Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 12/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 24 Nov 1999 21:28:01 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@zedz.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 12/35 (20th American Advanced Clinical Course)

**************************************************

Contents

20th ACC - First Postulate Cassettes [clearsound]

New #    Old #   Date     Title

20ACC-1  (1)   14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE
20ACC-2  (1A)  14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-3  (2)   15 Jul 58 ACC PROCEDURE OUTLINED E-METER TRS
20ACC-4  (2A)  15 Jul 58 ACC PROC OUTLINED - E-METER TRS - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-5  (3)   16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED
20ACC-6  (3A)  16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-7  (4)   17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION
20ACC-8  (4A)  17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-9  (5)   18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE
20ACC-10 (5A)  18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-11 (6)   21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCIENTOLOGY CLEARING
20ACC-12 (6A)  21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCN - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-13 (7)   22 Jul 58 THE ROCK
20ACC-14 (7A)  22 Jul 58 THE ROCK - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-15 (8)   23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES,  ANATOMY OF
20ACC-16 (8A)  23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES, ANATOMY - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-17 (9)   24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE
20ACC-18 (9A)  24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAG. PROC - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-19 (10)  25 Jul 58 THE ROCK: PUTTING THE PC AT CAUSE
20ACC-20 (10A) 25 Jul 58 Q&A PERIOD - CLEARING THE COMMAND
20ACC-21 (11)  28 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET - GOALS OF AUDITING
20ACC-22 (12)  29 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont.)
20ACC-23 (13)  30 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont. 2)
20ACC-24 (14)  31 Jul 58 RUNNING THE CASE AND THE ROCK
20ACC-25 (15)   1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING
20ACC-26 (15A)  1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont.)
20ACC-27 (16)   4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont. 2)
20ACC-28 (16A)  4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-29 (17)   5 Aug 58 ARC
20ACC-30 (18)   6 Aug 58 THE ROCK - ITS ANATOMY
20ACC-31 (19)   7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL
20ACC-32 (19A)  7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-33 (20)   8 Aug 58 AUDITOR INTEREST
20ACC-34 (20A)  8 Aug 58 REQUISITES AND FUNDAMENTALS OF A SESSION
20ACC-35 (21)  15 Aug 58 SUMMARY OF 20TH ACC

The clearsound set includes an Appendix containing two HCOBs.  This
has been included with the first lecture above.

Note that old 15B "Q & A PERIOD" of 2 Aug 58 was marked as missing in
the Flag Master List and was later found by Gold.  Its absense here
probably means that they found it to be the same as old 16A (20ACC-28
in the above list).

Old number 19B "Q & A Period" of 8 Aug in the Flag Master List
is also omitted but 20ACC-32 (old 19A) is extremely long and probably
contains both old 19A and 19B.

Note 20ACC-2 (1A) does not appear on the Flag Master List but
appears to be genuine.

We were able to check ten of these against the old reels and
found minor omissions [marked ">" in the transcripts.]

**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************

20ACC-12 (6A)  21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCN - Q & A PERIOD

THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCIENTOLOGY CLEARING - QUESTION
AND ANSWER PERIOD

A lecture given on 21 July 1958

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

Yeah, Australia. I was there when they were still glad to
see Yanks.

Male voice: Wow, that was early.

That was early, wasn't it?

As a matter of fact, I was one of the first officers back
from the upper battle areas. And I've had Australian
officers meet me at airports and in offices and so forth,
and actually stand there with tears in their eyes, they
were so glad to see somebody give them a hand. I was the
total antiaircraft of Brisbane, once. One submachine gun.
They referred to me as the "ack-ack battery!" Yeah.

Boy, when naval observers came in there, by the way, they
looked at me in this patched-up office that I was running
it from; they couldn't believe that either, you see?
There'd been too much despatch traffic coming from this
particular part of the world, too many demands, too much
authority. We were ordering about US cruisers and things.
You know? We were not above telling people to arrive, and
sail, and get out of there, and dump their cargo and so forth.

And I'd sent, on my own authority, four cargo ships loaded
to the gunwales with machine gun ammunition, rifle
ammunition and quinine up to MacArthur.

Always - I always, right up to the time I managed to resign
from the Navy expected some day to get a bill for four ships.

Male voice: Did they get there?

Oh, yeah, two of them got there just as nice as you please.

But when Melbourne - when Melbourne found out that the office
was too active for them to do anything about, they went
into apathy for a while and then they got reinforced by
several admirals, and they finally got brave enough to put
the brakes on it. By that time there were enough troops in
the area so the danger was over, so I went home. I wrote
myself some orders and reported back to the US.

But I used to hear - for the next two or three years I'd run
into officers, and they would say, "Hubbard? Hubbard?
Hubbard? Are you Hubbard that was in Australia?" And I'd
say, "Yes."

And they'd say, "Oh!" Kind of, you know, horrified, like
they didn't know whether they should quite talk to me or
not, you know? Terrible man.

You go fighting a war all on your own like that, you know,
and start bypassing things and it's a pretty bad thing to
do. I want to caution you about it. Liable to get in trouble.

I think the war was fought by fellows who didn't care
whether they got in trouble or not. And after the war was
over all those who wanted to keep out of trouble stayed
in - dirty remark.

But there's a case of responsibility which is quite
interesting.

My God, what starts happening if you take responsibility
for your own little zone and then don't care who tells you
you shouldn't, you know. Lord, what things start happening
in that immediate vicinity. Wow! Funny part of it is, only
when you, yourself, decide not to take that much
responsibility, do you fall in. Only then do you start to
get it. And you have trouble right from there on out.

Well, we have a question period here. This is your
half-hour, not mine.

Yes, Jack?

Male voice: Yeah. You said on the 19th, that there is no
such thing as responsibil-irresponsibility?

There isn't, really.

Male voice: It's a sort of a person's causatively saying,
"I'm not responsible" is how it winds up?

Well, that's a peculiar one. Irresponsibility doesn't run.
That is the only test I have to back this up.

If there was such a thing as irresponsibility, it's not
necessarily true that this would work out, but this is one
of the rationales on which we proceed in research: that if
it won't run, it isn't. See? And a nonactuality won't run.

"Look around here and find something for which you do not
have to be responsible," doesn't run, runs, doesn't run, it
doesn't get anyplace, doesn't do anything. That's entirely
on what that rationale is based. On no more than this.

"Look around here and find something you can't help," is
the same Responsibility Process, almost.

The reason why Help and Responsibility and Create, Problems
and Change are always cropping up is that all other
computations extend from them. And undoubtedly there is
some kind of a combination which amounts to irresponsibility,
but it is not irresponsibility. Now, just exactly how that's
explained, I don't know.

Thank you, Jack. Is that it? All right.

Yes?

Male voice: Ron, wouldn't you say that responsibility is
that help is more basic - that responsibility comes from
help?

Yeah, yeah. But they're still separate commodities to
some degree. The two are not the same but they interlock.
And you can find them interlocking and not interlocking.

For instance, you can help somebody without having
consciously taken responsibility for him. You can imagine
a situation like that.

A fellow is lying there with a broken leg after an
accident, you didn't really take responsibility for his
having been in the accident at all, but you did patch up
his broken leg.

Now, afterwards you can conceive that you did take some
responsibility for him. Don't you see? In other words, they
can stand mentally separate. They can stand separate mentally.

Because these five things are so charged, they easily
identify. And they merge awfully easily.

They can become themselves a great, big blur, see? And
taking them apart one by one, just by definition, does some
remarkable things.

I might or might not remember, oh, I probably will, to tell
you a process on this particular line.

There is a process, "Invent an identity," by which you say,
"Invent a person," and then some such command as "Tell me
his idea of (one of these five buttons)." Now this is the
fastest mind-changer you ever saw. But in view of the fact
that you're pulling stable data out of the case, the case
goes into a rather tremendous confusion. It comes out of
this confusion fortunately if you substitute mock-ups for
the invent.

The basic process was "Invent a person." The reason you can
still use "Invent a person" - this will probably be important
to you later on in this course, so we'll take it up again;
but I'll just hit it in passing so that you'll know it
exists, and won't take you all by surprise - "Invent a
person." Now, maybe this fellow can't mock up, you see, and
if you told him to "mock up," his understanding of putting
a mental image picture out there is beyond him, well, he is
obsessively mocking up, so when you say "Invent" you do get
a mock-up out there in the darkness, anyhow.

And then you say, "Now tell me that person's ideas on..."
and then just take one of these five.

Now, let us say you're getting nowhere on the subject of
Change. In other words, the case is not changing. Well, I
could go further; I could give you a horrible example of a
case that's been in the shop. And I'll take this up again
later in the unit. But I'll just go over it very rapidly here.

This case keeps presenting a service fac. And the old
service facsimile is, of course, is a defensive mechanism.
That's a good old-time defensive mechanism. It protects all
the aberrations, and it's the coating on the Rock and
certainly isn't the Rock.

So, this person keeps chattering away, this particular pc,
he's the bugbear of the HGC occasionally - he really worries
them - and he chatters away obsessively about - all on the
service fac. And every time you change an auditor or
something like that on him, because he's been under
processing quite a long time - the new auditor is always
taken in by the convincingness of this individual on his
service fac.

Well, his service fac does happen to include his PT
problem. Duhh, boy, this was a killer, see? His service fac
is his PT problem and nobody will ever go anyplace else
than this because, of course, you can't unless you've
resolved his PT problem in some fashion.

All right, this is a case in extremis. And to unsettle the
case you could directly run Change. Directly. You could
say, "Invent a person. Now tell me that person's idea of
change. Thank you. Invent a person. Tell me that person's
idea of change. Thank you." All right, now you'd unsettle
the case. Just like you run Change on SCS to unsettle Start
and Stop. Not to get any results. You don't want any
positive results, but you want to unsettle the case so that
it then will shift. So, "Tell me an idea of change." All
right. Now, the individual has got Change unfixed, you can
expect something else to happen. So the next thing that's
going to happen to this fellow will be, "Invent a person
and tell me his definition of a problem." See? And we'll
run that one until we've shaken loose all of the nonsense
that he must have as stable data on the subject of problem.

By this time the case will rather be in a horrendous
confusion. But we couldn't care less. Better for him to be
in a confusion than to be half-dead the way he is now.

Now, we will take up this PT problem, see, and we'll run
it. But if the service fac is still in the road, we'll just
apply some good old-time Scientology and we'll run, "What
will it get you into? And what will it get you out of?"
which is one of the oldest processes known on a service
fac. Just alternately, you - "What will it get you into? What
will it get you out of? What will it get you into? What
will it get you out of?" It was used on this chap with a
broken back...

Male voice: Oh, yes.

..very successfully. A service fac.

Now, the only reason you'd monkey around with something
like that is because the individual can't be audited
because he's always presenting his service fac with such
forcefulness that you never can get past it to get any
auditing in, see? So, you might chip it out of the road if
it still persisted after you've done these first two things.

Now, this person has been null on Help, and this is what
makes the case a case. There is something wrong with this
individual's concept of help. See, that's a rare one. Help
won't run on any quarter of this case. Well, why won't it?
There must be...

Male voice: It's not there.

Huh?

Male voice: Help hasn't been run on them. It's a valence.

Help's been run on anything an auditor could think of, and
it just exactly goes nowhere.

Male voice: Yeah.

Now this is about the rarest case on record. This is like
the giant horned exboo in the mountains of the Himalayas,
you see. I don't think he's very standard. He isn't.

Now we'll have him invent a person and tell us that
person's idea of help. And it will be, "Help is impossible
to give anybody," or something, you see? He'd be totally
wound up on this particular subject.

Ordinarily in running it these definitions will shake out
of the case. Well, in this particular instance we're just
going to give it a frontal attack. This attack is beginning
this afternoon, by the way, on this week's auditing of this
PC. And I don't think his case will survive it.

So, "Invent a person. Tell me that person's idea of help."

Now, we might as well go all the way and run this
particular experimental Clear technique, which is what this
is, it's Clearing by Definition.

"Invent a person" - and by this time we will start inventing
them at various quarters of the body, you see, above, and
below and beyond, give it location and probably shift it
off to "Mock up." "Mock up a person. Tell me his idea of
creation" or creating or creativeness, see? Get that shaken
down and then beat it to death on Responsibility.

Now, certainly by this time - the same process on
Responsibility, see - by this time we certainly will have
altered the key factors of the case. And then we'll just
proceed with this other.

Now then, theoretically you could clear a case simply by
clearing these five buttons. Theoretically. But in view of
the violence of the Rock, and some various other factors,
it might not be feasible. So it's highly experimental and
it's an experimental excursion into Clearing by Definition.
We've done lots of things by definition, so let's try to
clear by definition and see if we get anyplace.

We'll have more on this before this course ends.

We find out that an individual gets along as well as he can
change his mind about things. Well, this is a process which
directly tells him "to change his mind or else," see, sort
of a thing.

And it's a project and I usually start a project along
about the time an ACC comes along, and about two-thirds of
the way through and two-thirds of the cases are all bogged
down and it never will something or other, why, we usually
trot something out of the ragbag and patch it all up and
get it going.

But you'll find every case that bogs down or every case
that is being boggy has a misdefinition on at least one.
But where you get a misdefinition on one, that
misdefinition then identifies (to get right back to your
question) and associates itself tightly as an
identification with the other four.

Now, breaking those apart and breaking that down is a
primary goal of auditing. This is a method I was giving you
of doing it directly.

They all do associate one with another, naturally. But
where they totally identify, you get a total mess.

Does that answer it?

Male voice: Yes, Ron. One more question attached to that:
In having a person "Invent a person, and tell me that
person's ideas of change," you're going to strip off
valences doing that, aren't you? Oh, I'm sure you're going
to do a lot of wild things. But the wildest thing you're
going to do is strip off stable data. And that puts an
awful lot of data into motion in the case, and puts an
awful lot of confusion going.

Oh, there's a brand-new rule I'd better tell you. It's a
brand-new rule: The first incident - this is one of the
oldest rules we have, this part of it - the prior incident,
the earlier incident, always should receive the greater
attention for lasting and final results, you see? That's
back to getting basic-basic off the chain, you know? Now,
that prior incident idea can also be run into the first,
second, third, fourth postulate idea.

Where an individual has a field, he can be assumed to be
inhibiting with the field a creation which was made before
the field. So, the rule is: Don't ever monkey with fields.
Leave them alone, unless you also at the same time - the
borderline case would be - unless you also at the same time
handle the creation.

So, an auditing command such as, "Find a creation that is
masked," would be just about as close as you could come to
auditing what will become a technical term with you, rather
than field, which is rather formidable, a more technical
term which has greater use is inhibitor -o-r - inhibitor.

Male voice: What was that command again, Ron?

Oh, that's just - that just gives you the borderline. It's
not a - really a fine process. It does some interesting
things though with fields.

Is - I think it was, "Look around here and locate a masked
creation."

Now, that tells you what a field is. A field is something
that is masking a creation.

A field is also something else. A field is a shattered
creation.

Here's a planet. It was perfectly spherical when it was
mocked up; it was just doing fine and it was going along
swimmingly and everything was swell and all of a sudden it
went poompf. Got John Foster Dulles as secretary of state
or something and it went boom, see? And it wasn't any
longer in its orbit, and there it was, you see? All right,
what about this planet? To get rid of the actual
planet - we're not now talking about the mental image
picture, see, let's just put it into a broader material
universe phrase - to get rid of the planet, I'm afraid you
would have to treat its perfect form, see, its moment of
perfect form.

It almost can be said that all things are primarily mocked
up as perfect form. Now, this gives the lie, for the first
time, to some of the Vedic hymns. It claims that all was
chaos and the chaos all came together and made something.
And I think that's commie propaganda. Don't think it's true
at all. That's about the fourth postulate.

All right, it runs this way: Nothingness; postulate one:
perfect mock-up; postulate two: fragmentation and chaos
inhibiting the perfect mock-up or as a result of the
perfect mock-up; fragment three, a recompos- pardon
me - postulate three: a recomposition of the fragments into a
solid whole; postulate four: disintegration or inhibition
of this third thing.

Now, you can go five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, on down
the line, and you finally get to a Ford automobile. And
this all by itself will tell you why it is so hard to as-is
MEST; it's a recomposition of chaos.

Well, the chaos came originally from the fragments of a
perfect form, see? You get the idea? This is a very
revolutionary principle. I don't know - can't tell you
positively whether it's always true or not, because a
thetan could start right in and mock up chaos. See? Yes?

Female voice: Could you say it over so we could hear it
twice and maybe get it written this time?

All right. Zero is nothing. See, that's just thetan potential.
One is perfect form, of course, in perfect space. Two would
be the inhibition of the perfect form, usually by its own
fragments, but you also could have other fragments. Three,
a recomposition of these fragments into a new form. Four,
once more the aspect of disintegration of this third form.
Five, of course, would be a recomposition of form. Six
would be a disintegration of that form. Seven, and so on.

Well, now to take apart this little scale you have to hit
the first perfect form.

This is kind of the way it works out in auditing. As long
as you audit perfect form, you get rid of the inhibitor.

Now, we just draw a conclusion. This is probably the way
the MEST universe got here and became permanent. I don't
know on what ten-millionth variation of this we are now
proceeding, see? How many times has that wall you see
disintegrated and then been made up again and disintegrated
and been made up again.

Hm?

Male voice: Well, this explains a question I was going to
ask about - there are two types of case: the one who's got
pictures and doesn't know it (busy unknowing his pictures)
and there's the one who's busy who's got his pictures,
who's busy unknowing the MEST universe.

Yeah.

Male voice: And you've got these two inversions sitting
right here...

Yeah. That's right. That's right. You'll find a case
sitting along these lines. Every once in a while you start
auditing a wide-open case who has pictures and has no
control over them and doesn't know it and they all just
appear magically, and he doesn't know from where, you know,
a nice irresponsibility. You audit him for a while and it
all goes black. Or it gets into shooting comets and all
that sort of thing. And my, is that case disturbed. Well,
you've just shifted him up scale, not down scale. And you
went into the earlier cycle of disintegration.

Now, if you always handle first postulates, why, you always
undo the second stage. So inhibitors are undone by handling
perfect form.

And one of the reasons you use simple forms in Step 6 is to
make sure that they will be perfect forms. And the
automaticity of form doesn't enter in.

And now when you ask an individual to invent a person and
tell him his idea of (something of the sort), boy, you get
muck flying around the like of which no pc ever saw before
because you're pulling out stable data.

But why did the stable data exist? They existed on an
earlier disintegration which the pc didn't like, and so on,
so each stable data is keeping an earlier disintegration
going, and you theoretically could walk him up scale.

Yes, Jack?

Male voice: Is this connected with the scale of substitutes
in Creation of Human Ability?

Very, very much parallel to the same thing. You might say
the scale of substitutes, the earlier version.

We could get another one, is the first, second and third,
fourth postulates on Know and Not-know, and this would be
the mental reaction to it. And there eventually gets to be
a physical action called Know and Not-know. And the
physical action of Not-know is your second postulate in
this particular case. You get the idea? As the individual
runs along, the individual first not-knows everything and
then he knows some part of it. You get the idea? So this
first, second, third, fourth postulate, and that old
Not-know Scale are not in coordination. They're not the
same thing.

When we say first postulate we mean Not-know, see, on the
old scale. And there we're in the field of pure
thinkingness, pure knowingness, and so forth, and we're
operating there.

Well, this other one describes form, and this is a form
scale. In both cases you audit out the first postulate.

One of the contests of Not-know could be said to be (this
is a far-fetched one): you make such a perfect form that
everybody fixates on it and not-knows everything else.

Typical example of this: a beautiful girl shows up and the
boys completely forget what they were talking about,
thinking about, their bickering and everything else goes
by the boards, you see? It's possibly a form method of
not-knowing, something on this order.

Yes?

Female voice: This is a question on a different line. At
the time of conception of a new body, is the thetan there
and then does he make the pictures of the prenatal period
and, well, create them and take responsibility?

Isn't that interesting?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

But that's all I can say about it. Yeah, is the thetan
present at the moment of conception? Does he make those
pictures as he comes up the line? Evidently there's some
interlock here that has not been explored. And this comes
under the heading of a much wider question, is: Do you make
all of this all the time? And do you make everybody all the
time? And is your individuality actually your compartmented
part of making everything else too, and saying, "This is
me, this is I, while all that over ..." If that were the
case then you would have to some degree predetermined your
new body and had a finger on it all the way up the line up
to the moment that you got it.

This is quite fascinating. As I have said to you before we
have never totally resolved this question: Are you
everybody or are you just one amongst many? And although we
lean rather toward "there are many and you are one amongst
that many," and it seems to work out that way, nevertheless
we seem to have capabilities of being everybody too, which
is confusing. That is a problem for OT. That's definitely
an OT problem.

Yes?

Male voice: How does willingness fit into these five
buttons and what you've been talking about on this scale?
Willingness is responsibility since true responsibility
cannot exist in absence of willingness.

Male voice: Would you say they are synonymous or is
willingness...

No, no. Willingness is subordinate to responsibility.

Male voice: Willingness is subordinate to responsibility?

Yep. Yep. This is worked out by auditing tests, by the way,
how we arrive at these seniorities, and so forth, by
auditing test.

By auditing willingness alone, do we arrive at the same
result as we do when we're using responsibility? And the
answer is no, not arf [half]. Not even vaguely.

So, you'd say a person could be responsible for something
under duress. You could say that. But it isn't necessarily
true because he's then not really being responsible for it,
you see? Actually, somebody else is being responsible for
it, and he's merely being responsible for it on a via if
it's responsibility under duress.

And as you audit responsibility, people come up through
this cycle and all of a sudden themselves begin to be
willing to be responsible.

All right, then willingness to be responsible is
responsibility. And we may be saying responsibility when we
say willingness.

Male voice: I wondered.

Yeah, we may be saying that, but the thing doesn't
completely resolve a case. Willingness alone does not
resolve the case.

A young girl being willing to commit sin is not necessarily
a better young girl.

Male voice: Is that because they don't communicate the
two ideas?

Yeah. Now say that again?

Male voice: When you say responsibility, you are also
communicating willingness.

Yes.

Male voice: You say willingness, you are not communicating
responsibility.

Correct. Correct. Very, very smart. Thank you.

Female voice: This spring, willingness came in as a
gradient on that to help break the "have-to's" and the
"musts" and the "shoulds."

Yeah.

Female voice: And a couple of times - working both ways - it
was said, well, "Could you be willing," and all of a sudden
these musts and have-to's just began to disappear, that had
been standing there like blocks before.

These two things are interactive to some degree.

Male voice: Yeah, to me it seems that creation is senior to
those because you have to create the willingness to create
the responsibility. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's right.

Creativeness is the basic impulse of everything, and even
if it's thought. And you get this, of course, as your
senior button all the way along the line. It sometimes,
however, cannot be directly approached, and these other
four buttons give us a method of approaching it.

Yes?

Male voice: Is consequences a shift of responsibility?

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Willingness to accept consequences is also
a test of responsibility. It doesn't audit clearly or
cleanly but it's still a test of responsibility. A person
is unwilling to be responsible if he's unwilling to accept
the consequences for, so he must have the idea of
consequences before he has the idea of irresponsibility.

And a person who is totally impressed by consequence is a
person who is quite irresponsible. And therefore we get the
direction of social law as tending toward the creation of
criminals.

For instance, the most dangerous person in China or India
is probably a woman. Quite interesting: the women are
probably much more dangerous in comparison of the sexes
than men. Much more.

And the most tremendous framework of consequence is erected
around women in China and India - tremendous consequences.
And they erected these things originally, possibly, because
women were dangerous basically or something of the sort and
then came up the line and enforced them, and the longer
these things have been in action, the more, you might say,
irresponsible for the community at whole, the women of
India and China have been. Until they arrive at a very,
very high irresponsibility, oh, about  -I don't know the
exact date, I wouldn't even pretend to know it, but it's
back there in terms of hundreds, up toward thousands of
years - when they had to invent suttee, which is one of the
more fascinating things. If a man dies, you burn his wife
or wives.

Well, why did they do this? There was a wave of husband
poisoning going on which immediately succeeded no
divorce. They got the idea that there could never be a
divorce, and they enforced this on women so they wouldn't
go flying around. So the women acted as a counter to this
by poisoning their husbands. And the husband-poisoning
became so common that then they invented suttee, and the
wife got burned alive on the pyre which took away the body
of a husband. Do you see? And this thing just went from one
irresponsibility to the next.

Now, this again did not make women more responsible, you
see? And none of these remedies have ever resulted in a
higher responsibility.

All you need is about a thousand more traffic laws to have
nothing but a 100 percent accident rate. Get the idea? All
you need is a few more consequences.

There's always a sleeper along with every series of
consequences that causes the thing to apparently work. And
that is the actual social nature of man. And the actual
social nature of man gets him over even law.

I wouldn't give you anything for a fellow who was totally
restrained from doing something solely because law exactly
operated. I wouldn't give you two bits for the man.

It's just like a hound dog. He's no good unless he'll kill
chickens.

The fellow, in other words, who is made totally social by
law, duress and consequence doesn't exist unless we call
"totally social" a man who is totally irresponsible. This
becomes a very interesting enigma that the courts are
always trying to solve.

Now the courts have awarded total irresponsibility by not
punishing people who are insane. Well, they'd have to do
this eventually as an end product, wouldn't they?

Audience: Sure.

Once they'd run out of consequences, they'd sooner or later
have to make an opening for insanity, and so they have.

And insanity is more and more used as a plea - more and more
and more used as a plea.

Now, there's a motion on foot to call all criminals insane.

Well, in view of the fact that the people who are doing
this don't know that there's a cure for criminality and are
just talking about it, and haven't yet cured a criminal of
anything, why, it makes it a rather dangerous social
experiment to call all criminals insane and turn them loose.

We've already had a case of this. We had two boys who had
been given psychotherapy in institutions. They were two
criminals, more or less; socially disorderly cases. And
both of them had been just monkeyed with by the prison
psychologists and psychiatrists and so on to a point where
they'd become relatively unauditable. In other words, they
were not only not helping them, but they were also making
them unauditable.

Fernando handled one of these much to his sorrow. He hasn't
been in jail since. We raised him up the line a little bit,
gave him a little bit of reality, and I heard from a
lieutenant of police not too long ago that he had just for
the fun of it run through the records and he hadn't found
the boy's name, and this was very odd for this character
not to have been picked up for drunk and disorderly conduct
or petty theft or something like that over a period of a
year, and this had never happened before since the boy had
attained the age of 18. So we must have done something.

But the main barrier we were into was this psychiatric
revulsion on the part of both of these cases. That was
probably the main barrier we were trying to overcome. They
were certain that no mental therapy could do anything for
anybody. This they were very certain of. They had no other
certainty; that's what the prison had given them.

Now, we get consequence and responsibility as an interplay
and we don't find it workable in absence of actual social
consciousness.

And man is fairly - he is a social animal, if you want to
call him an animal in the frame of the psychologist. And
the psychologist is trying to convince us that he's not;
that he's a social animal by duress.

But actually a thetan is a social being. And his
willingness to have a third dynamic is the only thing that
keeps things wheeling. His willingness to work is the only
thing that keeps factories running. It actually isn't pay.
It isn't anything. These are only apparencies. And it's
quite amazing.

When you look this over, you find out that the willingness
to work; the willingness to be orderly; the willingness to
be social; the willingness to handle, manage, and run a
family; all of these willingnesses have as parasites all of
these agencies that are supposed to make it happen. And we
see all these agencies failing, failing, failing, failing,
failing. Well, that's because they're only parasitic on a
basic willingness anyhow. And this responsibility is quite
interesting.

An auditor leveling consequences at his preclear is in a
dangerous auditing position. He's not going to get very far
with it. To some slight degree once in a while it's
allowable, just to some faint degree. Like a guy is
drowning because he hates you and he doesn't want you to
rescue him, you know? And you start to draw back a little
bit from the bank and he quickly overcomes his hatred of
you and gets himself salvaged.

But again we are leaning upon the preclear's social sense;
his sense of at least wanting to save the first dynamic,
you see? But it can't be leaned on very much without
reversing it, and we get off over onto this
irresponsibility kick whereby we manufacture with
consequences irresponsibility.

Treatment of the insane with electric shock is a totally
manufactured irresponsibility. And they wonder why they
have to come back and get more and more shocks and so forth.

I was told the other day by some layman - a layman is
somebody who believes psychiatrists - that electric shock was
a very good thing, because he knew some fellow who had had
some electric shocks. He had been crazy before and he'd had
some electric shocks and for three years the fellow had not
had a recurrence. And he was telling me this and this was
fine, and I was very happy to hear this.

And I said, "Well, what did the fellow used to do?"

"Well, the fellow used to be the manager of a restaurant."

"What is he doing now?"

"Well, as a matter of fact he's on relief. But he hasn't
been sane - he hasn't been insane since. You see?" Figure
that one if you can as a gain, huh? We burden the society
with one guy. We burdened him one way, that didn't work, so
we burden him the other way, see? It's the same way.

Yes?

Female voice: Ron, would you tell me what it is that causes
the lag between becoming a Scientologist, going to
lectures, being audited, and actually using all this in
daily existence twenty-four hours a day? What is the lag?

Female voice: What causes it?

Nothing. That's just the slowness of educational reaction.
It is man's unwillingness - man's unwillingness to be sure.

He has been fooled so often. He has been fooled with and
fooled so often; he has been given such extravagant
promises so long, and even I was guilty of - a bit on the
side of an extravagant promise. I had done it; other people
didn't do it. Don't you see? It was unintentional, but it
for sure gave us a little bit of a curve, see, and it gave
people a lot of downcurve that was not too good. Because it
played right into the hands of the same thing you're
talking about.

He's been fooled so often. He's been told all he had to do
was dedicate himself to God, and be totally irresponsible
and go and live in a cave someplace and be a hermit and
live on berries, or something like this. And all he had to
do was do that and he was all set. And when he exteriorized
from that body, why, he found out he was dragging along all
of his can't-haves, and deprivations, and irresponsibilities,
and unwillingness-to-creates, and everything else, and he
was much worse off the next life.

I imagine many a thetan who has gone looking for heaven has
been terribly disappointed.

But because of this, the speed with which he'll pick up a
reality on something is quite slow.

And Darwin mentions this fact in discussing horses - the
length of hair on horses. It's quite amazing.

They take a bunch of horses on the hot plains in Arabia and
they take them up in the mountains. And while they are up
in the mountains for several generations they grow hair to
protect themselves and then they turn around and bring them
down to the plains again. They'll keep that long hair in
that horrible heat for four years, or pardon me, four
generations, he says. Four generations before they finally
trust their new location enough to adapt themselves to it.

Rabbits will do the same. You take an Arctic rabbit, quite
white, and you bring him down to Arizona. I've actually
seen this. I don't know whether Darwin's remarks are
correct or not, but I do know that this one is correct.

And I'll be a son of a gun if every winter he doesn't turn
white. You look at this, you know, you say, "The damned
fool, you know!" Sun bouncing off all the rocks, and
everything, the whole environment red and brown and here's
this glaring white rabbit just cutting his own throat, you
might say. A coyote or a wolf a mile away can spot this rabbit.

And yet for many winters, all the winters I knew this
rabbit, he turned white. Now probably in his next couple of
generations or something like that he'd get the word.
There's no snow in Arizona! And you get any living being
going through more or less this same distrustful cycle.

Male voice: The rabbit cycle.

Particularly on anything that is intimate as his own mental
machinery. He does all sorts of weird things to protect
that mental machinery; he'll go on being crazy for years
just to keep from getting sane, because he's afraid he'll
get crazier.

Take hypnotism. Every once in a while you're going to get a
preclear that's got an hypnotic reaction. You should know
what it is. His eyes are either glazed, and he agrees with
everything no matter what it is, or he's got an eye flutter
and his eyelids will go this way. You say, "Close your
eyes," and his eyelids will go this way, see? Just
flick-drrrrrrr. It's pretty hard consciously to make your
eyes flicker this fast, you know? Well, undoubtedly when he
went into hypnotism, and he was first hypnotized five or
six million years ago in space opera, because that's a -
hypnotism is a space opera gag - he undoubtedly was totally
convinced this was going to help him and he's never since
gotten out of the rut.

We have a pc that turns up periodically that one time had a
conflict with Salter, the great Salter, the great hypnotist.

And Salter covertly hypnotized him. And I think just only
recently we got him over this. But he's been boxing around
with this for years.

Well, undoubtedly his great faith in the therapeutic value
of becoming a total effect has led him since that time to
be very distrustful of Scientology. See, here was something
else that was going to fix him up, as long as he could
become what he considered to be a total effect of being
audited.

See? Only auditing isn't being a total effect - not arf!
[half?] See, but it was because it - hypnotism is a total...
Get it all involved and identified, you see? I don't know
on what slow curve the populace at large would go through
this cycle. But I know that it is a cycle that they have
to, to a marked extent, go through because if you try to
catalyze the cycle, all you've done is grab a bunch of
people off who are in a state of awe, shock or fear.

For instance, all right, we make an OT and we put him out
on a set of lectures and he demonstrates conclusively that
he can bust vases at will or raise women's hats in the
audience three feet off their heads or something like that,
you know? Or levitate bodies a thousand feet above the city
or mock up gods or something of the sort that can walk all
over the public buildings. So he could do all these things,
you see? Well, the rest of the populace then simply says,
"Here is something else to be afraid of," and go into a
consequence sequence.

And their responsibility, what little gold you've got,
disappears in the aqua regia of your own shock. See? What
little responsibility they've got goes by the boards, and
all you do is create this wide sweeping irresponsibility by
these boys.

I've spoken of this for many years and I still get into
arguments with people. They don't view this. They want it
all to happen at once. It's got to happen quick. And they
say, "Well, why don't we do something of this character
that's highly spectacular, you see, and impresses
everybody." And they don't realize that it's just throwing
what little gold you've got left back into the creek.

Male voice: I know of a case that committed suicide because
all of his stable - he was an engineer, and somebody
levitated something for him. He went and committed suicide
as a result.

Yeah?

Male voice: It just unhung his stable data.

Yeah.

Male voice: Too much confusion.

All right.

Male voice: Right.

That's right. There's a good case in point.

Well, we're way overdue. Your Instructor is getting very,
very nervous.

I haven't mentioned this before but you've got a couple,
three, very good Instructors there. I think that they'll do
right by you.

But I want to give you a tip. I want to give you a tip
about your Instructors and so forth. And you can get around
them. This is the way you can get around them, and so forth.

Just do exactly what they say.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


