because in order to progress from where he is to where the sandwich is consumes time.

So therefore, he has to have the sandwich now and he can't get the sandwich because he has to walk across the room first. Now, that's the most ridiculous example that I could give you of it, but we have many of these examples in real life.

And amongst these examples in real life, we come up against the proposition that the fellow cannot possibly ever get a refrigerator next month. He just cannot get a refrigerator next month. And this month work hard to get money for the refrigerator next month. He cannot do that. He is mentally incapable of doing that. What he has to do is get the refrigerator now. He can never get it next month. It's got to be now, now. He can never work toward getting a refrigerator. The essence of it is, he never gets a refrigerator, or somebody invents hire purchase or time payments.

Now, it's — it's the "nowness" of it all, don't you see? If they can just never have anything in the future, they're all set, because there is no future. All their future is suspended, and it is involved in two terminals, one in conflict with the other. And by that conflict alone, you get a suspension of these two terminals.

So you have the tiger fighting the waterbuck, the waterbuck fighting the tiger. And these two — each one a total personality package — each one a total personality package, is banged against the other one inextricably. So there is no possibility of these things coming apart and you then have something which is floating in time. Nothing gets as-ised. Everything just accumulates. Everything nails down.

Now, when you're taking items off of a 3D assessment list — let us say, like an oppterm or something like that, list — and they null, you actually are pulling these items off their association with the terminal. You are auditing when you are listing and nulling

When you first looked at it, it was, "tiger, elephant, wild animals, circuses, animal lovers." See, these were all part of the list. And as you go over those things, they actually strip off this package because they're strippable, because they're not the package. But once you get the package down to the package, it ceases to be strippable. And so the thing just keeps on banging on the E-Meter, see? It won't null because that is the package.

Now, if you had to go ahead and take apart every thought and characteristic of a tiger from there on out, let me assure you that if we merely take up the idea of the chemical processes which a tiger must be cognizant of to be a tiger, we have a lot of data. It'd take you many years at a university to begin to learn that they don't know anything about the chemistry by which a tiger would operate. They know nothing about biochemistry — not the way she is really operated. And yet all of that information, as well as everything else — how to hunt, how to track, how to smell, how to do this, how to wash one's face — all these things are all contained in this package.

Now, you don't strip those off. You strip the whole thing off, bang! Because it's only there because it's suspended up against the terminal. All right. So there's the terminal versus the oppterm and the oppterm versus the terminal. And they are suspended because — and this is very important to you and we have tended to overlook this particular thing — they are data of comparable magnitude: You cannot have a problem unless the forces are in equilibrium. You must have these two forces more or less equal. They're certainly very similar in their characteristics.

Now, let's get to the rest of this package. You think that is all there is to this package? No, that is not all there is to this package.

We have here a larger circle and we've got one circle interlocked with the next circle interlocked with a large circle. And this large circle is the oppterm's terminal — the oppterm's oppterm. Interesting, eh?

So we've got this third package and it's a valence. And it's the oppterm's oppterm. And how does that stay in suspense? Well, that stays in suspense because there is a fourth package of equal size which is the oppterm's oppterm's oppterm. That's right. And that is the "0-0-0," the oppterm's oppterm's oppterm. See? Pretty good, huh? Very interesting And this will get very important to you in just a moment when I show you something about assessment.

And that's all very interesting, but the probabilities are that there are two more circles out here. This one would be the oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's oppterm and this is the oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's oppterm. Interesting.

And then when we get out here we have two more. Now, how far that goes is unimportant because it's the road to OT. That's your road to OT, and that's the composite, the probable composite, of this road to OT. This is, of course, to a large degree conjecture. I call it to your attention. But various things support this theory, and we will go into that right now.

That first package is pinned up one against the other simply because they're held in suspension against the oppterm's oppterm. And the oppterm's oppterm is held in suspension because it is against the oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's oppterm. And the oppterms that I just mentioned is held in suspension against a next pair, and they are held in suspension against a next pair. And each pair, if you will notice by these drawings, are bigger than the last pair. And that's the important thing — they are bigger. And there's where you can make your mistake on a 3D Assessment package. And where, here and there in this very unit, we have made this mistake.

We get the oppterm's oppterm as one of the units, and the actual oppterm, being tinier, is lost. Remember I used to tell you about two trucks head-on against each other in a field and that there was a lot of mishmash around those front bumpers.

Well, amongst the mishmash in the front bumpers, on some cases you will find the oppterm totally submerged. It is gone from view. And sometimes it's the terminal. So that there you've got the oppterm and then the terminal and then the actual terminal. And they're all kind of mishmashed in there. And you'll come along and you'll pick, with your assessment, the oppterm's oppterm off

How can you tell the oppterm's oppterm? It is higher toned. It is so much higher toned, that it's way up at the top of the scale, and the truth of the matter is that your proper terminal and oppterm are very close to equal on the scale. Now that can really help you to pick these things out.

So your problems-solutions survey that you take, I would say at a guess — and more than a guess — I would say that if when you did your problems-solutions survey and you wrote down "how you solve problems" and "how terminals solve problems" and how (quote) oppterm (unquote) solves problems, and then you find that "you" would solve problems by stabbing people in the stomach, and the terminal would solve problems by cutting people's throats and the oppterm would solve problems by stabbing people in the neck. Oh, you're pretty sure that you've got that package, you see? That's a nice, smooth, equality package. Gives you good data of comparable magnitude. It also gives you one God-awful problem. Which is which?

But when you've got it with that precision, it doesn't much matter because you're going to be able to audit both sides of them. And your pc just won't get somatics nicely. And your pc just won't run nicely. And your pc hasn't any real idea of the game that is being played if they're being run on the wrong side. They're going to be saying, "Well, what game is this?" You know?

You're running them on tiger, see? And you're running them on tiger, and their terminal is waterbuck, on the combination waterbuck-tiger. And you're running them on tiger. "I just can't see that there's any game involved. Waterbuck? What problem would you have with a waterbuck? Waterbuck? I had a problem with a waterbuck. Got a problem with a waterbuck. Let's see? How would a tiger possibly have a problem with a waterbuck? Well, a problem with a waterbuck. A tiger would have a problem with a waterbuck. Oh, I get it. Yeah. Well, a problem of a tiger with a waterbuck. Waterbuck would jump across the river and the tiger would have a problem of getting across with his feet still dry. Yes. Yeah, I guess that'd be it."

And you say, "Well, what conflict is there between a tiger and a waterbuck?" — if you ask them this.

And they'd say, "Conflict? Well, you could see there's theoretically a conflict between these two things, but uh . . ."

Now you go around and you run the waterbuck. And you say, "Well, what problem — ," in the same 7 December commands, you say, "What problem would a tiger have with a waterbuck?"

"Well, how to get around and jump out of the proper places in order to leap quietly upon one." You know, it's a real problem.

Run from the point of view and with the levels of the waterbuck, he all of a sudden recognizes the tremendous amount of games condition that there exists. So run on the terminal, he gets the games condition, but run on the oppterm, he doesn't get the games condition. Why is this?

Well, this is just because when you're running the opposition terminal, part of the opposition terminal's attention is fixated over here on the oppterm's oppterm. So he has a sort of a split attention on it and he can't quite see it. Why?

Well, the oppterm's oppterm is of enormously greater magnitude. It's the pc that you have him go around on 8-C and he feels all the walls and he does all the commands with equal comm lag and he does it all exactly right and he gets absolutely no improvement at all, because it's a "what-wall" situation. Well, the oppterm's oppterm is quite normally a "what-wall" situation, if you happen to get it into your package. Oh, he can see it theoretically. Yes, he can see this and so forth.

Now, I'll show you how we can get the waterbuck and the tiger and an oppterm's oppterm mixed up. We'll be doing an assessment with our sleeves rolled up and just going along fine. And we're doing an assessment and we have a waterbuck, and we have a god, and the goals and everything all fits in. And then when we do our problems — then we get a package and the package, of course, is a waterbuck and god. All right. That's fine.

And here we are chewing along on this package beautifully, and we do our problems survey. We get it all arranged. We do our problems survey and "How would a god solve problems?"

"Well, a god would solve problems by causing things to happen, by instantaneous combustion, by starting forest fires at a glance, by fixing people into statuesque statues, uh . . ."

"And how would a waterbuck solve problems?"

"Well, a waterbuck would solve problems by cheating, and by hiding in the reeds, and when somebody comes down to drink, why, all of a sudden reaching out with his teeth and pulling him into the water. And he'd solve problems by appearing very disinterested and not caring"

Well, let's look this over. Are those solutions of problems in comparable magnitude to this other list that you have of gods? Well, by George, they're not. Well, it isn't that you got your 3D wrong. You've just found the oppterm's oppterm. "Where's the oppterm?" That's your question.

Now, if you look this over very carefully, it will be some segment of the oppterm. So what you do is do an opposition to the oppterm and you get an oppterm's oppterm, see?

Let's do some additional assessment using this high Tone Scale item that we have, see. We got this high Tone Scale item. "How would this thing solve problems?"

"Well, all it would do would be to put out its hand and say, 'Peace.' And there would be peace everywhere."

"And how would a waterbuck solve problems?"

"Well, a waterbuck would solve problems by nattering." And he'd say, "Well, grrrrrr . . ."

So let's find some piece or opposition terminal to the oppterm's oppterm. What would oppose a god? Ah, faschinating. What would oppose a god? All right. We'll make a list of this sort of thing And there's a ways to do that, by the way. This is quite cute. There are various ways that you could do this sort of thing. This would be more likely to find you the terminal. This would probably find you the terminal. I'll give you a trick method just apropos of nothing.

You say, "What have you done to yourself? What have you withheld from yourself? What have you done to yourself? What have you withheld from yourself?" And you'd make a whole list of the answers. And then say, "Who would you treat like that?" And you could get a terminal list. "Who would you treat like that?" That's a very nasty little hook to get in on a line. Now, of course, you're liable to turn up with another piece that you don't quite know what to do with. Only it'll be a piece of comparable magnitude. And you sort these pieces of comparable magnitude out and you have found yourself a tiger. You found a tiger.

Now, you see, you could make a new list of some kind or another. And you could probably find the — prematurely find the pc's terminal and then get opposition terminals to that terminal or opposition goals to it and who would do that goal, you see? Or you could find opposition to the oppterm's oppterm and you could do a list of that. And you could crisscross this thing, and all of a sudden you're going to find another piece which stays in, which gives you a comparable response to waterbuck.

Well then, what about the god? We found the tiger. What about this god? Well, that's all right. Leave him there. Put him on the back shelf. Wait for the next run around when you get out — the first part of this package going, you're going to need that. You're already a leg up on your next package, see? But it is out of the order of comparable magnitude to the terminal. So one of your tests — I can tell you here in conditional data on it — if you've got two pieces now that you're running on your pc, terminal and oppterminal and one of those is saying, "How would it solve problems?"

"Well, it would solve problems by pervading all with peaceful feelings."

"All right. How else would it solve problems?"

"Well, it'd solve problems by putting together several armies and having them descend on the city and crush it."

"All right. And how would the terminal solve problems?"

"Well, by running fast."

"All right. How would the terminal solve problems?"

"Well, by swimming long distances."

"Well, how would the terminal solve problems?"

"Well, by — by — by worrying."

Ah, you look this package over. You say, "Now, wait a minute. These two levels of problems-solutions survey do not compare." Just make up your mind that your pc won't run either.

Oddly enough, the pc will run on it, but all the time you're running the pc on it, you're putting the oppterm, the actual oppterm, further and further on automatic. And it'll all of a sudden start coming down on the pc with a crash. And you'll notice the pc sitting there answering problems. He can't get much reality to it. It doesn't make much sense, this thing "Waterbuck jumping the tiger" — this thing "Waterbuck jumping the tiger," well, and so on.

He's just never interested in the other side. When you get to those questions which are there, they're just not quite real, and he's not quite interested in them, and it just doesn't quite do. And he can tell you intellectually how it would all be, but there's no umph. There's no punch to this thing, you know. There's no gut aches in it either.

And when you get this thing sorted out — you've run it for a while, let's say, that's perfectly all right — you possibly will have freed up the oppterm so it's now well in view.

Now do a reassessment on the thing and you'll find the oppterm's oppterm will momentarily drop out. It'll cease to register as soon as you get the oppterm registering And the oppterm will be something much smaller than a god, you see.

But all the time you're running a "waterbuck" versus a "god," your pc will be sitting there, and you'll notice the pc frequently in sessions just going — and his claws are getting longer, and he's started to grow much longer fingernails. And he will be caressing his fingernails, and then all of a sudden he gets a rather happy look at you, you know, and looks at you as though you might be edible. And you say — well, one of the test questions is — "All right. How does this make a game?"

That's one of the test questions. And if your pc can't tell you, you either flagrantly have a wrong piece in your 3D — I mean just that; I mean it's — so on — or you've got one of the items, really, is the oppterm's oppterm. You've got the extra wheel, and you haven't got an essential item.

So the first motions that you take in making sure that it's all right with your package — your pc's package — is you go across this thing and read out each item and make sure that you get the identical needle pattern. All right. That does not guarantee you do not have the oppterm's oppterm, but it guarantees that your pieces are correct. See, it's still part of the package, but it's a little bit more distant part of the package. It's the next item you've already got.

So let's look across this and find out they all register, and now ask the pc how this would be a game. Have him explain to you how this would be a game. And the pc says, "Oh, yes. Well, oh, yes, a game. What are you talking about? Are you kidding" And you go ahead and run him and the pc develops somatics and so forth. Well, you're off to the races.

And it'll all look all right, providing your problems-solutions survey doesn't contain this ingredient of noncomparable magnitude. And if that contains a noncomparable magnitude, the highest one of the Tone Scale is the oppterm's oppterm and is not part of the original package.

So you want to do some more assessment. Now, mind you, it doesn't matter a darn if you run the oppterm's oppterm for a while. You could run it fifteen, twenty levels — I can tell you that — without the pc going off the deep end. But the case would be coming less and less satisfactory. The results are less and less satisfactory. And if you remember earlier, he got some awfully good answers that made him kind of.. . He started talking about his case. He started getting very interested in it, maybe earlier on.

And he says, "You know, I just," random comment, "you know I just feel like roaring all the time. I could just roar with laughter about everything. I just feel like roaring. I mean, I go out and — it'd be nice to go out and have a good roar." You know, or something like this. And he's made some comments of one kind or another. And then he hasn't made any comments — anything about anything — since. And it's just all settled down to a long haul and he isn't cogniting or anything else.

Well, you go back and look, and you'll find that one of your items is way uptone and the other item is way downtone. And they're not comparable and you're probably running an oppterm's oppterm and the thing to do is to compile another list and see if you can get another item that will stay in of comparable sneakiness to a waterbuck. That will be your missing item.

Now, you have to decide again which is which. Once you've done this, you have to rearrange the whole package — which is the pc? But if you've got the two of comparable magnitude, frankly it doesn't make all that difference. It isn't all that important.

You can actually run for test. You can run on one side, no somatics, no interest and no games condition. On the other side, you run it, you got somatics and you got a games condition. Well, that's the terminal. I mean, that's what you'd call crude testing That is the crudest testing there is. The right side gives you somatics. And the pc will know how goofy it is, too. It's real goofy.

But that is all very important to your assessment of a 3D, because I have now found — not very many — but I have found that we have assessed here and there an oppterm's oppterm. See, very neatly and pulled it in, and so forth.

Now, I was wondering about height of assessment and trying to make good sense out of height on the Tone Scale of assessment. And I've suddenly found out that the only error which you can make, apparently, is to have too high a height for one item and not the same height for the other item. And you've latched on to the oppterm's oppterm, as we will theorize at this stage, and you've got an extra piece of your 3D. And you don't happen to have the right terminal or oppterminal. And it doesn't make a package and it doesn't make a game. Mind you, there's only one item out.

Now, the funny part of it is the oppterm's oppterm will go out very slowly once you have found the right item. Well, you'll continue to read for quite a while, six 3D pieces, when you only had five, you see? You'll continue to read this for quite a while. You say, "God," you know and you get your rock slam. And you say, "Tiger," rock slam. "God," rock slam. Well, of course. It's part of your package.

Oddly enough, if you keep this up and go to null terminals occasionally and keep your rudiments in and so forth, eventually — eventually, after maybe a half an hour or an hour of knocking at it and going around — and by the way, pulling the pc's invalidations off. Very important. His worry about it, his invalidations have all got to be relieved to make a package read nicely. You'll get into a situation there where god just disappears and this leaves you with a tiger. And now tiger. Now waterbuck and tiger are operative, and so forth.

But, if you accidentally, somewhere along the line, happen to test god again, you might find it reacting Why? Because it's part of the package. It's the oppterm's oppterm and you've got the next pair.

Well, that's great if you've got the next pair. That's three cheers because if we ever have to audit the next pair, we certainly have something All we have to say is, "What would be a fitting opponent to a god?" you see, or something like this. And we've got a fitting opponent to a god right now, and so we get these two, and we've got our next package. Now, we get their goals and their opposition goals, and their modifiers, and the pc's goal that matches up into all this. In other words, you put together a 3D package and we're off to the races on there.

This gets to be rather easy because the realest part of the ball-up of existence will occur in the pc between the terminal and oppterm.

Now, he knows he's nuts. He knows he's nuts. When he's hit this, he's hit things in it that have told him that this isn't quite fitting. This just isn't quite suitable. One would ordinarily not do these things.

Now, one can be terribly submerged in this and have his critical facilities kind of knocked out, you know? So he has to be run for a while until he finds out that running around and stabbing tigers in the back was not the best of all possible bests, you see.

Dawns on him, you know, he says, "I have this horrible, gleeful feeling across the front of my face. I wonder what that is? Waterbuck, tiger. Who knows. Of course, a waterbuck has to go around — what else could a waterbuck do but go around and put poison in all the water holes? Have to, obviously. That's absolute necessity, perfectly normal and natural. Naturally all the other animals that come down there to drink, they get poisoned too, but you still occasionally get yourself a tiger. And that, after all, is the important thing, isn't it?"

Then all of a sudden he goes kind of over the border. He may, and he's — "Well, you know, I don't think that is quite the right thing to do. Snare, yeah. But not poison in the water holes." And he starts falling off of all of these overts, and this overt picture starts shifting. And his pattern of overts shifts, which is a test of a case running well.

Now, your oppterm's oppterm has been included in very few of those packages present. But there's a possibility that it is, and you should make a reinspection of this and it will tell you why the pc is not running with any great reality. The pc's running with a poor reality.

The odd part of it is, the techniques and 3D in general are sufficiently powerful that even when you're running the terminal versus the oppterm's oppterm with that middle part missing, the fellow's making some gains. The pc will make gains. He doesn't make them very rapidly. He makes them rather slowly, but does make gains up to a certain point. And then he's sort of standing out in the middle of space going nowhere. He doesn't quite see where this goes.

See, the terminal obviously has something versus the opposition terminal. But you will find out the pc, if he's running these — between them, will eventually come to a point of total agreement between the terminal and the oppterm's oppterm because they, of course, are the harmonic of each other. So you get to a point of total agreement. There, you will — there you'll be sitting there — total agreement.

He agrees with everything the oppterm's oppterm does. And you can't then — because the pc isn't all the way out of the mud yet, you can't quite see, if it's in total agreement, why it shouldn't blow, because he must have come to the basic resolution of the package, mustn't he? No, he's come to the basic half of the package. Only he's got his terminal and the opposition terminal, of course, are blood brothers. You'll find in this case the oppterm has as an enemy both the terminal and the oppterm's oppterm. It's a three-cornered fight there.

Now, this can actually ball you up like mad in trying to assess. You can get a three-cornered 3D. You can get a piece which is — apparently looks like this. And here's a piece here that is violently opposed to what you are calling the oppterm and violently opposed to the terminal; is not a friend of either one of them. And you'll say, "What in the name have I got?"

Well, it's very easy. What you've got is the oppterm. Because here's the way it is. What you're looking at here is you're looking at — the oppterm is, of course, fighting the terminal and the oppterm's oppterm, both. So you find an item that is dead against gods and dead against waterbucks. You say, "What's this? It's an opposition terminal to the oppterm we have found, and it's an opposition terminal to the terminal we have found. What is this?" It's the oppterm. That's what it is. And you've got the oppterm's oppterm as part of your 3D package, which you shouldn't have. You make careful note of it, however. You put it on the 3D. You put it on the 3D form because it's going to come in handy. You've got part of your work already done.

But you understand that these problems are so mishmashed, how anybody can make any sense out of all of them is, of course, pure genius. But you've actually got a situation here that no pc could ever explain this to you, which is quite interesting.

You would actually have to have run them on this package before they could explain their package to you, which is something that you as an auditor should remember. The one person that doesn't know anything about his package is the pc. But why? He's right in the middle of the whirlwind. Well, that doesn't mean you should cut comm to the pc, sneer at all the pc's opinions, because they can help. They are assistive. You couldn't get any package at all unless you had those.

But at the same time, the pc insists absolutely — "Well, it's a god and that is all there is to it. And that is the opposition terminal to a waterbuck, and I know that's the opposition terminal to a waterbuck because waterbucks have always had trouble with gods. Going out in the middle of the plain and praying and that sort of thing. I can see that in a minute. Yes, sir. It's the opposition terminal."

Your problems-solutions survey says gods handle problems by obliterating planets. And waterbucks handle problems by nattering at daffodils. And, by George, it's not of comparable magnitude. And in spite of the assistance of the pc, you go on assessing Now, naturally, you want something that is against gods and against waterbucks. So that should help you out immeasurably.

"What would be against a god?" and "What would be against a waterbuck?" if you ever happen to come across this situation in a package. And of course at that exact crossroads you will find the terminal. And it'll be so obvious that the pc'll wonder why he never thought of it and why you never thought of it either. There it is.

Now, as you go up the line on this, you will find that pcs run well on the 3D or run poorly on 3D. If a pc runs poorly on 3D, there's nothing wrong with 3D. There is something wrong with the assessment, and that has been borne out now and borne out and borne out. If you've got the package right, it'll run.

Now, there's something I wanted you to get out of your 'eads. Having pounded it into your 'eads, I want you now to get it out of your 'eads. And that is simply this: You are not going to damage anyone forever by picking the wrong item and running it. And you're not going to damage anybody forever by running, for instance, the oppterm as the pc's terminal. Nor are you going to damage anyone permanently by running the oppterm's oppterm as the pc's terminal, but that is the one that turns on the terrific winds of space.

If you've not seen that phenomenon go at a whizzeroo, it's because you've never seen it turned on to an oppterm's oppterm. Then it practically flattens the pc's face and skull like a pie plate. But let me tell you something They recover. They recover.

Almost anything you do with a Goals Problem Mass assists. Almost anything you do with it assists. You can be a complete knucklehead and make the person absolutely believe that he has been ruined forever, and he will tell you so — that's one of the first things you hear about it, when you've picked wrong items and things like that — but it's not basically true. It's not true. You're taking apart a problem, aren't you? So what you're doing is trying to take it away the easy, smooth, quick, flawless way that only knocks the pcs' heads off with somatics, see. That's the way you want to take it apart. That's rapid. That's accurate. Everybody's happy about the thing, and so forth.

But remember, this is a terrifically expert job of action. This is a nice piece of action. This requires good skill on the auditor's part. And you run into all kinds of little bugs as you're trying to do this. And I can tell you the right way to do all of these things and give you the right course through, but that doesn't mean the odd man out won't all of a sudden come up and present you with a total lemon.

You've got "a Ford car" and you know that's absolutely right because it rock slams, it stays in, and nothing drives it out at all. That's what you've got.

You're all set. You've got it made. And you have a "nymph" and that's obviously there, and it proves out conclusively, and the only goal you seem to be able to find is "to whistle Dixie." What is this, see?

Well, make sense out of it. What you do, the formula you use, is to get oppositions to what you've got. And you keep on getting oppositions to anything you've got in the way of a goal, and keep working it out, and you're liable to be left with two or three extra parts that you can't quite make sense out of. And then you will eventually discover that every terminal has a goal, every terminal has a modifier, and every terminal has an opposition goal, heh-heh, to every other terminal.

So if you have three terminals in your package (terminal, oppterm and oppterm's oppterm), you would then have three goals — the terminal's goal, the oppterm's goal, the oppterm oppterm's goal. You would have three modifiers — the terminal's modifier, the oppterm's modifier, the oppterm's oppterm's modifier. And what do you know? The oppterm has two opposition goals. The oppterm has an opposition goal that opposes the oppterm's oppterm and it has an opposition goal that opposes the terminal. That's getting to be a lot of parts, isn't it?

And do you know that you can also find a very strong goal — opposition goal — for the terminal versus the oppterm. You can find a strong opposition goal, and a weak, flabby, wiggly one against the oppterm's oppterm, which might form sometime a method of proving out that it's the oppterm's oppterm, because you've got the pc's terminal, obviously. He's got horns five feet long, and he's got split — he has — keeps having trouble with his fingers because they all turn into calcium, and his fingers keep splitting and so forth. And he's going. . .

And he says, "Well, there's no doubt about it whatsoever. I've always thought of myself as a god." I'm sure he has. It's part of the package and of course he's thought of himself as a god every now and then. Because it's part of the package, not because he's god.

So we get this thing all unboiled on the thing and we find out that the pc will have an opposition goal to a god. And it'll be something like, "To not pay very much attention in church." That's the way you handle it, see. So if you want to test out this thing even further, get the terminal's opposition goal to whatever this high-toned thing is you have and you'll find it's some weak, flabby, little thing that he can't do very much about.

You see, the terminal can do a tremendous lot about the oppterm, see? The terminal can lie in wait and trip the oppterm when he comes down, you see? And actually kind of cut away turf on the upside of the banks, so when the oppterm comes down to drink, a whole bank slides away. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. That's a necessary action. And you've got other little items such as, when it really gets down to a last-ditch fight, a waterbuck's hooves are sufficiently sharp to cut a tiger's hide to ribbons. And you'll find the opposition goal of the terminal to the opposition terminal — they will be good and strong and meaty, "To torture it until it gives up," or something like this. It'll be good and strong, you know. It will have some teeth to it. But the terminal's opposition goal to the oppterm's oppterm will be something real flabby like — let me see — "to take care of them when they show up but keep out of their way." That is how you handle it. This is the opposition, you see.

In other words, the opposition goal to the oppterm is "cut it to ribbons." And the opposition's goal to the oppterm's oppterm is "Try not to be in its vicinity and be very quiet while it is around." And somehow or another, that will take care of it. Somehow or another, that will take care of it. These are just side tests and considerations.

But I ask you, rather than to look at a bunch of tests, to look at the actual package and its composition and what you are trying to find and what you are trying to do and appreciate what this thing amounts to.

This fellow once upon a time decided on a game. And he went up against something, a thetan. And he picked this thing out as the thing. And he just cut it to ribbons and eventually became it one way or the other. It served his purpose at first, and then he had overts on it and then he became it. And then this thing was involved with another thing. And this other thing, he got overts on it as the thing he was being and it's just like making a snowball. And from there on, there's just more and more snow clings to it. And there's more and more conflict. And this thing amounts to a central fixation in the being's existence, and this goes floating on down the track.

But remember that it didn't start with the terminal. It started over here, clear over to the right of this picture, with the great big circles we haven't got enough room to draw them in.

This fellow picked out a "planet builder" as his randomity. He said, "That'd be a nice thing to be. I shall be a planet builder." So he went ahead and he was a planet builder. And he just did fine until he ran up against a fellow who was running temples to segregate and dislocate the orbitation of planets. And he was preaching a creed on the subject and we have the planet builder versus the temple. And if you tried to run either of those engrams, they'd just knock your pc's silly head off, if you could contact them. They just won't resolve, that's all, early on the case. They just don't resolve. They're just beyond his reality. He says, "That's fine." He can even pick up somatics off of them, which is quite interesting.

But there he is out there in space fielding bits of an exploded planet. You know, catching them as they whiz by. And they're all radioactive and he's fitting the things together very nicely until somebody from the temple says something to him, and he picks up the whole ruddy mass and heaves it at the person. Nice engram. You'll find it there totally with its radioactive burn and everything else connected with it. And you're asking a person, who now considers himself to the power of one-half of a grasshopper and you're asking him to pick up the Empire State Building with his little finger. And he's not going to do it. That's — you've reached a couple of circles which are way out here to the right of this picture, you see.

Now, he had that game going, and eventually that game blew up, and he got a subordinate game to that and then eventually that game blew up, and we're now dealing with what we earlier called cycles. You know, there were lives, and then there were cycles. Well, one game, one cycle — you can figure it that way.

The games lasted a long time or they didn't last long And then you got down to, "Find a more finite size game." And then this game cycled over into another pair of terminals which gave you another game and then this cycled over into another pair which gave you a game, and then you eventually got down to your — what you find in your 3D package of term-oppterm. And you've got your term-oppterm and you're at, of course, the easiest entrance to the point. And you can run these things fairly flat.

But they will run endlessly if you don't have the right terminal and the right opposition terminal. And if you're trying to run the terminal up against the oppterm's oppterm, you're up again into the next cycle.

Of course, it'll run because it's a part of the pc's life. But you haven't got the right opposition to it. Something else is hanging off into the wide blue sky. I mean, you might even make it. Who knows? But all the time you're running it, you are ignoring and not getting as-ised a piece of the Goals Problem Mass known as the oppterm. And there's that tiger and the longer you ignore the tiger, why, the longer the pc's whiskers will grow, until the pc is just about ready . . . He thinks it would be just awfully good fun to . . . But he knows something is wrong, and he can't quite figure out what is wrong Hell start complaining to you about what's wrong Well, what's wrong is you jumped a point of the cycle. That's about all.

Now, in assessing some pcs, some pcs have bigger eyes than thetans. And at the present moment, they would not be capable of running planet builders, but they're going to sell you a planet builder, man. And you might even get it registering. But be aware of this fact that the pc can actually give you too big a piece of the package, gratuitously.

The pc somehow or another got this thing cut in, and it's beautifully restimulated. So they say, "Well, I know what it is. It's a planet builder. And it's a planet builder, and the terminal is a grasshopper. I know. I know what the game is exactly. I've often gone around thinking about, 'I've got to build planets. I've got to build planets.' I say that to myself all the time. I wanted to in this lifetime — I think."

"And a grasshopper — I've always gone out and felt sorry for the grasshoppers. I've always gone out and felt very sorry for the grasshoppers and — poor grasshoppers and so forth. And the grasshoppers — they're very nice grasshoppers, and so forth. And a grasshopper has troubles. You don't realize how many troubles a grasshopper has."

You see, you're off to the races. Well, probably it's a terminal. It's a terminal. It's an opposition terminal or something

But you see, those two data are not of comparable magnitude. And the pc can actually sit there and force one of them off on you.

Now, you finally tell the pc this isn't it. And this operates as a hell of an invalidation because it is it. It just happens to be in the wrong sequence, that's all. It's up the line someplace. You'll collide with it by and by. But it's just prematurely offered, and you'll find a lot of pcs have much bigger eyes than they have present thetans, see?

And they'll say, "Well, terminal? Terminal. Emperor. I know that's the terminal. An opposition terminal? Beggar girl." But you can actually wrap your wits around it, you know. You can say, "Well, an emperor, and he could have a game with a beggar girl, and later he'll have a game with an emperor. The Arabian Nights sort of thing and so forth," until you assess him on the problems survey. And then you'll find how would an emperor solve problems. An emperor could solve problems by ordering the sun to cast too much light on his people. You'd say, "What part of the track is this emperor from?" you know? And "How would a beggar girl solve problems?" By picking up apple cores in the gutter and saving them.

And yet it will look all right to the pc because he's got a short circuit through this Goals Problem Mass. You actually realize we're not talking about anything which is theoretical when we're talking about the Goals Problem Mass. That is very factual. And when we say mass, we mean m ass. It's electronic standing waves, actually. They usually appear as black to the pc and these become visible. For a long time they'll be invisible to the pc, and then they will suddenly get more and more visible and all of a sudden he can really see these things — rrrrrr. Worse and worse. And they're what give him somatics, by the way. And they're held in place by temperature.

I better tell you something about the Goals Problem Mass as a piece of mass. It's held in place by temperature's absence. It's by an absence of temperature. It's only hung up at those places where it has been in no motion, of course, and where it has been in the most no motion at those places where it was no temperature.

So it is quite routine — and as a matter of fact would be quite surprising, if somebody were audited on 3D and didn't run little fevers and didn't feel awfully cold in the head or cold in the back or cold in the stomach. They've had a pain in the back of their head for some time, and all of a sudden it turns ice cold and then you'll never hear about it anymore.

What is this? This is simply the phenomenon of stop. What is the most stop there is? Absolute zero, of course. There's no motion at absolute zero. Of course, heat is motion. When you get no motion, you get extreme cold. And when you take masses down in temperature, you, of course, get them hung. And this is not a warm universe. This is a cold universe. This is a very cold universe. But it's very far from absolute zero or it would dissolve. There is always some heat in this universe, even out in the colder reaches of space.

Don't try to tell an old space jockey that there's any heat out in space because he knows better. He knows better. But at the same time, you call it to his memory, he would tell you, "Well, it's true that you could take a bucket of air and it wouldn't liquefy. It's not that cold. Instantaneous liquefacation. It liquefies slowly if it didn't disperse if you had the pressure. Well, I don't know about that. Well, there are probably colder places. There are probably colder places than that. But I don't know, out in the depths of outer . . . That's absolute zero.

And he'll come back to a conclusion about "Well, it isn't absolute zero, or it wouldn't be there at all."

The physics of the matter are quite interesting: Everybody has assumed that there's such a thing as an absolute zero, which would be a no motion, a no temperature condition. There's no temperature of any kind. There is no motion of any kind. No particles move.

Well, the second you achieve this, there are just no particles, period. There is nothing, period. And I don't even know that space isn't a temperature phenomenon because it has something to do with existing dimension. Space has to do with existing dimension. And if dimension exists, it must be on the time track. And we know that time is a temperature. If you ever want to have time pass slowly, go someplace where it's real cold. Really.

Now, you will, you'll get a mental phenomenon concerning it. Furthermore, people there are liable to conceive they have problems. See? Time moves slowly if you have problems. Time moves slowly in the absence of temperature. So anybody who is cold has problems. So heating becomes one of the rougher problems.

Now, a thetan has become conditioned to the motion called warmth. He thinks this is necessary for his existence. He thinks he vibrates. He thinks he reacts to warmth. Actually, he doesn't react to warmth at all. The mass with which he is connected reacts to warmth, whether it's his reactive bank or his body. That mass reacts to warmth, and moves or shifts. And if you get him terribly cold, if you get a thetan very, very, very, very cold, or he thinks he's very, very cold, which is up against some very cold mass, why, then he believes implicitly, you see, that it's a problem to him because things are going very slowly about all this. So he'll make a problem out of it. But he gets habituated to warmth, and the more habitual warmness of objects are around him, the less tolerant he gets of it.

For instance, I know myself, in Europe three, four hundred years ago, you used to walk around in tinware. You know, in greaves and corselets and helmets and things like that and always be out in the weather. Well, what protection was there, you know?

If you know anything about the European climate, you'll know that the skies are normally wet. It isn't the pounding of guns that causes it to rain in Flanders excessively during wars. That's a big theory. I guess nobody ever goes to Flanders unless there's a war on and they haven't noticed that between wars it rains just as much. And steel is not very insulative.

Now, I'll give you an idea of habituation. Going across areas of Europe, or being in a European climate and wearing, in a racing helmet, a buckle against my chin — just one buckle against my chin — develop a fantastic somatic because of this cold buckle, just a fabulous somatic. And bothered by it, you know, mind it like the devil, till I all of a sudden realized, well, I've been around in this same area wearing nothing but solid steel. Ha-ha-ha. How much conductivity do you suppose was connected with that? Well, there was plenty and there must have been plenty of somatics. But there weren't.

European climate runs around . . . You get so you just can't tolerate — if you get too many engrams in a climate of sixty-one or sixty-two degrees Fahrenheit average. You eventually will feel that sixty-one or sixty-two degrees Fahrenheit and you instantly react to calamity. There must be a calamity involved because that's the wrong temperature.

And you can go into old areas where you haven't been for a few centuries and hit their temperatures. And if they're colder than the temperatures you are now accustomed to, why, you'll be upset by the climate. That is why people get upset by climates. Not that thetans require a certain temperature. It's a different thing, see? It's experiential. It's the amount of heat which they think they ought to be having and of course that's usually more heat than they have had before. So you're running some kind of a gradient of thetans have to get hotter and hotter as they get older and older. Otherwise, they don't keep out of trouble.

I imagine right now if any of you ever go back to Jupiter and shop around with . . . The seas on Jupiter are composed of liquid air. And I imagine some time or another you might have come in from outer space, you know, and put your hands up against that liquid air and said, "Boy, it's so good to be warm again." And now think of how you would react with a meat body. You wouldn't react that way at all.

So anyway, these are considerations. But the problem and the temperature are very closely associated. And they're very closely associated to the Goals Problem Mass. So that if you have a problem — where you have a problem, you have a temperature change. Because you've got a timelessness, it therefore must be a cold one. See, if the problem's going to be timeless, it's a cold problem. And when you run it, you will get the cold coming off of the pc. And I'm not kidding you, it will be cold.

Now, nearly all old implants were done by vacuums — the creation of a cold vacuum. I refer you to work done in 1956 while I was up here at HASI London. The coldness of the vacuum. And to maintain a cold vacuum is rather easy because a thetan doesn't want to have much to do with it. So of course he mocks it up and keeps it mocked up because he doesn't want anything to do with it. But it is the favorite method of implantation. And it operates as something that pulls all the pictures in on it. It is just a sponge, that's all. It's an electronic sponge.

You get a piece of warm electricity near a cold vacuum, and the thetan every time will try to pour it into the cold vacuum to dispense with the vacuum. And, of course, all it does is hang up. Hence, you get a balled-up mass. It's implantation mechanics, is what you're dealing with, essentially.

I'm not prepared to say anything about how you acquired your valences in the Goals Problem Mass. Ill merely tell you that as they come apart, your implantations of people with beingnesses come off and you get these cold waves. And you can also get hot waves. But the heat waves are less frequent than the cold ones. They are constant, the cold ones. And they will come and they will go.

When I say they're constant, I mean that case by case, case after case, they always get these cold ridges. So much so, that if a case is not getting cold ridges, you can say that the case has something radically wrong with the composition of its 3D. And that forms another test for you. If the case has never seen any mass in connection with the terminal or oppterm that you are running, then you are running a questionable 3D package.

If he never sees any black energy at any time along the line, then the package is questionable. Because these things occur routinely and regularly in the package. Coldness, cold sensations and so forth; black masses of one kind or another; and somatics; pain resulting from these things — all of these things are constant in the package.

Now, the responsibility for finding a proper 3D package is, of course, the auditor's. Now, I have assisted you and pushed you around on this and made adjudications along in this line and tried to muddle the thing all out. And in most of these cases, those are perfectly straight. But in some of these cases, they may not be straight.

The pc in almost every case will overpersuade you if he's afraid of some piece of the 3D. The pc will seek to overpersuade you. The pc wants it changed. The pc does not think that is right.

Now, one of the things is, remember, that a pc will withhold withholds, won't he? Well, the pc will withhold terminals as though it were a mass withhold. So a terminal takes some getting at.

It's the responsibility of the auditor to have a rightness about the 3D package. And the 3D package is achieved on a very precise routine. You get a list, you bleed the meter of all additional items, you list those items and you assess them with rudiments in. And when you keep doing this for piece after piece of the 3D, you will wind up — that's a very mechanical operation — you will wind up with the items you were looking for or some of them or too many. And don't be so horrified to find that you have eighteen 3D items. If you suddenly wound up with eighteen 3D items, it'll be quite a while before the pc can tell you which opposition goals belong to which opposition terminals and all the rest of this. It'd take some sorting out.

Well, naturally, in the course of experience, you won't run into that many items. But you occasionally will find an oddball item that you can't quite figure out what in the name of common sense this item is. Well, there are all the tests which I've given you in the past to find out what item is what item and how they crisscross and so forth.

You are liable to be fooled, by having eight items when you're only supposed to have five, into thinking now that you have too many, you must have them all. And this does not necessarily follow at all. You may have eight items. You're supposed to only have five, but you've got eight. That does not mean that you have reached the limit of your items or even have the right five. Maybe there were fifteen items available and it'll be the last five that are the correct ones. And you haven't got but one, out of the five you've got is correct.

I mean, you could look on it — that would be a very extreme circumstance, a very extreme condition, but remember all the things there can be. There can be the oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's goal, which the pc woke up in the middle of the night and suddenly knew what it was. It's printed on the wall. He knew what it was. And he comes in and he gives this to you. And you, knucklehead, didn't try to find out where he got it, what it was, if he'd ever wanted to do it; you simply put it down on the assessment list and assessed it and of course it assesses. And it assesses beautifully, except it's the oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's oppterm. That's all that's wrong with it. And you try to run it and it just overwhumps the pc like he was being machine-gunned.

If you ask, "How does it solve problems?" the answer is liable to be something like, "Oh, well, it never has any problems, you know. That's the beauty of it. It just never has any problems. No, I couldn't answer that. It just never has any."

Oh? Well, where do we go from here? Do you know that you could actually use that piece in this fashion: You could find out what terminal would oppose it. And then find a terminal. And then get a goal for that terminal. And then find what terminal would oppose the goal. And then find out what terminal would oppose that terminal we just found. And then find out what terminal would oppose that terminal that we just found. And find a goal for it and an opposition goal. And then find out some other terminal connected with it. And all the time we're coming down toward the grasshopper, you see? We're building down from the Empire State Building to the tool shed in the base of the Statue of Liberty. We're downgrading, you see? We're coming down within the reality zone of all of this, but we actually picked it up somewhere up the line.

It doesn't mean that the parts the pc gives you out of sudden inspiration are wrong. It just is probable that they are in very wrong order. Because the one thing that is common to all Goals Problem Masses is confusion. And who is it confusing? Well, we hope it isn't confusing you, mate. Because we know it's confusing the pc.

Now, the pc's advice on what has been troubling him for the last hundred trillion years must be listened to, but is of not much use. The pc goes out a waterbuck and comes in a tiger, and goes out a tiger and comes in a god. And goes out a god and comes in a tiger. And goes out a tiger and comes in a lawyer. Lawyer? Lawyer? Where did that come from? "Yes, I feel like a lawyer these days." Well, if you traced it up, you'd find it up somewhere along the package, totally unrunnable, but there it would be.

All right. There's another problem which baffles you occasionally and that is what you in class have been referring to as "a scratchy needle," which means a constantly operating needle. Always got a little rock slam on it of some kind or another. You can't seem to disturb it. You say something to the pc, this thing turns on. You say something else to the pc, you don't know whether he's reacting to you or reacting to the bank and it just keeps going bangety-bangety-bangety-bangety-bang

Well, now let me give you the first datum on this. I am aware of this phenomenon and have assessed, because of it and through it, very successfully with numerous curses. Oh, I don't tell you that it's easy, because a pc who's got that, goes null every time they turn around, too. You got a nice, scratchy needle, at least the pc is there someplace. And then all of a sudden you start to read a list and there doesn't anything react anyplace. The pc has bounced in some particular fashion. Something weird or gruesome has happened, and the rudiments have gone out. So you get the pc's invalidation off of what you were doing and you put the rudiments back in. And then you start your assessment and you get four more items on the list read and the rudiments are out and there it is. Of course, you're reading all this time through a scratchy needle. And this does not help any auditor's patience.

In the first place, it means that you are doing something a little extraordinary. It means that you are assessing in absence of adequate Security Checking. And those of you who are doing this on your reports, din this into my ears all the time that the pc should have further Security Checks and a Problems Intensive and a Dynamic Check and a Security Check run on this. And what you don't realize is that I agree with you a hundred percent.

But what you also don't realize is I think you should be able to do it. I'm merely demanding the impossible. I can do it; you should be able to do it. I think that's a good datum of comparable magnitude.

I'm telling you it's mad. The thing is rock slamming and it's rock slamming sporadically. It rock slams and then it doesn't rock slam for a moment and then it rock slams and then it doesn't rock slam for a longer period and then it rock slams constantly for the next three minutes.

Remember all you're trying to do is get a reaction which disturbs what the needle is doing. And the only confusion you will get into is whether it's doing it because of the circuit going on in the pc's head or because you're saying something. Therefore, you have to test everything about ten times. Where you'd ordinarily only test it a couple of times, when you got a scratchy needle, you'd have to test it about ten times.

And you want to know that if you say the item . . . You have to become absolutely certain, no matter what it does to your pc. We don't care if it cuts them to ribbons. Never let up on the accuracy of an assessment because you think the pc is uncomfortable. Never do that! That's the wickedest, cruelest thing you can do to a pc, because it might disturb him to go further, or it might knock the rudiments out to be less than thorough. You be thorough!

I don't care if you have a hell of a time getting the rudiments in; it upsets the pc every time you get the rudiments in. I don't care. If you are on the best side of it, you get the rudiments in. Well realizing, of course, that if you stop in the middle of a run — you've completed half of a run in the last session, you're going to do the rest of it in this session, you find the rudiments out in the middle and nothing reading — it possibly doesn't occur to you that it's just because the run is interrupted. And you're actually running another process in the middle of a 3D run.

You could actually, with benefit, simply sit down, say, "The session started," and give 'em the next command of the 3D run, you know? You just could do that, you know, no beginning rudiments or anything Make 'em run that off. Flatten that level. Now monkey around getting your rudiments in. You might do it better that way. But at the same time, I'm not going to find any real fault with you for trying to get the rudiments in in the middle of a 3D run.

Now, similarly, this pc is going out through the roof! You've got some item that you don't know what it is. The pc is already in total disagreement. It couldn't be any part of the 3D. "Mother-in-law! I have never been a motherin-law! I don't want to have anything to do with mother-in-laws and so forth. And you just keep up with this story about mother-in-laws, mother-in-laws, mother-in-laws and I am sick of it!"

You say, "Good," and go right on checking mother-in-law because it is much crueller not to be thorough. That is very cruel. You be absolutely sure. Never, never give it a lick and a promise. Never give it a lick and a promise. You be sure. Not because somebody came along and told you authoritatively, "That's it." You be sure! And you won't mess anybody up.

And if you were doing a thoroughgoing assessment that was cross-checked against everything, against everything, you would wind up with more excess items that you could normally count. Well, just do them all on a problems survey. Do every terminal you found on a problems survey. Take the two lowest scaled ones and that's the term and oppterm. Figure out which one will give the pc somatics and run it. I mean, that's about — that's the crude way to go about it.

This scratchy needle thing, this becomes very critical. Oh, you're obviously — this person maybe needs another month, another two months of preparation, of careful work and so forth, before they're really ready to assess. But it can be done.

But now you've got to be ten times as sure. Man, I've sat there and looked at one of those things, you know and it's gone knockety-knocketyknockety-knockety-knockety-knockety-knock. And I've said, "Grasshopper," you know, "grasshopper, grasshopper." And then I've just stopped speaking for a moment and it's reacting exactly the same way I was reacting, you know? It goes on saying, "grasshopper," you know? Only I'm not saying grasshopper, it is.

So finally I'll say, "Floor, floor, floor, floor, floor, floor, floor, floor, floor. What are you invalidating Have you invalidated any of this?" No, the pc hasn't. Gets a big fall on the needle, you know? Clean that up. Get the invalidations off of the terminal, the invalidations off of the in-session, the invalidations off the auditor, the invalidations off of Scientology, the invalidations off of me — all of which rock slam. This doesn't quiet the needle down any, but it gets the terminal reading again once in a while.

And then you sit there: "Grasshopper, grasshopper, grasshopper." And then wait until the needle is not moving very much. It's only a quarter of an inch wide, you know? And you say "grasshopper," and all of a sudden you'll suddenly realize that when you say grasshopper, you get a throw. And maybe the thing is getting an upthrow when you say grasshopper and that is why you were missing it.

The start of the needle pattern for a 3D item is an upthrow and then a down. You get absolutely sure that if you saying that it is causing it to change reaction and when you're sure of that, when you're sure of that, you've got your item. But, boy, it takes you a while.

I wouldn't be cross with you for one minute if you sat there for two hours just trying to make sure of one item. Just letting it go by and waiting for the needle to calm down maybe or speed up. And then try to read a couple of items to it and try to get an instant reaction on it and then try to get the invalidations off and try to get it all calmed down again. And then hit the thing again, hit it again. It's not economical in terms of time. It is just that you should be able to do it. It is a doable activity. So therefore, you should be able to do it. It's impossible, so do it. I mean, it's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint.

You know why you should be able to do it? Because you're liable to have a pc all upset in the middle of a 3D run and all of a sudden find out that you've been running a waterbuck versus a god. And you've now got to find the opposition terminal with everything upset. So it's a needed piece of skill.

So you sit there and instead of relegating them — because you've made a mistake — back to seventy-five hours of Sec Checking and smooth-out and get all of the auditing off and oh, my God. Instead of doing that, why, you sit down there and learn to read through that scratchy needle, because he's stuck right in the middle of the terminal. That's what it is. He's stuck right in the middle of the modifier.

Now, if you haven't got all the modifier, the modifier won't turn it off. Your chances of finding all of the modifier are usually quite remote. Equally, I will be frank with you, he could just as easily be stuck in the oppterm's oppterm's oppterm's oppterm. And he isn't about to move off of that until you find the original part of the Goals Problem Mass.

He's probably stuck way deep into it someplace, some weird and impossible situation. There's various combinations of this. But we are talking — when I am talking to you about directions of how to do it, please, please recognize something. We are talking about something which is essentially as simple as a bunch of kids' blocks.

If you took two small blocks and two larger size blocks and then two big blocks and then two great big blocks, and you pair by pair stack these up in a line, you would get about as far as you'd have to go to blow a person to OT, see? That's at a guess. And here's this stack of blocks. All right. You've got to get down to these small blocks, or it's not going to run with any reality of the pc. And the pc's stuck up here in the third pair, so the needle is going tickety-tick, tickety-tick, tickety-tick, tickety-tick. "Planet builder, planet builder, planet builder. I'm a planet builder. I'm a planet builder. I'm a planet builder."

And you say, "Look at that piece of dirt."

And he says, "Well, that's awfully big."

And you say, "Well, what about this piece of dirt?"

"Well, I don't know. That's pretty big."

And you say, "Well, what's your terminal?"

"Oh, I don't know. I've always thought of myself as somebody who built planets." (If you could get it down to that; only he probably doesn't know anything about it at all.) "Oh, somebody who'd built planets, I guess. You know."

Total apathy. He couldn't — if you gave him a building jack, he couldn't raise up a little piece of sod, you know. And he's trying to buck into a package where somebody picks up a moon in one hand, you know and puts it in orbit casually, you see, and decides he doesn't like that planet, so takes the orbital centrifugal force out of its fellow planets, you see, or slows it down suddenly, you see, so it'll drop into the sun so he can remake it. This is the terminal that is ticking. And you've got a pc that's now . . .

"When was the last time you picked something up?"

"Well, I think it was this morning. I was trying to pick up my fork when I was eating breakfast and I had an awful hard time doing it."

Well, you obviously are not going to run this huge, massive, strong, powerful terminal on this pc because it'll practically run forever. It's the wrong end of the 3D mass. You've got to get over here and you'll find out his terminal is a grasshopper. A grasshopper versus a cactus or something, you know. That's the term and oppterm. You see where you're going? You have a responsibility of getting something the pc can run. But there is this end of it available.

Now, oddly enough, there are tinier pieces of the Goals Problem Mass. And you start grabbing these tinier pieces and, of course, to some degree you are wasting time. And these tinier pieces of the Goals Problem Mass are best handled by Sec Checks and by the other — because they will blow — they are capable of blowing. Sec Checks, Problems Intensives, things like that.

You could find a lesser terminal than the pc's terminal which matches it up. You could find "Agnes." And Agnes might very well be part of the Goals Problem Mass. He's known Agnes for a week. And the opposition terminal to Agnes is "a policeman," and he's known the policeman for three days, you see? And that is the local, current game. It's the fact that Agnes is liable to turn him into the police, only he is this or that. Only, it's all part of the Goals Problem Mass, only he really is a policeman or something

And it all stretched up here into present time and it's absolutely microscopic. You would handle it ordinarily in a session as a present time problem. And you will recognize as you're running pcs that you very often — very, very, very often will find that you have often handled a piece of the Goals Problem Mass on a pc without recognizing that it was because, of course, it's the most available pieces around — are pieces of the Goals Problem Mass.

No, we want those two solid terminals that will stay in, that we can really audit solidly so that we can graduate the pc on up and take care of him.

It's as simple as kids' blocks, how the thing is put together. There is nothing very complicated about how it's put together. Knowing that, you should be able to exert your wits and go through the complications of E-Metering and so forth, necessary to find those parts because they're not known to the pc and will only become known to you if you, of course, apply an E-Meter and very good auditing

All right. Well, I hope that these theoretical guesstimates and that sort of thing will assist you in some degree. And in my absence after next week and so forth, you'll probably all fall apart, but don't worry about it too much because I will be here next week, too. And you won't be in any desperate states — not very desperate anyway.

But anyway, the one thing that is startling about a 3D is that if put together right, the advance it makes on a case and the reality the case has on it; that is what is startling. When that is absent, you haven't got a 3D. You've got something else. You've got the terminals too far up the line. You've got something wrong. Put it together right so it's of comparable magnitude, so that the pc can run it, so there's reality on it, find it just exactly the way you've been taught. If you find extra pieces, you can even find out where they belong, too.

Okay?

Audience: Okay.

All right. Well, I'm very satisfied with the way things are going except you, of course. And I will be looking over the many, many next days' auditings before I leave. But I wish tomorrow you would do something to try to apply this particular lecture to the pc that you are running and just see how it adds up, and you will get some interesting reality on it, or you will suddenly find out why your pc isn't running. Okay?

Thank you.