Thank you All right.

Today we're going to take up the subject of processes, which in English is processes.

I finally gave it up, you know. I used to come over here and I would pronounce all the key words. I never could quite go "theta." But I used to pronounce all the words in English, you see. And then I'd go back over and I'd try to pronounce them in American. And halfway through a congress or something like that I'd find myself talking about "processing" in America and over here "processing." So I finally just figured out, well, we'll do it all in Martian and call it "processing."

The main thing - the main thing that you should know about processes is that they won't do anything for anybody anyplace. That's the first thing you should know about them. You can write one down in a book and you can put the book on the auditor's chair and you can go away and you can come back hours later and nothing has happened.

But do you know that this one point, this one point, is the most overlooked point in all auditing. People talk about the process doing something for somebody. Now, I will admit that the processes of Scientology are clever. I will admit that they are sheer genius. I thought them up myself.

Basically, researchwise, technologically and for other reasons, they do represent in vignette, you might say, the totality of information about the mind. And it is quite wonderful that a process can be run on an HAS Co-audit Course very like a wound- up doll and can get very interesting and good results. You see, this is - this is tremendous, and today even more than any other time in the history of Dianetics and Scientology, we have to say bluntly and squarely that the process doesn't do anything. See, we have to say that even more so, because today it looks even more that it does something.

Now, what does do something? All the process is, is the postulate on which a series of errors have accumulated, which postulate has become an effect-point in the pc rather than a cause-point. And all the process does is reverse effect-point to cause- point.

As the pc himself does the process each time, he more and more closely approaches cause-point. But, of course, what is wrong with him is that this particular postulate - even though he made it and agreed to it originally - see, he's the source of all the trouble - has become an effect-point. And he is just totally overwhelmed by this postulate. The postulate is no longer at cause in the pc, but in the pc is total effect.Now, let's look at this in terms of determinisms. The postulate is no longer self- determined in the pc but is other-determined in the pc. You got the idea? Now all you have to do, then, is reverse effect to cause or -which is the same way of saying it - other-determinism to self-determinism. And that is what a process is. It, however, is simply a thought; it is inactive, it is inert.

I know it was very clever and its very witty and we wouldn't get anyplace if we didn't have the exact postulates which have become aberrated in man. You see, if we didn't have those we wouldn't get anyplace. That's true, but it is after all, an inert postulate. It was the action concerning the postulate that got the individual in trouble. The complications which built up on this postulate were the things that got the people into the shape they're in. You get the idea?

The postulate is then neither a doingness nor a villain. See? I had a lot of people say, "Oh, boy that's villainy," and they start blaming it and blaming it and blaming it and, "If I'd just never thought something like this and if I'd never agreed to it, why, I'd just be in beautiful. . . ." Oh, I don't know. He probably would have found something else. He undoubtedly would have found some other idea to get mucked up with, you see?

Because in the normal course of cause and effect, in the normal course of trying to stay self-determined amongst a million other-determinisms, the individual, no matter what he tried to do anywhere, would eventually have gotten pretty lost. It was pretty inevitable that he got lost. It isn't - we can say, "Well, it's his fault," or "It's other people's fault," and so on. Well, it's nobody's fault. It's a universe.

Now, when a universe is constructed, you get a tremendous number of first dynamics, but you get a much larger number, from any viewed first dynamic, of other dynamics. Right? You see? See, to the individual it appears, you see, that he only has one viewpoint and he is surrounded by an almost infinite number of other- determinisms. You get the idea?

Well, one of the basic sources of aberration is the basic aberration of quantitative versus qualitative. Actually a thetan has no business dealing with quantity.

Quantitative ideas are all very poor, and you'll find most of them are at the heart of aberration.

The individual feels poor because he has one pound and he knows somebody else is rich because the other person has a million pounds. Well, we can see through this - the fellow with one pound might be well, the fellow with the million pounds might be sick. You see, he's not necessarily richer or poorer just because there is a quantity involved.

I've known a fellow who had millions of dollars who was the poorest man I ever met. He couldn't have anything. He actually couldn't bring himself to buy anything. And furthermore, his affairs were always so involved that he couldn't have any money.

And I was always buying him breakfast or supper or something of the sort.

Now, it's quantity. And the first error of quantity is one, not a million. We go toward "one" as being the basic error of quantity. Now this is a - is a difficulty, because this universe is a "two" universe. This universe has as its basic digit, you might say, two. There aren't any "ones" in this universe to amount to anything. There are two.

I think it was old dymaxion geometry that - Buckminster Fuller who first demonstrated this with enormous skill. He really overwhelmed me. I was quite interested. He showed conclusively that no mass structure of the universe could exist as a single digit.

We hear of flying saucers. Flying saucers are supposed to show up and disappear and so forth. Personally, I think it's the Panamanian government or something like that, trying to frighten everybody. But anyway... Because I know personally, to my personal knowledge the last five saucers that I had in my command were surveyed. Anyway..... (laughing)..... Anyway, these saucers actually run by attempting single unit in a double unit universe. All you have to do is separate the inside of the saucer from the universe and it will do all sorts of weird things. And I won't bother to go into that any further but somebody who has a penchant for theory of equations, so forth, can work it out rather easily.

All you have to do is isolate something and then make it try to gain somewhere or something else and you have propulsion. This is very simple. It's so simple that they won't discover it for another few hundred years here on earth, probably. Anyway, - well not unless they can use it in war. They'd discover it at once if they could use it in war.

The thing I'm getting at is simply this, The universe, we have agreed, is evidently impossible to inhabit as a single unit. That's....that's just it. I mean, it's - everything in this universe is two or more - two or some multiple.

Let's take chemistry and we get electrons and protons. And every time - every time we get something that tries to stand totally alone, utterly and completely alone, we usually get a collapse. There is nothing in this universe that is standing utterly and totally alone. No power of any kind is ever generated by a single terminal.

Now, you see power in this universe is derived from the laws of this universe which, of course, are postulates which we've helped to make or agreed upon, and so on.

And these postulates decree at once that no power shall exist in the presence of a single terminal. And if you take an electric motor and remove the second terminal in it, you're not going to get a running motor - that's all. That's it.

Power is usually derived from trying to keep two terminals separated and being able to fix them in space. Two terminals that think they ought to be together are separated and the randomity which occurs, occurs between them trying to stay apart and get together. Now that's about the way a motor runs. Now, that's power. We're not too interested in power or electrical flows. We're more - much more interested in postulates. But an electrical particle, or a mass, is of course a postulate.

A lot of Scientologists don't ever, ever totally connect this one. I've seen them do it. They say, "Ah, yes. Well, I'll think 'terminal' and then a terminal will appear" Oh boy! That's the old magic universe. That was how they got everybody fouled up in the magic parts of the track. You'll run a pc into one of these one time where everybody is being fooled by everybody.

And the way you make a postulate which results in a terminal is simply to make a terminal. You get the idea? There's no via of "I now will think that I will mock up a postulate and one ought to appear from someplace." I'm sorry, but there's nothing going to happen unless you put the terminal there. There is no great god called Throgmagog that walks up with a terminal and places it out there simply because you have decided that one should be there.

These people have decision mixed up with postulate. All right. You can decide a terminal should be there, but you're going to wait till the end of time for one to appear unless you or somebody you are in communication with puts it there. It's got to be placed there.

The whole idea of deity is making a postulate and then waiting for somebody to make it happen. Do you follow this easily, huh?

A fellow says, "Well, a great giant will now appear in the room. You know, he says this, "A great giant will now appear in the room." And then he waits for somebody to cart this big giant up and put it in the room, you see. Well there's no big giant going to occur in the room unless he puts the big giant in the room. That's it!

So postulates get down to the lazy end of the scale, you see. And the individual says, "Well, a postulate is a thought." No. Time, space, energy, particles, anything that you want to think of, form, anything else is a postutlate. One conceives the isness of it to materialize it. In other words, he says it is there, it is there. He doesn't think a thought, you see, and then do something over here to make the thought come true. Got the idea? Postulates cover all the isness there is.

Now there was a very brilliant, highly influential woman called Mary Baker Eddy, lived in the nineteenth century. Mary Baker Eddy said, "All is mind. All is infinite mind. And all is thought. And all sickness is the result of thinking wrong thoughts and you've got to go on thinking right thoughts." This is a tremendous oversimplification of Christian Science, but I'll show you where this leads to.

The idea was that thought was thought and that was the end of it. Mass didn't exist! At least this is the way the Christian Scientist learned it. Mass didn't exist but was just a sort of an illusion or a delusion that people thought was there, so it was there. Now, you get the little curve that's on this line? You see? This is the wonderfulest package of not-is you ever ran into. It's not for nothing that you find or found more Christian Scientists, per religious denomination, in insane asylums than any other religious denomination. Very interesting. They have a higher incidence of insanity in Christian Science.

Now, we're not dead against Christian Science. I'm just showing you how you can go astray. I mean, we have nothing to do with Christian Science. You can just go madly astray this way. You can say, "Ah, I get it! A person thinks thoughts!" You see. "So these walls and floor and the sky and the space and the sea, that's all just an illusion. Somebody's been fooling us." That's pretty non sequitur when you stop thinking about this, it's. . . If all this is an illusion, then they're saying it isn't. Illusion is a downgraded isness, isn't it? That's all an illusion is.

All right. What's an illusion?

There's a mad difference between anything like Christian Science and Scientology.

Christian Science says, "All is infinite mind, and matter and so forth, is an illusion." It really isn't. You see?

Well, we get over into Scientology and start taking a look around and we find something entirely new to the concept of philosophy. And of course, this would have absolutely cracked the skull of Plato. Plato probably would have sat on his veranda or whatever he was using to contemplate the universe - if he ever did - bright man.

Oh, man. You would have been there all night, all the next day. You'd have probably been denounced as a great heretic. You'd have probably been denounced as something so wild, so fanciful, that not even the Stoics would have had anything to do with you. You probably would have been considered heretical and much too theoretical for Greek philosophy. Yeah, I can see it now.

Now he's liable, in processing, to get up a - to a much higher level. He not only realizes the wall is, but he realizes that it is dependent entirely for its source and existence upon his saying that it is. You see? And this gets to be the neatest, horribly difficult to confront postulate of the whole cockeyed works, because it not only is but it is there with total responsibility.

And when you can get somebody to confront an isness with total responsibility, philosophy walks out the window - so does religion. I'm afraid, so does war and taxes.

A person's domestic difficulties, the itch he contracted, almost anything you can think of; starts walking away the moment that he starts entering in upon this one proposition. That which is, is.

Now, it's all very well to say, "Well, that which is, is." That's the statement with total irresponsibility.

Now reversewise you wouldn't even use a word to describe the isness of a wall. And it's rather wonderful that in Scientology we can describe things which can't be described. And we do this all the time. You don't realize to what degree we do this. We describe the undescribable. That probably is the greatest development of Dianetics and Scientology, is the language of observation. It's been developed inside the subject.

Now, people could never discuss these things philosophically before. They went off and developed tremendous resounding polysyllables that had tremendous vias with great abstruse and obtuse meanings. And if you memorized this tremendous vocabulary of vias you had it made. You notice most of Dianetics and Scientology is just in plain run-of-the-mill words.

Now, as we go along these words develop more punch. They take on special connotations, but the specialness of the connotation is owing to the simplicity that we attach to it rather than the complexity.

When we say communication, we do not mean, as they mean in engineering, a series of electronic formulas from integral calculus. You just say, "Communication - do you know the formula of communication?"

Walk in on some place like Ma Bell, big electronics laboratory. You walk in on what the engineers call Ma Bell, and you say, "What is the formula of communication?" And some fellow will go off, "The formula of communication. Well, that all depends on what you mean by communication. Uh, what, uh - speaking of communic--. Of course, you're talking probably about electronic brains or something like that. And uh, as, uh, the formula as it's known is dy/dx and so on and you go on to. . . Of course, you've got to get a slide rule out here in order to get this.

Or he'd look at you bluntly and say, "Well, I must say that that is a very iriteresting question." He's liable to look at you and say, "Well, what the hell is it?"

Well, we have a good idea what communication is. We know what it is.

Similarly, we can communicate what a wall is or a mass or a space. You see, it is a wall or a mass or a space. Well, we can tell you where it came from. And people have been trying to find that out for a very, very long time.

But to foist this off on you - to foist this off on you and simply say, "That is the way it is. If you don't answer up this way on an examination paper you're dead, you're dead, finished," that would be a very dirty trick. Because that would just be to make you the effect of the most affected thing there is, which is simply isness. See?

Think of the number of times somebody has come around to you and pounded it home, practically with a jackhammer, that this was the way it was and this was the way it was going to be. Well, what's this person doing? He's demonstrating an isness with an overwhelmingness, isn't he? He's making you the effect of an isness. He's saying, "This is the way conditions are. And if you don't take it this way, then you've had it."

Well, fortunately, the one thing you cannot describe this way and have it turn into black magic is just what I've been talking to you about. But some cognition on your part is necessary, otherwise, you tend to remain at the effect-point of this statement about isness. Any postulate - any postulate which has been called truth - it's sufficiently agreed upon to be known as truth, you see - any postulate sufficiently agreed upon is truth. I told you the other day, there are only a couple of basic truths, that's the first two Axioms. They are. They are true. They're as close to an absolute as we can get. Anything else is, we've agreed upon it enough, well, we've got it.

But you'll notice that a wall, as the result of a postulate, or that the wall is postulated by a person or being or you, is very fundamental as a truth. It is sufficiently fundamental as a truth that it can be uttered. And because you are so much at the effect end of this thing, for a little while, you don't come out in the clear about it.

You could just accept it as a theoretical or intellectual concept and say, "I make that wall? Oh, I don't know." But look, I've at least got you making the wall. See. I've at least got you looking at the wall and guessing that maybe, knck, maybe. See this?

So we are coming up. So if we ever hit truth on the most agreed upon agreement, on the button, knck, it tends to resolve it. And a person ceases to be the total effect of it, simply because total effect means that he can't even understand it. He's below it. If he understands it, he's at least getting up even with it somewhere.

Processing puts you above it.

Now, to walk out here and say to some man, "See that wall? Now, I'm going to tell you something for your own good. And if you don't believe it, I'm going to beat hell out of you." To be polite about it. "That wall is. It exists. And I want you to realize that it exists," and so forth and keep shoving it in on him to this degree. I'm afraid you're not going to make a friend. No, because your attitude is devoid of much understanding and there's certainly no ARC to carry it along and he doesn't know what you're talking about. He doesn't have any channeled approach to the subject at all.

But what do you know. You can take somebody and run a process called 8-C and get him to go around tapping walls and he gradually - Oh, at what a gradient scale - it'd he a gradient scale that a flea could make totally loaded. Because 8-C works on almost anybody. And he takes this - he takes this gradient scale and it's so gradual that as he walks over and hits that wall and walks through this space and hits that wall and walks over and hits another wall and he just keeps going like this - it starts to dawn on him that it is. And you get all sorts of ideas discharging off this one idea that the wall is. And that's all you're processing him on - is the wall is.

Now, because you make him touch it, you are putting him on a little bit of a via, true, because it's you that's making him touch it. But you're putting him into position of being cause toward it. Now, what is it you've got? You've got him on a reach. See this? You've got him on a reach to it. Now, all you're processing directly is exactly what I've been talking to you about. The process, the commands of 8-C, and so forth, would not work at all if it weren't for just what I told you about and if it weren't for the fact that you were making him touch the wall and that doingness had been added to the actual theory.

Unless we add the presence of the auditor, unless we add the actuality of the action, our pc doesn't climb upstairs very rapidly. So we get one of the most effective processes there is, which is 8-C. 8-C has dragged an awful lot of people out of the doldrums, dragged an awful lot of people up the line. It's a great process. It's one of the great processes.

Now when we Tone 40 8-C, we're going even further on the line. But it isn't always necessary to Tone 40 8-C; 8-C is not Tone 40 8-C.

And you take somebody who is so lost that when he thinks of a wall he says to you, "Well, that reminds me.. ." Any wall immediately restimulates a forgottenness of having stormed Acre and gotten a bunch of Greek fire in his puss. See, and a wall - flng. Now, what's he doing? He says, "Floor mmung. See, mmung. Oh! Space, mrnm-mm-m. Space, ruff ruff-ruff-rr. See, this little square inch in front of my nose is absolutely intolerable."

And you say, "Well, how about the rest of the space in the room?" And he'll vomit. I'm being quite blunt. That's what will happen with a psycho.

The gradient scale of taking people into larger and larger spaces was an early one, but actually has been used in France. Dianetics has been taught in France for some time. It's also been in Germany for some time. There was something developed out of this and they really got to going someplace. They also had another one that they took out of Dianetics which is they dressed up people in the costume and surroundings of the life they were stuck in and let them work it out. Quite clever.

But taking somebody outside - this is something for you to realize. This is part of an auditor's kit that I'm telling you right now. This individual has been lying in this small room, sick with the epiglootis, or whatever else he thought he had to have to get past his examinations or something, and he's very ill and he's been lying in this small room and he's been there for days and days and weeks and weeks and weeks. And you're going to process him. Well it's all right for him to process him on the room.

And it's all right for you to do an awful lot of things. But do you know it would really be quite efficacious if you ran an old process called "Take a Walk." Just got him into a little bit larger space.

Now, the gradient scale of it is not really "Take a Walk." It's to put him in a larger room. And the tremendous tiredness which he will experience is just giving him a little more space and a greater remoteness of wall.

You take him out of his room into a larger room, he will start to experience tiredness. If you did that every day and gave him a little more space every day and gradient scaled him up the line a little bit more and a little bit more, well, the individual would snap out of it. It's quite interesting. lt's something for you to know, because what you're doing is giving him a gradient scale of larger spaces to confront And don't give it to him with such steep doses that he finds them unconfrontable and you've got it made.

Now, this is - this is interesting. You let a puppy out of a box that he's been shipped in and just watch his reaction sometimes as he gets his anchor points back out. It's quite interesting. You should wonder why an animal who was caged up for a long time in one environment will stay around that environment afterwards. He will, you know. That is the basic premise of domestication. Works on husbands, wives, cats.

Now, what is this? The individual has gotten out of the habit, you might say, or has become disconnected from, the idea of muchness in terms of mass or space. It isn't a matter of conditioning, because we're not talking about an unknown thing now. It's a matter of familiarity. The individual has been so unfamiliar with larger spaces, so unfamiliar with larger masses, so unfamiliar with quantities, large quantities, that he's lost the knack of confronting them. See, he's dropped off. His familiarity is too poor now.

So we suddenly give him a great big space. Oh, just take somebody whose favorite habitat is - favorite habitat is Times Square, 45th Street and 7th Avenue, something like that. Just take him and grab him by the scruff of the neck and drop him out in the middle of Arizona and say to him suddenly, "Look at all that space!" And he'd probably go mad.

Works that way with masses. I remember taking somebody from the East Coast of the United States to the West Coast. And as you go, you run in, first, into some little lumps of soil on the eastern seaboard that they call mountains. And then you go a little bit further and you run into the Appalachians. And then you go a little -long distance across the Plains and you start running into the Rockies. You run into the Rockies - they're not terribly impressive, the Rockies, because you're already up so high when you're looking at them, but it's impressive enough to somebody that's used to molehills, you know. And then you run into the Cascades. And the Cascades leap up from sea level and they are tremendous mountains. And it's a gradient scale.

It's very interesting to take an Easterner and start rolling them West and showing them these larger and larger mountains, you know? And they've just about got it made up that that's just about the biggest doggonedest set of mountains that they ever saw in their lives, you see, and they've got the ultimate - now they've got the absolute ultimate and then show them the Cascades, you see. And they say, "Oh, no!" You see? There's some mountains out there that are standing 14,950 feet above sea level, you see, and they're all snow-covered and they really rear off the plain.

They're a lot of mass. Well, this is a problem in masses.

Well, you start this same trip and they get more and more engrossed in space. They don't believe this much space. And the unreality starts caving in on them. The country just isn't real. Because you get out into the Middle West and you just look and look and look - as on many other continents - and you see nothing but the curvature of the horizon, you see. And you go to that horizon and you see nothing but the distant horizon beyond you, you See? And you're just not likely to run out of space for a long time.

Well of course, with fast airplanes and that sort of thing, you can do this thing in Africa or Australia or even in Europe rather rapidly. But the space in the absence of fast travel gets terribly impressive and people get feeling awfully unreal about all of this, The country just really doesn't exist. It just isn't quite there. It's not believable.

You take drivers and tear them off across that much space and they have accidents. They're used to driving around their little pueblo or something down in Mexico and you take them on the - on the highway between this - their little pueblo and Mexico City and that highway is long and flat and straight. And the straightest best parts of it are the source of the most accidents. The best roads are the source of the most accidents. Because they've got the most spaces in them. And the people can't tolerate those spaces.

Now these reactions to space, reactions to mass, reactions to time all form a tremendous number of processes.

Now, what are you doing? The process is nothing unless you are increasing the familiarity of the person with that thing you are processing toward, and putting the person right along with it more at cause over that thing than he has been.

So, a process does these two things: increases his familiarity and puts him at cause. A process which doesn't do those two things is worthless, useless, and actually should be discouraged by you.

Hypnotism is such a process. Hypnotism is a process that discourages familiarity, introverts, closes out and fogs in. And of course, it has accompanying drop in reality, drop in communication, drop in anything.

Somebody who has been taught hypnotism is liable to tell you that you can cure stammering easily with hypnotism. Well, I don't know. He'll tell you this. And maybe you can fix the fellow up so that he doesn't even know enough to stammer anymore, just put him on a total machine. But this is quite remarkable. It's quite wonderful to see the drop, the real drop, over the next few days in the ability to live on the part of a person who has been hypnotized. It's very, very steep, it's very recognizable.

Now, that's the reverse process. You're making him less familiar and less responsible. You're showing a hypnotized person less. You've got his space jammed up more. You're certainly got him at effect. And you're pushing him in.

Now, this is quite interesting - quite interesting to look over processing and recognize that it's based, first and foremost, on a postulate - the reversal of the postulate. You see, the person's got the postulate, is the total effect of the postulate and isn't familiar with it, doesn't even know he's got this postulate, you see? So you just increase his familiarity with it which you can do in a lecture. And sometimes a person listening to a lecture all of a sudden gets a tremendous cognition. You know. Bing! You know. Wow! You know. Bang! Well, he's just been submerged below a recognition of something, you see? And he comes suddenly into a recognition of the thing. Well, he's already started on his line.

Now, the next thing is the individual in his ability to confront the isness of something, you might say, or conceive the isness of something, gets more and more at cause-point over it and so his responsibility picks up and he eventually comes up into responsibility for creation of it. Now, that doesn't matter whether it's a wall or a thought or an idea. It doesn't matter what it is but he recognizes creation of it. And this is - this is quite normally covered by a very sloppy word: cognition.

Cognitions come out of the bank. They're manufactured by the individual, so forth. But what they mean, basically, is an increased understanding. And it's no longer a sloppy word if you understand that a cognition merely means he voices an increased understanding of something.

You want to beware of one of these pcs that never says, "Well what do you know." You know, he's sitting there being processed and - or walking around being processed and he says, "Well," he says, "say, what do you know! You know, for a long time so-and-so and so on." Beware of a pc that doesn't do that. He's not getting anyplace. In other words, the understanding factor isn't coming up so his communication factor isn't changing.

Communication factor depends basically upon willingness to confront, the isness of. And that's what communication depends on.

A person can communicate with things that he's willing to confront and that he'll admit the isness of. And the less he is willing to confront it, the less he's willing to admit the isness of it, the more out of communication it is and you get this thing known as reality. That is the exact manufacturing point of the factor we call reality.

Now, responsibility comes about for willingness to have a number of attitudes toward the isness. That may be just a little bit strange to you. But it's just willingness to have created it, willingness to destroy it, willingness to go on having it be there, willingness to create another one like it, willingness to move it around, willingness to give it away, willingness to receive it. You see, these all fall into this package word - responsibility. Total responsibility would include perhaps innumerable attitudes, all of which a person would be willing to have.

Now, willingness - willingness is one of your basic keynotes. If a person believes that a wall isn't, while he is standing there facing it, you could say he has a low reality on it, right? You could also say he is unwilling to communicate with it. Right?

Now, the communication with the wall is the approach of the auditor or the communication with the thought or the postulate which is aberrative.

Communication. Communication is the common denominator of all processes.

People will self-audit. They self-audit on the simple mechanism of setting up a circuit to audit them, or they are auditing a circuit, because it's a "two" universe.

You see, it's a "two" universe because you're going to have communication in the universe, then there's got to be communication from and to. So if there's going to be any communication in the universe or any reality or therefore any universe at all, you've got to have a from and to. So naturally you have a two-pole universe.

Everything falls under two poles.

Now, when an individual has been more and more removed from this universe and considered himself more and more an isolated single pole, things of course are less and less real and he has approached more and more of an impossibility until he's gotten to a point where, Zzzt - "what wall, what everything?" You see.

Now, individuation is another factor in processing. And individuation means different than - conceiving differences. Now to communicate you have to conceive some slight difference. But as you obsessively walk away from something and have to communicate with it while being unwilling to communicate with it, you more and more grip on to this thing called individuation. You're more and more one, in other words. You are different than. Get the idea? You're different than it. And you - it says, "Well, you're the same as me." And you maybe insist then and you say, "No, no, no! I'm different than you. No, my name is Joe and your name is Bill!"

The reason husbands and wives get along well, when they get along well, usually depends upon their ability to recognize and take responsibility for the differences on the communication line. There are differences on the communication line. A woman is a woman and a man is a man. And when they get along badly they're not willing to take responsibility for the differences on the communication line, but are trying desperately to differentiate between themselves and be more and more each one himself or herself. So, look, a woman begins to doubt she's a woman and then has to insist that she is a woman. The man, because of the environment and ideas and so forth, begins to believe that he's less a man and begins to insist that he's more of a man.

For instance, some college kid, some little child, having to puff on a big bulldog pipe, you know. Puff; puff; puff on a big pipe, you know. And drink up everything he can get his hands on, you know, to be a man. Be a man. Be a man. Be a... I can tell you any kid that has to do that never got a pat on the back from his pop, that's all. All he needed was a little assurance once in a while. "Yes, son. You're a boy." You know.

That's all it took.

And a little girl - little girl that's subjected all the time to, "Oh! I wish you'd been a boy. If you'd just been a boy, why, it'd been so much better, and so forth. And you know, I always wanted a boy," one of the parents is saying, and so on, see. After a while, it gets rocky. See. She has to assert the individuation which shouldn't have to be asserted at all but is actually quite apparent. It becomes less and less apparent to her and she becomes more and more different. We don't care what she becomes different than. She certainly becomes different. She obsessively becomes different.

She's got to be an individual. She's got to be herself. You see. And she moves right on out and the individuation gets so sharp after a while that the person is no longer capable of any communication. They've moved right on out of the firmament, you might say.

Now, the way out is the way through. This is an old maxim of processing. The way out is the way through. More about that later. But the individual has actually got to come back into communication before, on their own determinism, they can go out of communication.

Individuation is that action of asserting that other things are other-determined or that all other things are other-determinism.

Individual is saying, "Well, my wife is other-determinism." The man is saying, "Wife is other-determinism." The woman is saying, "Well, my husband is other- determinism." Now, we've got more and more other-determinism entering in and we have the dwindling spiral. The dwindling spiral is based on this, "Got to be a separate thing," which finally becomes, "I've got to be just a one-thing." You see? And as soon as an individual is totally a "one" thing, he's - begins to go out of communication with the isness of it all because he conceives the great differentness and the total difference in his irresponsibility for the environment around him.

Actually, the reason the universe is visible is because of this exact mechanism I've just been describing. The reason it's visible and goes on and on and on and on and on is more or less based on this obsessive individuation of the individual.

They invent gods. If man didn't have a god in any given period, he'd invent one because he's got to have somebody to assign the responsibility for as one of the handy mechanisms of preventing things from being as-ised. Cross up the ownership, you see, and so forth, and - so he won't take the total responsibility for the thing and so on. He dreams this up.

But this gets to be too bad of a thing after a while and an individual can no longer survive. He can no longer survive because he can't survive alone. That's the blunt part of it. If he's going to be part of this universe and live in this universe, he's certainly going to live with others! That's for true! And the less he understands this, why, the more difficulties he gets into. Finally he becomes the total effect of the whole universe.

Now, you find this individual and of course he's backed away from so many communication lines, he's taken so little responsibility for anything, that it's necessary for us to get him familiar with thoughts, terminals; and gradually walk him back in to a point where he is causative over these on his own determinism rather than some automatic obsessive 'got to be cause', 'got to be different', you know.

Move it up so that he takes over the automaticity of causation, increases familiarity.

And the whole thing boils down to the fact that you actually pilot him into greater familiarity and greater communication with the net result that you wind up with a greater reality.

When you do this, you have somebody who can confront and who is oddly enough - and I suppose quite by accident, but very true - he is more social, he is more capable, he is a better asset of the society, he's somebody to know, he's somebody to talk to. Before then, he was just a ball of flesh rolling about out of contact with everything.

Now, there are the exact end goals of processing.

A process never does, by itself; anything. It has to be applied to a pc. It has to be directed. And it has to have an end goal and result.

And when a process is handled by the auditor and is used by the auditor and it's intelligently applied by an auditor, you get tremendous gains that you will never contact on such a thing as just wound-up doll - repeat it, repeat it, repeat it and hope something happened.

Thank you. Thank you.