

LONDON GROUP COURSE TAPES (1953) 5/8 repost




THE MISSING PARTICLE

A lecture given on 10 January 1953

Alternate title: GRADIENT SCALE, ADMIRATION PARTICLE

LGC-4A

[Based on R&D transcripts. This was checked against an
old reel for LGC-4, 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. Note that the old
reel has the second half of LGC-4A as included below and
continues right on into LGC-4B which is in the next file.]


This is the fourth lecture on the Group Auditor's Course;
name of the lecture is "The Missing Particle."

First thing we want to know about this is gradient scales.
There isn't too much you have to know about gradient scales
except this: You takes a small force to move a larger
force, to move a larger force, to move a larger force, to
move a larger force. That would be a gradient A scale
of forces. 

I think it was Swift' that says, "Cows have fleas who have 
smaller fleas upon their back to bite 'em, and smaller fleas 
have smaller fleas and so on ad infinitum," Well, that would 
be a gradient scale. This is a mechanistic approach on this; 
it isn't true, because theta can actually make a particle. 
You can postulate a particle into existence and it then, 
evidently, then exists. And that's how the particle got here.

But mechanistically, it operates this way, and this is a
low-level flow operation, whereby theta would pick up a
tiny, tiny particle as speed, which was so slow that you
couldn't tell really any great difference between this
particle and no particle. See, you couldn't tell much
difference between this particle and no wavelength. And
therefore there would be, at this end of the scale, this
tiny little confusion, and theta, a zero, would think it
was still zero although it had this particle. And then this
particle having this particle, it's now not quite zero, and
it now has the ability to take another particle. And now
that it has these two particles, it now has the ability to
take another particle and so on. It can take bigger and
bigger and bigger particles. And it would theoretically
start out with one which was one over infinity in diameter
and would wind up with Saint Paul's [Cathedral]. You see?

And an engineer uses this continually: He makes the force
of the river conquer the river. And theta uses force in
that degree. It has a force inherent from a past
experience, and it uses that force from past experience in
order to make or alter a new force.

Every aberrated thought is preceded by a counter-effort. 
Here, give you a present time example of that: is a
fellow walking down the street, and he thinks - he thinks 
policemen are wonderful.

The aberrated thought is "Cops are no good!" That's the
aberrated thought we're going to go to here.

And he's thinking - go walking down the street and he's
really not thinking much about policemen, but if he
consulted himself about them, he'd say, "Well, policemen
are all right. They're there. They protect the law and
order and the small children and the home and the
government and we pay them" and so forth. And he's walking
down the street, you see. He's thinking this or not
thinking it, as the case may be. All of a sudden a bobby
walks up to him and takes his hat off and raps him over
the head. After that, he doesn't think policemen are so
hot. (audience laughter)

Now, there is an aberrated thought preceded by a
counter-effort. Now, this can be that bad that he will say
then, "All policemen are bad." That is his adjudication. He
identifies to the degree that he's been smashed into MEST.
And when you've shoved a number of particles into very
close proximity, you have a piece of matter. And the tighter
you shove them, the solider the matter is. And when you
loosen them up, the matter is less solid. That's true of
atoms, you see, and molecules and so on. It's also true of
compounds. It's also true of sand. Sand can be drifting
around loosely and then you feed it into something that
compresses it suddenly, you've got a brick - glass brick.
You could compress it solidly and you could compress it
suddenly enough, by the way, that it would liquefy and
actually turn into a glass brick just under pressure, boom.
And you'd have a glass brick, quite solid.

The operation of pain is a certain action with regard to
particles, a very high level of particles. And life has
itself very closely associated with being these particles,
which it isn't - and it's holding onto a bunch of these
particles which it considers livingness. And some other
particles come along and compress those livingness particles
too tightly and the sensation resulting is called pain. And 
this is pain. And it's very measurable and it depends on the 
swiftness of closure of particles or the swiftness of opening 
of particles.

You can cause pain either by opening two particles too
suddenly bringing them apart too suddenly, or by compressing 
them together too suddenly. And when we say too suddenly, 
we mean above the level of - or beyond the level of 
prediction, that's all, on the part of theta. It's an odd 
thing, but a fellow who knows he's going to have a needle 
shoved into his arm doesn't get anywhere near the pain as 
the fellow who doesn't know he's going to get a needle 
shoved into his arm. If you don't believe this, you can 
find some people who are looking the other way and shove 
a needle into them suddenly and measure the gradient of 
temper rise. (audience laughter). And if you were to take 
this same person and stand him up in a line and he watched 
the needle and he knew he - was going to go in, oddly enough, 
it would hurt much less.

Now, when he's very aberrated, however, and has - oh, he's
bogged down thoroughly in energy and matter and that sort
of thing, he will postulate pain for the needle, and even
though you didn't shove it in, it would hurt. See? Now,
when a person comes down Tone Scale, they do that all the
time. And they finally get the idea that pain is just terrible!

You take Home sapiens and say, "Now we're going to take out
your left eyeball and rub it with sandpaper," and he
winces: one, he has no confidence in being able to mock up
a usable eyeball, so there's a scarcity of them, you see?
And, two, he knows it's going to hurt.

Now, the terrible part of this is, is one actually
postulates every sensation he gets. You think you get 
sensation from this and from that, you think you get 
sensation from turkey and you think you get sensation 
from something else. You're very convinced that sensation 
exists and that it comes from an exterior source. And 
the odd part of it is, is the more sensation you "take"
from an exterior source, the less you could feel.

First, it's more and more you can feel and then less and
less you feel. One believes so long as one agrees that he
is taking sensation from an exterior source, continually
taking it from an exterior source and needs an exterior
source to procure sensation, he is in agreement with the
MEST universe, which is in itself, one might say, the
average or the mean of agreement. It's the average agreement 
on the actuality of illusion. It's sort of the work-out 
average of agreements all the way down the track, and we 
sit here in the MEST universe. You've agreed on it very 
thoroughly. And by the way, your preclear and your group 
doesn't happen to want this changed. They know that wall 
is liable to disappear. They really know that, and so you 
start shaking them up with a process which is a very 
shaking process, and they'll fudge on you, they -
"Ha-ha-ha-ha. No, no. Ha, No."

Now, the MEST universe and all these particles - evidently
a very beautiful set of illusions. Pain itself is an
illusion, but what a real illusion. So in the Professional 
Course we talk about reality and actuality - two different
things.

Reality is what we have agreed on in this universe to be
real, And actuality: Actuality is what you yourself are
capable of making. Now that's actual, because you know you
made it. But you've got the MEST universe here, you don't
know that you had anything to do with making this, so
that's merely real. So let's get the difference between
those two things.

Now, here's the test of this whole thing. If you want to
better anybody's ability to perceive, you'd think the best
thing to do would be to handle energy and have them agree
with energy and the laws of energy and the whereabouts of
particles. You'd want them to agree with this, wouldn't
you? And if they agreed with it and you study this and they
would study it more and more, therefore they could perceive
it better and better, couldn't they? Mm-hm.

That is the theory on which science has been working, and
it is not true. I'm sorry that it isn't true because it
would all be so simple. It would be terribly simple if it
were true.

Naturally, you could then look at a piece of MEST - matter,
energy, space and time, just a composite word - and just
look at a piece of MEST here and you would say, "Ha! Now
all we have to do is study the anatomy of that MEST and we
will know all there is to know." Oh, no! That isn't true.

You start studying this MEST and you start studying it to
get data from it, and you plow in deeper and deeper and
deeper and deeper and deeper. And you finally go to work
for General Electric or somebody. (audience laughter)

Now, I would say - this is prediction, I've never noticed
this - I would say the physics instructor at a school had
more difficulty in his personal life than the English
instructor in terms of handling things, automobiles and
things, what happened to automobiles, but that the English
instructor would have more difficulty in his emotional life
than the physics teacher.

Now, that wouldn't hold at all, I mean, it's just one of
those things that give you an example which might be true,
because there are too many other factors entering in. If we
had one who was purely a physics teacher and one who was
purely an English teacher and who had never, one to the other, 
interchanged physics and English, why, we would find that 
to be the case.

One has agreed with the romantic and the emotional, has
agreed and agreed and agreed with literary concepts, and
he's plowed in with them. He'll just plow right on in.

A writer generally goes bad in about three years. When I
say, "Goes bad," I mean he stops writing. That's
interesting, isn't it? By practice he ought to write more
and more and more and more and more and more. And if it
were true that just this MEST were actual and so on, he
would really go on writing more and more. The more he
practiced, the better he would be. Everything is sort of
founded on that basis, and it isn't true. The writer
practices writing and goes bad in three years. There's a
dull stale taste in his mouth at every story he writes at
the end of three years, believe me, and I don't care who
that is.

Now, the person who studies this has a reali - has an
actuality instead of a reality - who studies this MEST
eventually gets to a point where he can't see it anymore.
Well, that's silly. If it worked out the other way, if it
had a reality, he would, of course, be able to see it
better and better and feel it better and better when he
knew more and more about it. And yet, he's getting worse
and worse on it.

He's getting worse on distances; he's getting worse on
estimations of effort and so on. He starts wearing
sporn-rimmed hectacles and getting kidney trouble and all
sorts of weird things start happening to this fellow. All
he's got to do is keep on agreeing with this, just keep on
agreeing with it. And if he agrees with it long enough,
it'll finish him. Well now, that's silly, isn't it? You
work that out and it's illogical. Well, why is it? Why am I
bringing it up at all?

Because there is a way to improve this stuff so that it
does. It gets more and more actual or more and more
real - any way you want to phrase it. You could get this so
your perception of it is better and better and better and 
better and better and better and better and better, and
it's solider and solider and so on. How do you do that? 
By improving your ability to perceive an illusion.

If your ability to perceive an illusion gets very good,
your ability to perceive the MEST universe gets wonderful.
You'd say, "Well, this is just a problem of perception,"
Well, it's kind of strange that it doesn't work out
otherwise. If you, ha, let a fellow go out and perceive
MEST and perceive MEST, practice perceiving MEST, he
practically goes blind. But if you have a fellow go out 
and perceive illusions, perceive illusions, perceive 
illusions, his eyesight gets wonderful. So it tells you 
something about this stuff about which we are so confident, 
which is so solid.

Now, the fellow comes along and he pounds the desk and he
says, "Well, this is solid enough for me, because I can
feel it." Huh, very silly. What's he pounding the desk
with? He's pounding the desk with a piece of MEST. And he's
registering the estimation of the collision of particles in
his fist and the particles on the desk, and this doesn't
even vaguely agree that there are either particles in his
fist or particles in the desk. Neither one. It doesn't
prove anything.

Just because a MEST particle can collide with a MEST
particle is no reason MEST exists. All we can infer from
that is the fact that as long as you can perceive that, we
know that your ability to perceive it exists. And any time
we go out any further than that, as a truth, we get in
trouble, we get in real trouble.

We say, "We perceive this, therefore it exists." Well, for
heaven's sakes, add these words to that: "for me" or "for
us." Now, that's all you have to do and it's a correct
statement. "I see this, therefore it is," is an incorrect
statement. "I see this, therefore it is for me or for us,"
is a correct statement.

So, this beautiful, thick, solid, heavy, trying, painful,
wicked stuff called MEST is just those adjectives to the
degree that you agree with it. And when you start turning 
the current back on it and saying, "Nuh-uh," you can then 
and there, and only then and there, start controlling it.

The funny - funny things happen. It's not esoteric. By the way,
all this is very easily traceable because we are dealing in
natural law with the consecutive agreements on which we
have agreed to agree down the track. And that includes the
law of gravity.

We agree that when you have this lump here called Earth,
it's got gravity on it and you'll stick there. And as long
as you believe that and so on, you'll stick here. But the
second that you just don't - not just disbelieve it - the
second that you make it unnecessary to believe it any
longer, I won't guarantee that you'll stay here, but your
body will.

Well, let's see, this is - we're going out now into a
realm of it that in a short series of this character we
really have no business talking about. But we are dealing,
oddly enough, with nuclear physics, because the first
fellows to say this, the first fellows to come down with an
ax on the reality of the MEST universe were the nuclear
physicists. Who was it said at the end line of his book,
"And when all is said and done, I cannot help but believe
that this universe is just an idea." Any good physicist can
reduce it reductio ad absurdum to a zero. And he does it
with great speed. Atoms? Oh, yes. Sure, sure, public
consumption. What's an atom? I don't know. Neither does
anybody else. And the odd part of it is, they've never seen
one, and the odd part of that is, they probably never will.
But I suppose a few of the boys agreed that you would get a
quantum of energy when you thought a certain thought, and
after that we get an atom bomb. It's as silly as this. Now,
all of this I want you to know - take it or leave it, it
doesn't matter - but I want you to know it for this reason,
so that you won't underrate the progress which can be made
by bettering the ability to perceive an illusion. If you 
better the ability to perceive an illusion, you will better 
the ability to perceive and handle and act in the MEST 
universe. And that's what you're trying to do.

When a child is trying to study, he's trying to find out
how to act in the MEST universe. You want to better that
ability, don't you? Well, you can better it right there at
the start by bettering his ability to perceive an illusion.

Now, a child is pretty good at this. You'd say, therefore,
a child should be able to get along very well at this. No,
he's in a very unmanageable body. He's something on the
order of a - a young child is something on the order of a
pilot who has just been put in an eight-motored bomber. It
gets switches, and you got hydraulic this and that. I mean,
he's ... Gee.

As a matter of fact, little babies can understand you.
Nobody ever took the care before to ask a little baby
something or other or give him a signal. They can
understand you before they're very old. You can talk to
them. Only you have to talk to them. You don't say,
"Dah-dah, da-da" and so forth. And you expect them to
answer you in English with a voice. And you're not going to
do that because they're not in control of those vocal
cords, but that doesn't mean they couldn't answer you. So
you see, you don't quite know that until you investigate it
all the way. You don't, just don't take it for granted that
babies don't know anything.

Now, we'll take a five-, six- and seven-, eight-year-old
child, we're really having fun now. This person first began
to learn how to run this eight-motored bomber - doing all
right because they started in just naturally. They kind of
got it by postulates and they were getting along all right,
and then suddenly somebody said, "Don't go here, don't do
this. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Start, start, start. Change,
change, change." Somebody else was handling this bomber.

Did you ever try to fly a plane, by the way, with a pilot
on eack wing as well as one in the middle? And after a
while, the child says that this is all energy. "I have to
handle all this by energy." So he gets worsg and he gets
clumsy. And then the next thing you know ... Of course,
that's very silly. Why, how could a child handle anything
by energy? Well, you handle things by energy by postulating
you've got some energy, and then the energy will handle it.

Now, a child has a hard time. And he's practically out of
his mind by the time he's five. He's very hard to get in
communication with by the time he's five, six, seven,
eight. You see, parents sometimes will say, "Oh, aren't my
children having a good time." The children are out there
having psychotic fits! You know, they're running around the
yard and running around a tree and they're falling over
tricycles and banging each other up and ... Gee. Just
horrible.

Oddly enough, what was destroyed in those children was 
dignity. If you ever want to see an awful lot of dignity, 
take a little baby that has been left alone, that is to 
say, hasn't been handled much and is - so on. Great 
dignity. Oh, you'd think they were the king of India or 
something. And you insult that dignity and they'll really 
come down on you, too. The child has been handled and 
pushed and bossed and pushed and handled, and their dignity 
is shot. The second that goes - bang.

Now, the most hectic, excitable, and below that, apathetic
children, or adult, will be those who have been forced to
handle things with energy, and they've been kind of pushed
at things. Force has been painted up to them as being
really something. They've been manhandled pretty much, and
they're kind of spun in. And they have a very harsh
agreement. I mean, they believe in this universe. They
believe they're going to get hurt~ They believe in all
sorts of bad lions, And they have this idea that they can't
handle anything unless they do it with force or with
motion. The apathetic child knows he can't use any force,
and so therefore can't handle anything, And the one who is
hectic and so forth, believes they have to use all this
motion in order to get something done. In either case,
their dignity is gone. They have been used too much as a
particle.

Now, when you're dealing with children, you're dealing with
particles, really. And you have to bail them out to a point
where they're no longer particles, but they are something
that makes particles. When you do that, they have recovered
their dignify, and they've also recovered their poise, and
they are also orderly and can now learn the MEST universe,
But you know something about the MEST universe is they have
to have a lot of imagination to counter-balance the
necessity of agreeing with the MEST universe. And that is
mostly denied them.

A child goes around with a great deal of imagination. He
imagines, imagines, imagines, imagines. And people come
down on him rather heavily for it. Well, they're closing 
the line. They're closing his road to any stature by coming 
down on this. You're not trying to rehabilitate the ability 
of the child, however, to imagine. Don't make that mistake; 
this has more purpose than that.

You're actually bringing him back to a point of recognition
of what he really is, rather than just a particle.

Now, here we have this gradient scale. At the bottom: the
child as a particle or the adult as a particle. They're an
object or a collection of particles. They're solid. They
know they're solid. And they also think slowly, act slowly,
are erratic, cannot concentrate and so on.

Now, the less that condition exists, the brighter they are.
And so they come on upscale and they're less and less a
particle and more and more a thing which creates and
controls particles, and they go right on upscale. And you
have to get a child pretty well upscale before they can
concentrate and before they can absorb information.

Now let's talk a little bit more about this thought,
emotion and effort. Way high on the scale, if you
have energy at all, it would be called in the band of
thought; lower on the scale we have the band of emotion,
and below that we have the band of effort.

Effort is heavy. Those particles could be considered to be
not just large, but particles which went crunch, which ran
into things, which handled masses of particles and so on.
We could consider this on this level: thought we might
consider a gull or a bird or something like that, and
emotion we might consider some relatively earthbound but
still free particle, and effort we'd consider a bulldozer - 
real heavy! They can push, push and so on. That's the band.

Now, effort is way down there towards zero on the band. Men
who have to do hard work over a long period of time rapidly
lose all of their ability to soar rapidly. And they use
hard strength and hard work in general. You don't see very
many people stepping out of the ditch-digging business into
the upper realms of poetry. Once in a while you do, and of
course that becomes very, very sensational.

Well now, what we have here, then, is a gradient scale of,
you'd say, a type of particle. At each one of these levels
you might say there's a particle. There's certain particles
would be just below 40.0, and then there would be a certain
class of particles down around 20.0 and there would be a
class of particles around 0.0

Well, supposing we had a road, and this road consisted of
half road and half bridges. And you tried to walk down that
road and you were getting along fine, and all of a sudden 
you found a bridge missing. It would leave you - if you 
couldn't span that area - it would leave you on the heavy 
part of the road, wouldn't it? I mean, it'd leave you on the 
part of the road you had traversed; it would leave you in a 
certain area. 

Now, let's say that a person starts down Tone Scale and goes 
from particle to particle to particle to particle down Tone 
Scale. In other words, somebody who was fairly high on the 
Tone Scale suddenly starts using heavy effort, and then 
turns around and starts to go back up the Tone Scale again 
and finds a bridge out. It would leave him with heavy effort, 
wouldn't it?

Now, that's just a very crude analogy, because it isn't
exactly what happens. A missing section of the Tone Scale
would then inhibit one going back up.

Well, let's say you had some kind of an idea that particle
A was mergeable with theta and usable with theta and one
could be theta as long as he had this particle A, and it
was perfectly safe to go over into a more detached
particle; that is, a particle that wasn't quite as intimate
with theta. And then he gets over to B or C or D or down
that line. And then he turns around and he says, "All
right, now we've always got particle A, and so we can merge
back into being theta again." And one day he puts it to
test and particle A is gone. He can't get back into theta
again; this leaves him in emotion or it leaves him in
effort. Another analogy. Apt or not it's painting a picture
by it, I hope. Let's take a mixture. There are certain
chemical compounds which require a dash of something before
they become other chemical compounds. And supposing you
took this catalyst in some process - this catalyst that would
turn this whole chemical compound over, and you just remove
that catalyst and made it unavailable. The chemical
compound never would be anything else but the chemical
compound it had become.

Let's take something else. Let's take a bomb and let's put
a fuse in it. Now, a bomb fuse generally runs into
something like fulminate of mercury, which runs into
granular TNT, which then explodes heavy TNT, This fellow
handles this bomb on a gradient scale, in other words. This
little flash explodes a little greater flash which is then
capable of exploding this great big mass. And that bomb
isn't going to go off at all, it isn't going to work if the
fulminate of mercury is missing, You could try to blow up
that granular TNT all you pleased. And as a matter of fact,
even if you put a match to it, it would just burn. That
bomb won't explode. In other words, we're getting further
and further away from workability.

Now, similarly, if we consider particles to exist in the
mind, we might say - and with a little study on this subject
you will see the facsimiles, running facsimiles, behavior
of particles, ridges, all of this, flows - you can observe
all this. But the point is if there was a particle missing
in the mind (crude analogy) the mind could safely then 
adventure into the handling of all sorts of things, and 
then turn around and find there was a missing bridge; or try 
to blow up these memories in order to be free of that 
experience or something of the sort and find there was a 
missing fuse; or try to make this compound into something 
else and have no catalyst all of a sudden. That would be 
quite serious.

We've talked continually for years on the one-shot Clear.
Well, I've been thinking for a long time about there must
be a button within the button within the button. We've got
lots of buttons. We isolated about thirteen or fourteen
buttons; they were quite important and they appeared on the
Chart of Attitudes.

But there must be one button. Well, there isn't so much one
button as there's one particle missing. And this missing
particle - it boils down to the fact that we were searching,
really, for a missing particle that would have - there was
something gone: a catalyst, the bomb fuse, the bridge, it
was missing. And we couldn't quite make the whole jump.
When a case was very bad off, we couldn't make the jump
hardly at all.

We could do it and do it on a sort of a gunshot principle,
skirting it one way or the other and just gunning through
somehow or other. But there was something that case that was
the worst off was missing the most of that some other cases
weren't. So it required considerable thought on this basis,
and as soon as it started working with a gradient scale of
particles going back up to theta again, it began to test
particles. And I've tested lots of all sorts of particles.
And it was interesting that an empirical test is, with our
other techniques, very, very possible today. We can make a
test, in other words, a laboratory test, just as though you
were dealing with test tubes.

You're working a case. Well now, what solves this case? And
you could say all sorts of particles were missing, and sure
enough, you would find evidence in each case that this
particle evidently had something to do with it, but it was
not THE particle.

Now testing case after case after case one got the idea
after a while that there was some sensation missing. All
right. If there was sensation missing, then maybe Freud was
right, hm? Maybe it was sex. All right. Now, let's take
that sensation and find out whether or not this was the
missing particle. Hm-mm. No.

Now, let's try and just run the concept of love. The
Christian says that love, you know, all is love, love,
love, love. Let's run it. Bogs the case down - bang, boom. 
Oh! Oh, boy, that's one you don't want to play with.

Now, somebody else says, "Truth is beauty and beauty is
truth, and never the twain shall meet," and so we try
that. Does it work? Nuh-uh.

Well, do we know whether or not the thing will work? Oh
yes, we do, because the preclear will turn on, now be able
to remember and do lots of things that - IQ go up and all
sorts of things would happen; facsimiles would disappear,
deformities would go by the boards. In other words, got
plenty of visual, testable evidence if that's the particle.

So we go on down the line, We find out that - well, I don't
know. Oh, this MEST universe is in wonderful condition on
honor and justice. Justice, oh, boy. That's one everybody
will writhe about. Let's test justice as though it were a
particle. And what do we find in the testing of justice?
It's a restriction. It's just an aberration. That's a
horrible thing to discover, isn't it?

You tell people that injustice can exist and that justice
does exist, and then you feed them injustice and that makes
them outraged and pushes them down Tone Scale and they can
be controlled. This doesn't say that justice is not a
highly desirable, high-level thing. But in the engram bank,
in the reactive mind, it's just an operation. So that
wasn't the particle.

Well, how about nobility? Well, people should feel noble
and so forth. Did that work? Uh-uh. No. That's another one.

Well, what about dignity? What about this, that? What about
sacrifice? What about knowing? What about responsibility?
What about the rest of those buttons up there at the top
of the Chart of Attitudes? None of them fit. Isn't that funny 
that they just didn't fit, until all of a sudden we run into 
a particle you wouldn't quite have suspected offhand had any 
horsepower in it. But a bridge or lead azide or this fulminate 
of mercury is nothing compared to this particle.

It's interesting, it's just a little bit upsetting because
it's a particle that everybody agrees is kind of unworthy a
little bit. It's something you shouldn't have too much to
do with. It's a little sophistry, flattery and there's
other things like this and it's kind of bad, and we won't
give this one out. Well, you should have suspected that one 
as the first one then. Because this universe is sort of
booby-trapped. And you should have suspected that that one
which was the least of would have called in all of the
liabilities of scarcity. Because of course the particle
that was the key particle would be the particle that
everybody said was the scarcest, or that shouldn't be used
at all. And that particle is admiration. My, that's horrible, 
isn't it? Admiration.

Now, a person goes along just so long in life, and he - 
admiration you know, he works to get some admiration; he
doesn't get it, and it sticks him into working for some
more admiration; and he doesn't get it, so it sticks him
into working into some more admiration; and he doesn't get
it, and it sticks him into working for some more admiration; 
and he doesn't get it, and it leaves him stuck as a very 
unadmirable character. It'll even make a Home sapiens out 
of him,

Now therefore, we are looking - when we look at this scale - 
we're looking at a scale which has a little particle
in it that we can mark. Part of that gradient scale is a
particle, and we can call that particle admiration. And it
seems to answer up with people here, there, around - 
admiration. Now, that's the particle. And you don't have to
know - you should... Of course, you know an auditor has to
know about all kinds of things the way he has to handle
flows and particles and things, but this - the point we're
making here is that we've got a missing particle which, in
its absence, causes effort and emotion to jam on the track.
It is the catalyst particle which permits a flow between
two terminals. And in the absence of this particle the
communication line between two terminals won't function, It
is the grease on which current runs. Now, you talked a
little earlier about terminals; you don't get an
interchange between two terminals unless you've got that
admiration particle in there. And the second you don't have
it there you lock up a terminal and lock up a whole section
and lock up somebody in heavy effort. And you lock him up
in engrams. Just like that. (snap) There he is, there he
is. He's stuck. He's stuck with it. And he'll go on
dramatizing it until he can get that particle.

========== LGC-4 continued

[This is where the old reel labled LGC-4 begins. The R&D
version was checked against the old reel from here on.]


Continuing this fourth lecture on the theory of admiration,
that thing which is admired will disappear, and that thing
which is nonadmired persists. Now, that's a heck of a note,
isn't it? This universe is rigged backwards unfortunately. 
It is actually, and people complain every once in a while 
about its contrariness and not-admire its contrariness and 
make it even more contrary.

So that, naturally if you get a free flow only in the 
presence of this particle called admiration - you get free
flow then, it'll just flow itself out. And if you get no 
flow in the absence of this particle, you just get a stuck.

Let's take the Indian and his raising of children. He did 
a very interesting thing. He raised his children with
enormous praise for all the things that were good. His
theory of raising children - and this is a North American
Indian - his theory of raising children was to praise all
the things they did that were good.

Little boy - the whole tribe would gang up on some little
boy. He'd be carrying some water or something of this sort,
and they would - everybody that would see him going along
they would say, "What a good boy." Or he'd be packing
some game for Papa - "What a good boy." They went out of
their road to admire what he was doing. And sure enough it
cohesed the tribe. And on an analytical level - you must never
forget there is an analytical level - he was quite proud of
doing these sort of things, but they had - nonadmiration was
playing in there on the subject of not being good. And you
had an entire race with a thirst for torture and human
bestiality which was unequaled anywhere else. Interesting,
isn't it? In other words, they ran out of the kid all the
human characteristics and left in all the inhuman
characteristics. They did a big job of evaluation on him.

Evaluation is itself aberrative when it is on a conduct level. 
All angels have two faces. An angel has a good face and a 
bad face. It's traditional. Man has been saying this and 
using this data and building his idols this way since time 
immemorial. There's the good angel and the bad angel, but 
it's the same angel.

"I am the God of Vengeance," says Yahweh; "I am the God of
Love,"'" says Yahweh. Sure. In order to be a complete unit - 
two terminals in one being - he'd have to be the God of 
good and the God of evil.

In other words, you'd have him two terminals in the same
being. But do you know that that's not top scale by a long
ways? It's about 8.0 on the Tone Scale. Up above that level
- good, bad? No, no. We have practicality and alignment or
misalignment without thought, really, to whether it's a
survival or nonsurvival activity. We just have something
being done because it, well, should be done. We don't have
tremendous condemnation, we don't have tremendous evaluation 
upscale.

It tells you that in terms of conduct and behavior one of
the most aberrative activities in which man can engage would 
be to condemn and not admire a certain strata of action and 
to admire greatly another strata of action because it will 
run the second one out and leave the bad one in.

In other words, nothing will flow on these other terminals
where you have something bad. And so you get more and more
crime, more and more insanity, a world hitting a dwindling
spiral, which is what you behold today.

Now, it's horrible, isn't it? The remedy for this, you say,
is going around maybe and admire evil. No, no. No, because
evil is evil, there's no doubt about that. What's bad for
man is bad for man. But people on a nonadmiration basis
will get so they go out of their road to evaluate. "Now, we
must criticize. We know we must criticize to do this and to
do that," We must nonadmire, in other words.

A person goes out through the bottom quickly on this. If
you nonadmire something high level like painting, why, the
fellow will paint, paint. Paint. Paint! (gasp) And he's
going to grrrrr-urr. And then he doesn't paint so much and
he doesn't paint and then he doesn't paint. Oh, no. Then
he's painting? Hm, You see, now he went right down through
the Tone Scale from enthusiasm on a nonadmiration basis
into finally apathy. And so it will drive somebody down
into apathy.

So the law in punishing crime on a nonadmiration basis,
which is really nonadmiration, exclamation point, just
wants to drive a bunch of people into apathy. And do you
know there's nobody more dangerous than a person in apathy.
That's not a good solution. A criminal in apathy is still a
criminal. Only now he doesn't care who he kills. If he
kills anybody, it might as well be you, his wife or so on.
He's going to go that way. If he does that way, he's just
lost his determination on the thing; he's just all mixed
up, in other words.

So evaluation is tied in with this rather well. And high
level on the scale, you don't start noticing anything wrong
with this because a person has a tendency to be in present
time in the future all the time. And he doesn't have any
past hanging up to amount to anything, but as he goes
downscale, he'll start to get the past hanging up. Why?
That's because why he keeps carrying along with him all
the things which he thinks should be admired which haven't
been admired. He starts insisting on his right to do these
things, all kinds of aberrated things here.

Your little kid being bad or being stupid is running on a
course of action which is a nonadmired course. The therapy
is not to admire the bad course, because that hits him on
an analytical level, and we're after all just addressing an
illusion when we're addressing it. So we'll just not worry 
about that. You don't misinterpret this. We're not saying 
that a person - the way of existence is, in living in present 
time, is simply to admire everything. No, no. No, we're just 
trying to get a fellow unstuck out of his past and make him 
evaluate in terms of future very easily.

Now, if he can go around and sneer at everything he
pleases, that's his right, nothing wrong with that. So,
when it catches up with him, he ought to know enough to run
it out.

You don't have to tolerate, drive yourself into apathy,
everything bad because nonadmiration of it will hang it up
on the track. Use it sometimes. Be mean, qualify the thing.
You'll find out there are many ways where you could just
delete the particle and you get a persistence.

Now, a child who studies well gets praise, praise, praise.
Fine, that runs it out. And there you go, see, it's gone.
And the child who in - but he doesn't know algebra; that's
because he doesn't know arithmetic. Well, nobody - you'll
find out that he hit a nonadmiration for error. He made a
mistake in arithmetic. And he made several other mistakes
in arithmetic, and the next thing you know these were not
admired, not admired, and he goes right on making more and
more mistakes in mathematics. And you catch him at the age
of twenty-two or twenty-three, and he adds six and six and
gets fifteen every time.

Well now, what do you do? You just have him admire
arithmetic; the lock will turn up. That's all. Just get him
admiring arithmetic. And he'll suddenly say, "I don't know
whether I admire this or not, here's a time I got caned
for... " so on.

You say, "Well, admire the stick, admire the cane. Now
let's make a mock-up and admire it a great deal of somebody
being caned." Next thing you know, he gets six and six and
gets twelve, Whyl The held-down five. How do you hold a
held-down five? How do you hold one down? It's a missing
thing that prevents the flow. There isn't a flow through
five rather than a held-down five. And when there is no
flow to flow through five, five keeps adding itself onto
the equation time after time after time after time.

When you take all possible admiration out of five, you'd
think nobody would do five anymore. Mm-hm, no. Five just
then goes down and stays there. This comes because of
evaluation, you understand. Somebody has - but you have to
have made this adjudication: "I will be admired," the
individual says, "if I study arithmetic." He studies
arithmetic and he gets his throat cut. So it leaves him
stuck with a necessity for admiration on the subject of
arithmetic, but mostly with failure, And he just keeps 
putting forward the errors of arithmetic. And he says, 
"Someday, somewhere, sometime, somebody is going to give 
me the admiration that requires - to knock this out!" 
That's a horrible joke. The only person that can give him 
any admiration that will register on his bank is himself. 
And that's horrible, isn't it?

Now, all the admiration that you will get, it wouldn't
matter if you were the key star of the cinema; it wouldn't
matter if you were the most admired king, god or beast
that existed; it would not matter at all. That admiration
is not going to run out your bank! You just think it is,
which keeps you plowing forward, plowing forward, working
for admiration.

You notice that people work and then get paid? They don't
get paid and then work. All right, there's why. They worked
and then somebody didn't pay them. So they worked some more
and then they didn't get paid; and then they worked some
more and didn't get paid. And the next thing you know,
there they are on the LCC staff. Well, anyway ...
(audience laughter)

We have - you see, the effort won't run itself out. The
only person that can pay them is themselves in terms of
admiration. It doesn't matter much how much admiration.

Once in a while somebody will walk up to a person and say
something to them and then they will realize that they
should turn on some admiration from themselves, so they
dub-in some admiration from this person over to themselves.
They say, "He is admiring me." They put the admiration
there and feel it. And then they say, "Tsk. Ha. Guess I'll
have to work harder," something of the sort, You get the 
idea? He puts - "See, I got to find some way to get some
more of that admiration."

This is nonsense, you see, to think that a current is
actually going to set up, because it won't, and it doesn't.
But you could cause a man to turn it on himself, And when
you cause him to turn it on for himself, it will run him
out and bring him up to present time because he's stuck in
all the times in the past when he thought he should get
admiration and didn't. And he just hit that, bong, hit
that, bong. So he's bogged down and he's stuck. You want
this man in present time and the future. You don't want him
in the past.

A psychotic is living in the past. A neurotic is only in
present time and a very sane person is in the future. He's 
living against the future. All right.

This adds up then. And you will know that two things are
wrong with a child or an adult, A child has got a
nonadmiration for badness, and it's that very badness which
you see him dramatizing. And that's not admired, not
admired, not admired, not admired, and he's making it
stick, making it stick, making it stick. Now, you can drive
him into apathy so he won't act at all in any field on
anything - some people have this as the definition of a good
child - or you can simply get him to run it out.

Now, how do you get him to run it out as a member of a
group without addressing this problem at all? Well, instead
of reading sight and sound and other perceptics at the
bottom of the page on Self Analysis, you just make the kids
admire their mock-ups. Doesn't matter what the mock-up is.
Get them to admire the mock-up and so on. Once in a while
have the mock-up admire them.

It doesn't matter what you do. Every once in a while you
have a somatic turn on in one of these kids. They'll say,
"Yah-yah-yah-yahyah-yah-yah." You say, "Well, the next
somatic you get - on the next mock-up you get, put it
where you got the somatic," And that will run it out.
Because their mock-ups are terminals, terminals. A man is
as sane as and has as much energy as he believes he has 
terminals. See, he's fixed on this two-terminal idea. It's 
not true, but he uses it all the time.

And so he puts these mock-ups up around him and he knows
he's got terminals. And his confidence - his confidence in
getting an energy flow is his confidence in getting
terminals. That's all. And so, if he can put up terminals,
he knows that he can get all the admiration in the future
he wants. Why, sure, he can put up terminals into the
future. Nothing to that. That's all. It's quite simple.

Now, as far as actual terminals are concerned, you will
find that child is in the most serious trouble who has lost
a terminal suddenly or gradually. Had a father and a
mother. There were two terminals. He didn't live in himself
at all, he lived on those two terminals. He sort of had a
body and he ran around and everything, but he's Father and
Mother. And he had a terminal and they had an interchange.
And a father and mother admire each other, boy, that's a
good, smooth, flowing terminal. Nothing goes wrong,
everything is fine.

Papa and Mama don't like each other Nuh-uh-uh-uh. Nuh-uh.
Or if there's just one there, or one of them is very mean,
you'll get a terminal proposition of the child using
himself as one terminal and using the other parent. And you 
get this "You did this," and Olympus [Oedipus] and other 
things happening.

Now, therefore, you as - in a school can become a terminal
and a child can be very fixed on you. And then one day you
get transferred to another class. Don't go back and look at
the mental stability of some of the kids of the class you
just left. You just robbed them of a terminal. You're quite
sensible of this, by the way; you can sort of feel this
with the kids. You're a terminal.

And whether they think you're a good terminal or a bad
terminal, you're still a terminal. And those children that
were missing a terminal at home, or those veterans or
adults who don't have any terminals, they're using you as a
terminal. Well, it behooves you to keep your nose pretty
clean, because you're the only terminal they've got. And
when you stand up in front of a group as a Group Auditor
you are, whether you like it or not, becoming an integral
terminal in this person's existence. Therefore, it's very
good to swap around the auditors a bit so that you don't
get too fixed on this. All right, all right.

I hope you can understand this very easily. It isn't
terribly complicated. It's what is not admired persists.
And this is horrible, by the way, just is horrible, because
it works out - it works out such ghastly computations.

Now, a fellow who is living in the past is living in the
past because he's sure he had a terminal in the past and he
knows he hasn't got one in the present or he knows he
couldn't possibly ever get one in the future, So he can't
have an interchange, he can't flow. There is no flow there.
Nonadmiration. He gets into the past, this nonadmiration
will persist, persist, persist, because he's still got a
fixed terminal. It's still sitting there, it's still a
terminal. It's - obviously can be used, but it doesn't work.
And you get the bafflement of the psychotic. He's using
these terminals in the past, and he knows they're terminals
and he knows they should work, and they don't work, and he
doesn't know why they don't work. And he'll haul those
right up into present time and try to use them as
terminals. Because he's sure he hasn't got a terminal in
present time much less have one in the future.

Now you take a neurotic, he's holding on desperately to
terminals in present time. Terminals plot against time, you
see? It's time change that makes an electric flow. You got
to change the time and the terminal at the same time, so
you have a past-future, past-future, past-future in any
electronic circuit. All right.

He hangs onto these terminals in present time and plots
them against something a little bit in the past, or he
hangs on to terminals in present time and plots them
against something in the future. That last is a very
healthy thing. That is the child who is holding on to the
toy gun. He's holding on to that toy gun because one of
these days he's going to be a cowboy. And he's got a
mock-up out here in the future. See, there's a cowboy.
That's his terminal. He's going to be this fellow. And he's
running on that as energy, he thinks. All right, that's his
energy line. Zing, zing, zing. That will be terrifically
admired. And one day you see him and he just looks like
he'd trip over his chin, it's so low.

And you say, "What's the matter with you?" If you plowed
into it, you would find that he had some kind of a mock-up
of him that he had mocked up for the future. He said this
is a future mock-up. You see him mock up into the future
very easily because you're not in the future anyway, there
isn't any time.

Anyway, here's this future mock-up and it's a cowboy. And
somebody has come along and taken his mock-up away from
him. How did they do it? They have simply convinced him
that cowboys are no good. And he hits bottom. How does he
hit bottom? He just stops getting a flow. He has no more
flow. That's the end. It's just like you turn off an
electric light, The kid will look like that. You've
destroyed a mock-up. You say, "Cowboys are no good." You've
convinced this kid they're no good and he doesn't want to
be a cowboy, and so on. I almost got killed one time,
actually, in a little Spanish village way back up in the
mountains down in the West Indies by simply telling a bunch
of natives that that was a bad Western picture and the
cowboys in it weren't actual. It was one of these little
two-bit movie houses, you know - the silent film, filmed
lord knows how long ago. And I just explained this, that
there were better cowboy pictures than this - I was trying
to say that. And I just said these characters weren't real.
And I had taken their mock-ups away from them, and believe 
me, the fellows I was with almost killed me! Didn't realize
what I was doing.

Well, you will find, then, that life goes most smoothly
which goes on a high level of admired illusion. Sure, the 
kid will change his mind, he'll change his mind about wanting 
to be a cowboy. But as long as he wants to be a cowboy, you 
better not change his mind, because he's got a terminal 
there and it may be the only other one he's got. Maybe you're 
one, and it's the other. And if you were to tell him that 
cowboys were really no good, you'd probably send him home 
and he'd have a case of measles or something. It's as sudden 
and as explicable as that; these childhood illnesses and 
upsets.

Now, you take a veteran and he starts coming up out of
apathy and you - something tells him this is all no good.
He'll just sink back into apathy again. Well, your job is
to get him up above that level so that this sort of thing
doesn't happen to them. And it's relatively easy to do with
the processes we're using. Because if they become confident
of their mock-ups, then they're indestructible. Nothing can
destroy them.

You see, an illusory terminal, that is to say, a created
terminal by imagination is more valuable to the individual
than a real terminal. It's on his wavelength. And the real
terminal doesn't flow at him anyway. He just thinks it does.

Okay, let's take a very short break here.

[End of lecture. Note that the reel continues on into
LGC-4B which is the next tape in this series.]
