

LONDON GROUP COURSE TAPES (1953) 4/8


MECHANICS OF THE MIND

LGC-3

A lecture grven on 10 January 1953

[Based on R&D transcripts. This was checked against an
old reel for LGC-3, but the reel only contains the second
half of this lecture. The start of the reel is marked 
below. We did not find any omissions.]


This is the third lecture today: In this lecture
we're'going to talk something about the mechanics of the
mind. Now, you must realize that there's quite a bit of
work and technology underlies this material in Dianetics
and Scientology. The amount - the-amount of data which has
been sorted really would stagger one if he summed it all up
and put it in one place.

Perhaps a word about the source of this data would not be
amiss. This data might be said to be a combination and a
reevaluation of Eastern and Western culture. And as much 
as anything else, that marriage, which hitherto has been 
a misalliance, is responsible for Dianetics and Scientology, 
making it a little more compatible.

I was very young when I first went out to the East,
extremely impressionable as a child would be. I struggled
along in north China, India and was back in the States and
then back out there again.

And while in the States on a very early visit, a stay, I
met Commander Thompson of the United States Navy who was
just returned from having studied with Sigmund Freud in
Vienna, Commander Thompson was a very sound man, a very
solid friend of mine, He had no boy of his own and was
quite interested in me, mostly as a personality.

It's very odd to realize, as I did one day, that in 
subsequent years I have approximated to a very remarkable 
degree the career of Commander Thompson - to show you 
what an impressed - impressionable boy can have handed 
to him suddenly.

I have followed that, however, fragmentarily. It just sort
of dubs in to the career that I have been following to this
degree that - I didn't realize this until one day I looked
at a map, and in the field of expeditions, explorations, I
always favored certain quarters of the world, always went 
there and, when there, did certain things. It fits Commander 
Thompson's record. Amusing.

[R&D Note: Commander Thompson: Joseph Thompson (1874-1943), 
a commander in the US Navy Medical Corps who studied with
Sigmund Freud in Vienna and was a friend of L. Ron Hubbard
when Ron was a boy.]

It just suddenly struck me one day, I hadn't ever realized
it. Nothing would do at a certain place I went but what I
would dig up one of the old, ancient tribal burial grounds.
Never realized the significance of this until one day - I
hadn't known this, you see - I was standing in the Bishop
Museum in Hawaii and saw there the exhibit of Commander
Thompson on some of the men he had dug up in a tribal
burying grounds. All right. He directed my attention toward
many things and perhaps imparted to me, fragmentarily or
otherwise, the basic tenets of Sigmund Freud and also
imparted to me the fact that Freud didn't think he'd 
solved it.

That's an interesting datum we append right on to there; it
should be more than appended. Freud wasn't at war with
those other lines of thought to amount to anything: He was
trying to find out, 1920 or something like that. He even
wrote a paper and said he hadn't, It's called
"Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable." And it's
rather heart broken sort of a paper,

[R&D Note: "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable": 
reference to Volume V of the collected papers of Sigmund 
Freud, entitled Analysis, Terminable and Interminable.]

Right at that time when he was writing that, I was taking a
look at Hindu snake charmers, wondering why the audience
believed there was a snake there.

Well now, it would be handing myself bouquets (which one
should never do) to say that one would pick up where
somebody else left off, but one was going forward there.
There are many things in Dianetics and Scientology which
are directly Sigmund Freud's - directly. They're
reevaluated. They've been fitted in at the right places for
Dianetics and Scientology and have been evaluated against
workability. For instance, association. There aren't as
many things as you would think, by the way, but there's the
whole business of associative thought, all kinds of things
here and there.

In the first place, he put his stamp on this culture. He
put his stamp on there with a great big stamp. And you
don't realize to what degree you have been influenced by 
Sigmund Freud. You would have to read the literature of 1880 
and then the literature of 1950 sequitur (one right after 
the other) to realize that something happened: the evaluation 
and characterization of story characters in 1880 and 1950 -
quite different.

The whole literary world bought psychoanalysis, and they
use it as their modus operandi for plotting. And as a
result, the whole society has been salted with this as a
background. It's interesting, isn't it?

And today, we find this man who began on his course of
investigation into the teeth of the medical profession, was
practically thrown out of everything, was hammered at and
beaten at and thrown away and chewed up in general. We find
that his work opened a door, and it opened a door in this
fashion. It said, "Something can be done about the human
mind." That doesn't sound very startling to you, but
believe me, that was a startling statement to make when he
was first working.

In 1894, when he released his libido theory after his
work with Breuer, he was basing it on results he had had.
Unfortunately, to a large extent, Freud was the sort of an
auditor - let's get that straight - I said Freud was a
sort of an auditor who added in a lot of extra personality
factors. And every time he added one of these things into a
session, he didn't know what he was doing, he never said
what he was doing, he never knew what he was doing and he
left all kinds of xs all over - unknowns, unknowns, unknowns,
unknowns.

How can one auditor take Book One and produce miracles and
another auditor not? That's because there are unknowns in
the personal address of the auditor to the preclear. Just
as in Group Auditing - and this becomes very pertinent to
you - in Group Auditing there are unknowns from auditor to
auditor before the children. They will be unknown to the
Group Auditor; they are not unknown to the professional
auditor. He'd know how to get rid of these unknowns. But
one is confronting the group with a personality. And the
tone of voice and the general personality and the stage
presence of the Group Auditor will make Group Auditing
different in its results from one group to the next, one
Group Auditor to the next.

One of the easy ways to get around this, and to minimize it
and also to save oneself, is to make somebody else do it
under supervision and then change the auditor to the group,
change the auditor to the group. Then you've minimized
that, you see? You make - in a group of adults, you make
them consecutively change. You just take group members and
make them audit the group, group members and audit the
group, group members and audit the group. And that's all.
You just coach them up and make sure it's done right.

And in children, this becomes rather difficult until you
have spread across various classes. If you're just dealing
with one or two classes, it's very difficult. They're all
in one age level. But you could reach into your upper-age
levels, and you would be surprised at the capability and
competence of children toward children. It's fascinating
how well children can sometimes handle children. So you can
even minimize it there if you don't feel you're getting
along too well with them - you wouldn't have this feeling
about it.

But you're going to get a difference of factor. Sigmund
Freud was getting results better than anybody has ever
gotten since with psychoanalysis. His clinic got better
results than anybody has ever gotten since. And the
reputation of his clinic today carries psychoanalysis on in
the world into the teeth of every one of his disciples who
says that, "Sigmund Freud? Well, we don't believe that
anymore and that's all been modified by Zilch." The heck it
has! That's very interesting about Sigmund Freud.

So his clinical work had a great deal to do with his
personal ability and the character of that clinic itself,
which throws the results out. And down along the line, his
data is integrated by an undisciplined mind. That's a hell
of a thing to say about Freud, but it's true. It's not a
mathematically disciplined mind. He scatters around, he
gets hopeful, he isn't critical of himself sufficiently.
But all these are minor things. Think of what the man did
do! He all of a sudden opened the doors wide and said, "The
human mind is susceptible to a solution." Now, that all by
itself was one of the greatest contributions, and was 
probably THE greatest contribution of the nineteenth
century, which came just as it ends.

Sounds like it wouldn't be very much, because in that
century you saw Thomas A. Edison, you saw Maxwell, you saw
all sorts of people around. Today, we've got nice electric
lights and we've got an atom bomb, we've got a lot of other 
things. And we've got three times the number of institutions.

But somebody did say this. All right, he was a wildcat.
That is to say, he was off the field, he was not in the
field. He was a pariah. He was frowned upon by all of the
conservative thought of the day. And yet, today, this work
and that basic postulate is more or less accepted.

Picked up really from that, from scratch; at one time I
thought there had been some interim work. I'm sorry to have
to say that I don't think there has been. There had been
interim work in mathematics and electronics, but not in the
field of the mind.

Well, all of a sudden, as a young kid, I see the
East - mysticism, occultism, spiritualism. Oh, I knew
officers - meeting people; they talked about these things,
very interested. I became more and more alert to them, and
said, "You know that somewhere around here there's an
answer to something. It would be very nice if you could do
some of these things, but I'm not sure that these people
know what they're doing, And the reason they don't know
what they're doing is because the more they work in that
field, the loonier they get." This doesn't question the
truth of that field, but it just says there's something
wrong with it! There's a lot right with it and there's
something wrong with it.

Western culture I took up, and was forced into engineering,
mathematics, majoring in nuclear physics - very antipathetic
to me, but there was order and there was discipline. But
all through the university, I wrote and supported myself by
writing. And I became interested in people by being
interested in what people were interested in, and
eventually became interested enough that I began to look
into man's mind to find out: what might possibly make him
tick. And all of this data started to integrate.

What data had I inspected? The data of the West in its
most - its purest, most severe, naked fashion, which is 
the severity of science as practiced in the field of physics 
and nuclear physics. And if you don't think that's a discipline, 
that is the discipline of today. If there ever will be one, 
that's it.

And the East: "Well, we don't know, and we'll all bow down
to the great god Whumpbug. And the thing to be is to
negate everything and deny everything and run away from
everything, and then we'll arrive there. And our greatest
goal is to become part of a cloud and float somewhere and 
to be completely unfeeling and to do this and to do that, 
and anything but live.
e
And the Western culture says, "Above all things, whatever
else you do, live!" Two directly opposed vectors - out of
all of them, we got sense. It's - possibly this material
would have been drummed up by anybody. Would have been
drummed up by anyone who had taken a look at these two
spheres and recognized their differences, and then
integrated them and taken them apart again with a highly
questioning attitude. Because when you say what I believe
- I don't believe there are very many people who even - 
who knew me very well, who knows what I believe.

I have the same level of belief in a datum as it's workable. 
I have absolutely no affection for any single datum in 
Dianetics or Scientology, There isn't any "Well, there's 
that old datum; that's real good." 

There's one difference about this. There are two axioms which 
are very amusing to me because they were the first two axioms.
They were way back in the middle of the thirties. "The cell
has as its goal survival and only survival" and "The body
is a colonial aggregation of cells, so therefore the goal
of the body is survival." QED.

All right, those two sit in the list of axioms and if
there's - if there's anything that has any affection for
me, it would be that two. Because I remember the tremendous
amazement and surprise one morning that I felt when I was
climbing half out of bed; I just stuck right there. And I
said, "An anthropoid ape is trying to live. Hm. And a clam
is trying to live. An algae is trying to live. A man is
trying to live. Living is duration through time, and the
proper word to describe that is survive. And, my god, I've
done it!" And I went straight over to my typewriter and
took down all of the data which boiled this down and turned
it into theory. That's the beginning, actually, the real
entrance wedge. So there are two points on this time track
that I can point to from my viewpoint which were the
opening wedges. One is some fellow - a very bright man
indeed - saying at the end of the nineteenth century, "The
human mind is susceptible to survival in computation and so
forth, and it will survive and can go on, and it doesn't
die all by itself." You see, something can be patched up
about it; it can go on, it isn't a finite thing.
Furthermore, it can be understood. "Something can be done
about the human mind," somebody said there. He didn't say
anything about survival - that was left. And in the middle
of the thirties, suddenly realizes survival was the pin on
which you could hang the rest of this with adequate and
ample proof.

And where did mysticism fit in? Well, I didn't know that
until relatively recent days. It all fits. It's the easiest
problem anybody ever looked at. It's a very simple problem, 
idiotically simple. That's why it never got it solved. 
Nobody had ever looked at anything being that simple to do 
that much.

So what do we find as the simplicities of solution? The
simplicities of solution lie in this: That life, all life
is trying to survive. And life is composed of two things:
the material universe and an x factor. And this x factor is
something that can evidently organize, mobilize the
material universe. This x factor.

What is this x factor? Well, it just drifted along for a
longest time as an x factor until, all of a sudden, one day
I got a description of it. I figured out a description of
this x factor. What is it?

Well, it obviously had - and I won't go into that derivation
too long - it obviously had no wavelength. It didn't have
any energy in it, and therefore it couldn't have any space
or time. It was zero! Well, that's fascinating! But how
could it be zero? You mean zero lives? Ah! Zero for this
universe.

And the second we tried to equate it on the basis of
it had time in it, it had energy, it had wavelength, it had
finite position, we went way wrong - oh, but wrong. So the
material universe is an artificiality bent out - built out
of that instead of the reverse.

So we're dealing with these big ideas of space and time and
energy and matter, and we have to readjust.

This is all real. Why is it real? It's real because we
agree it's real; not for any other reason. And we look it
all over very carefully, and we find out that matter,
energy, space and time are evidently a product of this
universal mind. And then we have the concept of the Supreme
Being and so forth, but unfortunately, we have the concept
of you.

And do you know that in the subsequent months and years,
since that theta-MEST theory was advanced, that every datum
which comes forth won't go anyplace else but into that theory.

You know, I'd be just as happy about this theory if it
would just suddenly disappear or go away or die or get lost
in the wastebasket. Because it's very easy to come by
theories. Anybody can come by theories. It's easy If you
don't believe it, read the books of the philosophers. There
are theories by the billion. You can make them up any day 
of the week.

I used to have an organization with a little bunch of
engineers. And we had a club; we called it the Green Cheese
Club. And it was called Green Cheese Club just for one
reason: Its members, any one of them, was perfectly willing
to believe the Moon was made of the green cheese - of green
cheese if it could be proven adequately. So that made it a
pretty wild club, you see?

Do you know that most people working in this field, they
get an affection for their data. Whoa, they just got to
hold on to that theory because theories are terribly
scarce, you see? And we've just got to hold on to that
theory and nurse it and pat it and go around and sell
everybody on this theory and talk about this theory.

It works the same way with techniques, You see auditors
doing this sometimes. (I wouldn't mention names.) But they
get a new idea, you see? And instead of practicing on a
preclear and being willing to throw it in the first
wastebasket that he'd see if it doesn't work, they say,
"Gosh, that must be awfully valuable! I get so few of
them." So they go around and explain to everybody how this
works. Well, the dickens with explaining how it works.
Let's work it? Does it work? Well, if it works, okay, we
don't - but there's no scarcity of ideas. We can dream up 
all kinds of therapies.

A new therapy is the "druggest" drug on the market we can
get, but we don't need any. That's really abundance right
now in Scientology. But this isn't an abundance: the idea
that one can have enough ideas to throw away ideas. That
little sentence right there explains a lot of differences
that you will see.

We got lots of them - throw them away. Do they work? Oh,
they don't work? Dickens with them; get another one
tomorrow morning. Maybe wake up at midnight with one.

So there have just been thousands of things, and there's no
reason why we should be holding on to this theta-MEST
theory. No reason at all, except it works.

So, if you will - if you will see a gradient scale,
whereby at one end of it we have nothing and at the other
end of it we have solid matter, we'll call that - we will 
call that the Tone Scale. And up the top, we have nothing 
but capability, and at the bottom we have nothing but object. 
Now that's the scale.

And we find out that a person is as sane as he is capable
and as insane as he is an object. Simple, isn't it? And
that's the gradient scale which we call the Tone Scale,
Now, we put some arbitrary numbers on it. We've said the
top is 40.0 and the middle is 20.0 and the bottom is 0,0.
And what's at 0.0? Well, you're dead at 0,0, you're MEST.
You're matter, energy, space and time with no life-animating 
factor. You're dead, in other words.

And at the top? You don't even vaguely have a body or
energy. All you've got is the capability of making a lot of
space because you can make space. That's the gradient scale
and that's the Tone Scale.

Now, man seems to exist on this scale, arbitrarily, between
4.0 and 0.0; 4.0 is enthusiasm, 0.0 is dead, 0.1 is apathy,
3.5 is conservatism. In other words, we just - we come
down - we come downscale from 4.0 toward death. And a person
is as alive as he has life in him. Sounds obvious, doesn't
it? But when we turn it around the other way and say he's
as dead as he's got object, makes more sense.

You ever know a capitalist? They're really interesting
people in terms of how much life they've got left in them,
and the more matter they get, the longer they'll survive.
Mm-hm. But what survives? An object survives. The pyramids 
are still there, but they certainly don't talk or have a 
good time, Now, what, then, is our goal? And why do we have 
this Tone Scale?

Well, you will find down at the bottom, you - neurotic,
psychotic people consider words as objects. The words are
objects to them. And time is an object. I've had people 
walk up to me and say, "Well, I'd gladly come out and see 
you, but have you got a radio?" "Well, what do you want a 
radio for?"

"Well, we've got to have a radio, so we can turn it on and
get the time signal." "Why do you want a time signal?" "So
I can keep track of the time."

They keep themselves tuned up with time, all right. There
it goes, tickety-tick, tickety-tick.

Once in a while you will ask one of these people for a
circuit or a phrase or something of the sort, and he'll
reach in his pockets to find it for you, That's right.
Words and thoughts are objects at that level of the scale.
You'll have to observe this to really understand how this
can be. But you'll find in processing a group, there'll be
somebody in that group who's going to be literal-minded.

And they will say, "Did you say that? Well now, that
couldn't be because ... That couldn't be. No. You really
meant ..." And he'll be talking about some tiny, little
fraction of a phrase. "Did you say 'of the walk' or 'on 
the walk'? Or did you say ... ?" And he'll be so puzzled.

And one day you'll be quoting something or something of the
sort, and he'll say, "Ab-duh-uhem-bzzzt." He's just lost
this idea. You're trying to get an idea across, you see?
And he's lost the idea that you're trying to get an idea 
across, and say, "On the second line of that" - this is just
like fingernails over the blackboard" to him, you see - "on
the second line of that, it's THE not AND."

Words are objects. And this person is just getting solid.
His thinking is solid, too. He's doing this stream of
consciousness I've talked to you about. On and on and on,
he does his stream of consciousness. Horrible? He thinks he
thinks. All right.

The energy of the mind, then, is actually making a
postulate, and the object and matter around it go into
action. You tell something to go work and it works, because
the human mind - I mean, the theta level way up at the top,
40.0 of the Tone Scale - actually, all he has to do to
move an object is make a postulate to move it. And it works
as well as it doesn't have any energy in it. and 
One can make postulates and have them work as well as he
doesn't have any energy. But people think they've got a
past, present and future in terms of energy. You ask
somebody, "Where's the past? By the way, do you know where
the past is in relationship to your face? Do you know
where the future is in relationship to your face? Do you
know where present time is in relationship to your face?"

That immediately should appear to you as rather dull
because most everybody has this. He thinks the future is
over there to the right, and the past is over here to the
left and slightly behind him, and present time is right out
in front.

And that's just he's spent energy in thinking. And it's
finally become a deposit. And when it becomes enough of a
deposit, he's right there, he is. He gets an object,
finally, as a time track.

Actually, time consists of nothing else but the position of
particles. There's no energy mixed up in thinking and so on.

You can - there's another little technique that proves 
this. You can just suddenly decide that you're going to
let go of some particles. You find some - there's - you
always notice a slight pressure on the front of your face,
so you decide one day that you don't like the pressure on
the front of your face, so you decide to let go of the
particles that are holding the particles that are pressing
in. In other words, there's - just because there's pressure
from outside, there must be some resistance toward that to
make the pressure possible. All right, just let go of the
particles that are holding that motion. 

You can let go; the motion collapses. Now, you can do that 
consecutively. You just keep letting go of pressure areas - 
one side or the other - what's keeping the pressure from coming 
in and what's making the pressure come in, You can just keep
letting go. It's a technique all by itself. You just sit
there and you just find out what you're holding on to and
let go, that's all.

Darnedest things happen. You get terrible pains and all
sorts of things. You're just backing off, in other words,
from particles. And the more particles you let go of, the
better you feel. Isn't that odd?

This doesn't mean that you have to desert the universe in
order to be healthy in it. No, you can eat up the whole
universe if your digestion is zero enough.

Now, energy on a thought level and energy on a - that's the
strange one, you know, that energy on a thought level was
always thought to be something else. They kept telling you,
"Well, this didn't - this energy is kind of an energy, but
it's not like" - you find this in more books - "it's not like
that stuff up there in the electric light. The energy of
thought is something else." The dickens it is.

That electric light got there because somebody thought, not
the reverse. Why every man wanted to go into the bottom of
the scale and try to work up to the top, I don't know.

But you see, they say, "Well now, that stuff is crude and
that's no good, and we don't want anything to do with it!
That's material. And a materialist would be a person who
would do something about that." Nobody ever thought of "It
might be a product of some universal mind of some sort or
another which can produce, by postulate, particles." That
would be the other way to, wouldn't it? That sounds wild,
but it unfortunately works out that way, that this mind
produces - theta-MEST produces these terminals and flows.

Now, let's look at this another way. They missed something
on the design of the electric motor. Every time they write
up the electric The motor, they write it up wrong. You can
go and get your best textbooks on this subject, and a
nuclear physicist looking this over, if he ever went back
and looked them over, would immediately catch this blunder.
I just happened to catch it in passing one day and I was
very struck by it because they say - they give you
everything necessary to make current with an electric
generator. They tell you all about this and give you all
the data you need, only if you'd never seen one, you'd
never get any current out of one, because they neglect to
describe the most important thing there: the base of the motor.

Of course, you know, huh - you think I mean some kind of a
strange base like a logarithmic base. But I'm talking about
that metal thing the motor is sitting on. It's just wonderful 
how they could neglect this one. But they don't give it any 
description. It's just not described, that's all.

It's what holds the terminals in time and space? And you
get an electrical current just as long as you've got a base
sitting there holding the terminals, the two terminals of
the motor, in position.

And when you don't have a base sitting there to hold the
two terminals of the motor in position, the two terminals
snap together and you get no current. Kind of obvious. If
you look in an electric motor, you'll find there's a
positive side of it and there's a negative side of it, and
those are terminals. And the wheel goes round and round and
goes around inside of magnets, and mechanical effort makes
it go around inside of magnets, that makes positive-negative,
positive-negative, and you get a flow. It's a very simple 
thing, a motor.

If you didn't have any base there holding those positive 
and negative terminals apart, you wouldn't have any current 
because the positive and negative current - terminals would 
be right together. It takes a base to hold those two things 
apart, and that base is fastened to a table - or a platform, 
and that platform is generally fastened into the earth.

And the earth, by gravity and centrifugal and centripetal
force, is fastened to the Moon - Sun just as the Moon is
fastened to Earth. Earth is fixed in relationship to the
Sun. And Earth is fixed in relationship to the Sun; and the
Sun is fixed by gravity in relationship to the other
galaxy, planets and that's - planets and the solar system,
isn't it? And the solar system, well, that's fixed in
relationship by gravity and so forth into - hm. Well, wait a
minute, that's just fixed into the other systems and they
composite into a galaxy, and the galaxy is held there as an
island universe which is in position with an island of
galaxies and that pass into a ... Oh, no? All we're doing
all the way up is locating two terminals in space. Oh, no? 
No, no, this shouldn't happen to us. You mean God is the
base of a motor? (audience laughter) No, fortunately that
isn't true. He would be what is saying, "Stay apart" to the
first two terminals that begins this endless chain, Anybody
- time anybody said "Create," he must have said then "two
terminals." And sure enough, by dymaxion geometry and many 
other proofs, the basic unit of the material universe happens 
to be two, not one.

So it's location and fixation in time and space which makes 
it possible for energy to be developed and used and transferred 
and handled, And you don't get location, fixed location, you're
in bad shape.

Well now, we know about facsimiles and pictures in the
mind, and we know all about these various things, and we
know there are electronic things that go on with
relationship to the body and we can measure these on an
E-Meter; and we know that a person is as sane as he can
hold them in time and space. And when he can't locate them
and hold them fixed in time and space, he's very, very
aberrated. And you patch him up by fixing it so that he can
locate some of his memories and his beingness in time and
space.

All you got to do is tell a psychotic, "Look at the wall,"
and he says, "What wall?"

And you say, "Well, go over and feel it and find out if
there's a wall there."

He's liable to find out there's a wall there and get sane
on you. He's located himself in time and space. Now, isn't
this interesting?

We have a husband and wife. Husband is very unhappy, he's
very upset, the wife is very unhappy. They're going in all
directions and so forth. Well, the trouble is there, there
are two terminals and they don't have a smooth flow between
them. There's no interchange of flow, that's all. And so
the both of them have a down-energy level. You spring them
apart and team them up otherwise and they just work fine.
It's almost as mechanical - they're just bodies, so they're
almost as mechanical to handle as terminals on an electric
motor, Oh, there's all sorts of manifestations occur on
this basis. But at that moment, the second we realize this,
that theta creates space and time and it also fixes or
locates things in space and time, and the second we realize
it does that, this problem falls apart. It's just like so
much - just is poof. There isn't any problem to it. You could
do anything with this, then, from there on.

Why? That's because when it gets down into the Levels of
energy, you simply follow the parallel rules of energy and
you're on safe ground, safe ground all the way down.

But isn't it interesting that I said that as more a mind
got into energy and the more it handled energy, the less
sane it was. Uh-oh. So this material universe and the solid
object of insanity consists of more and more energy and
thinking, and more and more energy and more and more energy, 
and then the guy is out the bottom.

Therefore, the more energy he had in terms of energy that 
he was using and the more he used these terminals and the 
more he got upsset this way and that way by this, the worse 
off he'd get. Does it work out in the real universe? Believe 
me, it does.

You find the fellows who have agreed solidly with these
terminals and energies and used terminals and energies - are
they aberrated. They're in bad shape. Look at engineers.
(audience laughter) And you go right down the line with
this. So what's the solution, what's the solution? To
follow these terminals? To locate new terminals? Well, by
empirical testing taking place over a period of many years,
it is discovered that this is not the route. It's a good
route, but it's interminable. A guy gets better but he
doesn't go out through the roof.

So what do you do? Well, you back him off from doing this,
obviously, if that one didn't work. But that's right all
the way, then let's put him up Tone Scale, which is all
we've been trying to do anyway, and let's get him out to a
basis where he's again operating in postulates and is not
using terminals, where he is creating particles, not using
particles he already finds lying around. Let's get him into
a level of creation where he is able to command what he
wants, not have to beg for it. And we find he's in good
shape. So, we've got Creative Processing, and that's why
Creative Processing produces such a fantastic result. It's
very rapid.

Now, when you address a person, then, and start giving him
mock-ups, you're calling upon him to create. You're calling
upon him to create energy, to create new terminals. And
you're calling upon him to perform the highest function of 
theta. And so he gets better and better and better and better, 
and then he can go right on up the Tone Scale.

But if you turned around and you said, "Now look, you're
not supposed to create any of these things. You use the
electrodes which we provide, and you use the MEST universe
only," you get sick.

And does this work out in practice? Yes, and believe me it
does, And so Creative Processing - we have that right as the
heart of Creative Processing.

Huh, if a guy got very sick by using all the terminals he
finds lying around that he didn't create here in the MEST
universe, then he should get well by creating his own
terminals. You rehabilitate his ability to create
terminals, and the stress, strain, importance of energy in
this universe becomes less and less important.

Does this mean he backs out of this universe and leaves it
forever? No. He becomes quite capable of handling it.

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

========== LGC-3 continued

[This is where the old reel labled LGC-3 begins. The R&D
version was checked against the old reel from here on.]


Continuing this third lecture, we find out, as we'll hear
later, that from zero, one can create a particle. And I 
mean zero time, space.

I mean 40.0 on this Tone Scale. But when one is holding a
lot of particles, he can't create particles. This is all
quite interesting, and you will much more readily suppose
it to be terribly technical and out of the reach of your
grasp the more you try to think about it. And if you try
to think hard enough about it and if you ponder it enough,
I can convince you without any trouble that you'll be
having an awful time with it.

It's actually a terrible simplicity, and you sort of have
to let go of an awful lot of particles to grasp it. We
don't need a lot of theories. It's strange, now that we
have this, how all of this data, and what tremendous data,
comes tumbling into our hands.

For instance, not too long ago - solved sex. You know, this
would be very interesting, if you solved sex in terms - in
such terms that you could solve all this fellow's sexual
problems and all the children's sexual problems and all
this sort of thing - i mean, that should be first-line news.
Why? Because the libido theory in 1894, it said sex was
the root of everything. It doesn't happen to be; it's quite
important though. And if you could solve that, why, gee, you
ought to rush out here on the street and throw up banners
and say, "Hurray, hurray, hurray. We've solved this big riddle, 
or we've solved this big problem and Sigmund Freud was so puzzled 
with it and now we've solved psychoanalysis and we got the 
basis of psychoanalysis and we can make psychoanalysis work 
everyday."

You'd think you'd do that. It's not that important. And yet
it's solved. It's not important.

The reason it's not important is because what is important
here is a terrible simplicity. That is to say, you're
operating, The best of a man is that which has no substance
in it, and the worst of a man is that which has lots of
substance in it in terms of materialism. And there's where
your big argument came in between the materialist and the
fellow who figured he should be soulful or something of the
sort.

And there's your Hindu trying to desert MEST; he's trying
to deny himself everything and so forth. Well, he does all
that except one thing: he didn't know how to get out of his
body.

There's just nothing to these tricks they pull on you. It's
the essence of simplicity. They denied themselves
everything except living - I mean, except dying (going on
reverse flow here). Anyway ...

Now, a particle would be any object whether as so minute as
to be minute beyond minute beyond minute, submicroscopic,
or the Empire State Building. It wouldn't matter. In other
words, you could have a particle that you couldn't see in a 
microscope, or a particle the size - a complex particle the 
size of this galaxy. They would still be a particle, you see? 
We could say one particle.

Well, we deal a lot with particles. We have to know quite a
little bit about particles; we know this subject well But
we don't have to know anything like you'd think we'd have
to know. We just have to know there's such a thing as a
particle. A particle is a particle. A particle only does 
three things; a particle starts, stops, changes. Those are 
the laws of motion: start, stop, change. All right.

So particles start, particles stop and particles change.
And if you've ever had a lot of children - I mean, you know
that they sure can start, stop and change at the darnedest
times.

Now therefore, a person - he gets so that he can only start
and he can't stop or he can keep going. He can persist, in
other words, without changing. See, no change is the
trouble with him. He can't change - inability.

And your child is very stupid, let's say. All right, the
trouble with that child is he's very stupid, and there's
something that doesn't permit him to change. No matter how
hard you try, he stays on being stupid. So much so that it
was officially released and is accepted as a scientific
datum that IQ cannot be altered! That is nothing like
nailing everybody to the cross and saying, "Oh, let's all
give up and die." IQ certainly is one of the most alterable
things. As a matter of fact, an auditor simply by starting
to audit out an engram can shift IQ as much as fifteen
points. One session, he just starts and, say, ten minutes
of auditing - shift, I'm not saying bad or good. You can
drive them down and drive them up and make them level off.
IQs are very easy to alter. Well, we evidently were
dramatizing a no-change there, you see?

And particles of motion: As one continues through time,
then, one has these three things that can happen. Of
course, the reverse of them can happen. There's the person
who can't start, there's the person who can't stop, and
there's the person who can't change, as well as the person
who starts and the person who stops and the person who
changes. He's got those various characteristics.

Now, the three parts of behavior are thought, emotion
and effort. You think about something, that's pretty high
on the scale. A little bit lower than that, you feel some
emotion about it - sensation of emotion. Much lower on the
scale, you get in there and put some strength to it. You
think about opening the door, there's possibly some emotion
about opening doors, and then you put the effort to the
doorknob and open the door. Human activity is divisible
into these three parts,

We have, then, three more important data that you should
run into in this subject and know, and that's affinity,
reality, communication.

What is affinity? Affinity is what they've been calling
love and a lot of other things. In the material universe
it's known as cohesiveness and adhesiveness; in human
behavior, call it affinity. There's affinity or no affinity. 
All the emotions come under that heading. And the emotions 
are all graphed on this Tone Scale as you can see in a copy 
of Self Analysis.

Reality. Reality is that on which we're agreed. Any
philosopher writing down through the ages has come to that
as an agreement, by the way. "We don't know what we sense,
we just know that we know that we sense; we don't know that
the perception is there, we simply know that we know a
perception is there." And they've talked about this for a
long time. And you work this around and stir it around and
so forth, and there's one positive thing that you can come
up against. You can be fairly sure that reality and
agreement have something a great deal in common; more than
that, they're interchangeable.

There's reality - really consists of agreement and
disagreement. In electric-terminal flow there is merely
agreement and disagreement: one way, and then they go the
other way. And you find out that as people agree, they have
a flow somewhere around them. And as they disagree, there's
a flow. If you get the feeling of agreeing with something,
you're liable to pick up a flow. Sometimes you get the
feeling of disagreeing with something, you're liable to
feel like you've had your head knocked off or something by
a flow. And it's very interesting that agreement and
disagreement are in terms of flows and that these do
composite what most people say is reality. They say, "It
isn't real." "Well, why isn't it real?" They won't be able
to answer that unless you sort it out in terms of
agreement. 

"Well, did somebody tell you it wasn't real?"

"Yeah." 

"Did you agree with that person?" 

"Yeah." 

"It's not real, then, is it?" 

"No." 

"Well, why isn't it real?"

"Well, it's just not real." 

I mean, they'll come back to that one and sag every time, 
because they think there's something real about the word real. 
It's an object, you see? And it has no meaning at all!

What's real? You go down to the tribe of the Wongabullas
and you'll find out that anything that we consider reality
up here probably is unreality down there in terms of
customs and behavior or anything else. And you go over to
Ireland and you go around in some of the back roads of
Ireland, you're going to find that there's a great deal of
reality as to leprechauns and other things over there;
there are all kinds of things over there. You don't agree
they're there; you're not going to see them either.

Now therefore, just by that route and because it works - 
no other reason really than that one; this happens to work - 
there is reality in terms of agreement. We agree heavily 
enough on reality.

There are various tests one can enter on in this. You can
make anything real to a person who's hypnotized. You say,
if everybody got just sufficiently and thoroughly enough
hypnotized, he would see a MEST universe. You don't believe
this, sometimes get a hypnotist to hypnotize somebody who
is a good subject and get him to paint up a whole universe
and have that whole universe be real to that person. It'll
work, it'll work. Of course, I'm not inferring that
everybody is hypnotized into believing there's a universe
here. (audience laughter) Now, a one-word description of
what we are trying to do to people, though, it fits right
in right there. We're trying not to force people around;
we're trying to unhypnotize them. We're trying to wake them
up, not put them to sleep. We're trying to make them more
alert, not more dull.

And then there's a third member of that triangle - and
that's a triangle, by the way. It's an interesting
triangle, because at any level of this Tone Scale I talk to
you about, you'll get the same levels of that triangle.

The communication, the reality and the affinity at that
level will be the same for that level. You don't have
communication sitting one place on that Tone Scale and
reality sitting another place and affinity sitting
someplace else, You'll find them all at the same level.

So, they are the three behavior characteristics of life
"energy": affinity, reality and communication.

What's life composed of? It's composed of affinity, reality, 
communication. When a communication is low, affinity and 
reality are low; when reality is low, affinity and 
communication are low; when affinity is low - get that
one, when affinity is low; because boy, does this - this 
theory of ARC has been just sitting around just for ages; 
just backed up because it was so workable, no other reason.

And all of a sudden, as I'm going to show you here in
tonight's lecture, that we ran into it just head-on, on the
subject of ARC. And it all comes back to ARC. You can't
agree with somebody you're not in communication with. It's
very hard to love somebody who doesn't exist for you. In
other words, ARC: You've got to have communication to have
affinity to have reality. You've got to have three of those
three things, You can't have two of them.

And you'll realize this sometime. You take a little child
and he comes to school and he's going uuss-phll-uuss-phll.
And he's snuffling and crying and he ... You could sit
him down in a chair and let him come over it. But if
you'll just lead him out by making him ... I don't care
what he says to you. He says, "One, two, three, four,
five," or anything of the sort. If you just make him
communicate, (snap) he'll snap out of it.

Why? Well, he'll realize somebody does love him. Why does
he realize that? That's because he's communicating with
somebody. That's all. I mean, it's just as simple - terribly 
mechanical like that. ARC: affinity, reality, communication. 
Now, there's a lot to know about those, but that's good enough.

Now, actually, the Tone Scale was originally plotted out by
behavior, from observation of the behavior of a preclear as
he came up Tone Scale, plotted where the emotions belonged
on that Tone Scale.

The next thing that happened was to find out that ARC
plotted on that Tone Scale from 0.0 at the bottom to 40.0
at the top. And it was all worked out from the basis of ARC
theoretically, and then came back into the MEST universe
and took a look around to find out if that still agreed.
And it still agreed and it still held good and is as good
today as it was years ago. So we have - we have that as a
good stability to work with. And when all other problems of
human relationship, all problems of human relationship seem 
to be bogged down, when you can't get anywhere, when there's 
something that can't be done, remember there's ARC. What's 
happening with regard to ARC? And you can solve it.

This person is making you unhappy. You say,'This person is
making me unhappy. Always makes me unhappy. Never
blah-de-blah-de-blah making me unhappy. Nnaa-dduuhh-dduuhh,
I blah don't see anybody - makes me unhappy." And so on.
What's your solution? Cut the communication line? What happens 
then? Well, you don't have an agreement or a parity level of 
affinity. That's simple, isn't it? That's all there is to that 
- person makes you unhappy. That says - well, that says that 
you'd have to advise some husband to leave home. Yeah, that's
right. All right, we'll go on to the next one. (audience
laughter) The full Tone Scale, then, interplays and
interweaves thought, emotion and effort; start, stop and
change; affinity, reality and communication. Because at the
top of the Tone Scale things start, the middle of the Tone
Scale they are holding in a consistency or changing it, and
at the bottom of the Tone Scale, they're stopped, How
stopped can you get? Dead!

When you're dealing with children, you will realize that
the - you will sometimes believe that the child is very
badly off who is in a lot of motion all the time. No, the
one who is very badly off is the kid who just sits there.
He just sits there. That's really bad off. He's bottom
scale. So we get on the full Tone Scale an interweave,
then, of these factors. And a cycle of action of life starts 
in at 40.0 - just thought, no energy, nothing there but 
space - and progresses on through its cycle of action to 
middle age where we have everything very conservative, to 
old age where you have death. And that would be the cycle 
of one lifetime or - get this - the cycle of any action. 
It starts, it persists and it stops. Then it has to change 
violently before it can start again, doesn't it? And so you 
have death intervene.

Well, we won't go into that too deeply. We know that you
can plot any person in your group or plot the level of your
group by using these factors, and you don't have to know
too much about this.

What's the level of their communication? You have a graph
in Self Analysis that tells you what their level of
communication would be. That is to say, you know they don't
communicate with you. There's a cut line, Well, it says in
that graph in Self Analysis where a cut line is. And you
can expect what the affinity and what the reality will be
of that.

Now, you'll know, then, whether this group is getting
better or getting worse by whether or not they change on
the Tone Scale. If they don't change on the Tone Scale,
they're not changing. So you want to watch - a Group Auditor 
wants to watch a group in terms of that Tone Scale.

And watch this, the person who sits silently, motionless, 
communicates nothing and so forth is down there close to death.
And when this person starts to get well, this person is going 
to do all sorts of things. He's going to go into grief; he's 
got to get up to afraid of things; up above that, they get 
angry - and that's the worst because what you're liable to 
find out as a Group Auditor is all of a sudden this group
is very antagonistic towards you. You know what you're
doing. But don't think you've failed; you're making them
well. Let them roar. You know what's wrong with them.

The next level up from that, they're all bored with it. "Do
we have to do that anymore? Why do we have to do that some
more? We don't have to do that anymore, do we? Ah, let's do
something else. We're bored. We're bored." Keep at it
because above the next level of boredom is being very
conservative about how they're doing it, and right above
that level they get very enthusiastic.

What do you know, so if you've stopped at boredom, you have
lost the game, just as if you would have stopped at antagonism.

This group hates your guts, that's 1,5, Gee, if you haul a
group up to 1,5, you've really done something? You say,
"Rarr-rarr-rarr-ruff." (audience laughter)

It's interesting to watch, but if your group doesn't
change its manifestation, nothing's happening, so watch that.

And you should know this Tone Scale pretty well and you
have a good picture of it there in Self Analysis. As a
matter of fact, it's the only published edition of it right
at the moment and should give you quite a bit of material
to deal with.

These are the mechanics, then, of what you're dealing ...
You're trying to get a no-zero - I mean, a no-energy thing,
really a no-zero thing because there is something there; no
wavelength. In other words, it isn't describable in terms
of the MEST universe, it's all you're saying when you say
it's - hasn't any wavelength, no location. You're trying to
get this capability as high and as workable and as operable
as possible, And as long as that capability increases,
you're all right. But when a person starts losing those
capabilities of organization and so forth, alignment that
are top Tone Scale, and it starts drifting down, down, down
into matter, they think slower and slower, they think worse
and worse, they're less and less rational and they finally
go on out the bottom; or they just hang fire someplace
very low on the scale and they're not much use or benefit
to anyone. Their interest Level dwindles down, down, down
as that scale is descended.

The people you'll be processing lie normally well below 4.0
and most commonly lie between 2.5 and 0.1. 

(Recording ends abruptly)

[end of tape]
