Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 30/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 24 Nov 1999 22:33:10 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 30/35 (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-30 (18)   6 Aug 58 THE ROCK - ITS ANATOMY

THE ROCK - ITS ANATOMY

A lecture given on 6 August 1958

[Clearsound checked against the old reels. Omissions
marked ">".]

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're all running a people pleaser on me.

Thank you. Thanks - thank you very much. I'm sure that would
have been a rising ovation except for the fact that these
chairs would have all fallen over.

Well, I'm very pleased to be here.

This is the eighteenth lecture, 20th ACC, August the 6th, 1958.

And this morning, just turned afternoon,

> we had better open on a devout note.

Actually - the title of this thing is "The Rock, Its Anatomy."

> We're going to open on a devout note and we have I Samuel 2:2.
> "There is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside thee;
> neither is there any rock like our Lord."
>
> Isaiah 17:10, "Because thou hath forgotten the god of thy
> salvation and hath not been mindful of the rock of thy
> strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants and
> shalt set it in strange slips."
>
> Jeremiah 23:29, "It is not my word like as a fire, sayeth
> the Lord, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"
>
> Psalms 61:2,"From the end of the Earth will I cry unto
> thee, when my heart is overwhelmed; lead me to the rock
> that is higher than I."
>
> It's pretty gorgeous, isn't it?  Millie dug those up the
> other night for you.  Yep.

Well, we're going to talk about the Rock and its anatomy and
take a whole new look - processing and living and how to get
there and how not to get there. And I've given you several
lectures but possibly you didn't have total reality on these
lectures when I said ARC was the basis of aberration. So went
up the line, told you for a number of years that aberration
was a third dynamic fact.

When the thetan decided to become sociable he got into
trouble, and about as high as he can reach on sociability
right now is pleasing people.

Now, at first glance somebody is liable to look at
"pleasing somebody" as propitiation but the truth of the
matter is, it's not propitiatory. Propitiation is a
harmonic on wanting to please people.

I don't think you ever saw a circus strongman who was
propitiating but he is certainly trying to please people.
Get the difference? So, the Rock of the thetan is
sociability, desire for. His difficulty is being sociable.

Now, when you realize the things in favor of being
sociable, and the things against being sociable, I think
you will see that the odds are in favor of going on being
sociable. Now, there's - there is really the factor of the
Rock that makes it a Rock.

And all the Rock is, is the accumulated barriers, tricks,
betrayals and injustices which keep him from being sociable.

One of you sometime ought to run The Atom. It's an engram
called The Atom and you'll find it on any case. Interesting
engram. Any person cleared can mock it up again and take a
look at it, that's for sure.

It's an interesting, interesting thing. This is from way,
way, way back. First batting around an E-Meter on a number
of pcs trying to get the story of the whole track, and we
ran into this thing called The Atom.

There's the thetan with - usually it's sort of a hydrogen
atom arrangement - and the thetan is the proton and something
is going around and round him quietly. That is it.

Now, that's an interesting structure to look over; there
you were, you might say, one electron going round and round.

And the state of mind in that particular incident clues the
whole thing, tells us the whole way, all the way up the
line, very interesting state of mind.

A person wants no affinity, reality or communication, but
neither does he want no (hyphen) affinity, no (hyphen)
reality, no (hyphen) communication. You get the idea?
That's entirely different from someone trying to get away
from it all. That's entirely different. He wants neither
positive nor negative, you know? He's not refusing
communication, he just is not in need of it. He's not
refusing havingness or mass, he just is not in need of it;
and he's not refusing communication, he's simply not in
need of it.

In other words, here is a state of beingness, you might
say, in which the individual is not sociable. Now, this is
the name of it; we named it The Atom.

And that's a standard - that's a standard engram, you might
say, or mental image picture, or something of the sort.
Certainly it's a facsimile that a person is carrying.

Now, a person is not uncomfortable in this; he's not
comfortable in this. You get the idea? I mean, this is just
a - not even a "whither are we drifting?" But he certainly
does not have the cross-relationship described in The Factors.

The Factors come after The Atom and therefore you could say
that this facsimile, or heavy picture, whatever he's made
of it, is prior to The Factors.

And we have something earlier than The Factors which then
makes it possible for one to understand The Factors, and
this is the earliest mental image picture easily available
on the track. Perhaps there are earlier ones; I've never
found them.

The entrance to the MEST universe set of engrams are of
course phonies, and they are engrams, they're frauds. You
walk into your own front room and a bunch of gunmen are
sitting there, and they say, "Welcome to this new
universe." And you say, "This is no new universe. This is
my house."

And they say, "Oh, no, it isn't." And they bring up a
friend of theirs, a psychiatrist, and he electric shocks
you, fills you with sodium strychnine and other commodities
and comestibles used in that profession. And after a while
you will agree with them that you have now entered a new,
strange house. Get the idea? This was a trick; this was
pure and simple, a trick.

However, a thetan did have his own universe which more or
less merged into this universe. You understand when you go
looking for this entrance to the MEST universe, what you
find is a bunch of fellows who were welcoming you into your
own - where you already were. See, that's - you get the idea?
They've taken ownership and proprietorship of what you
already had, you know? One of the funniest sudden
reliefs - sporadic, occasionally achievable by an auditor -
is just to ask somebody to get the idea that he built this
universe. The fellow is liable to go around for an hour, or
a day, or two or three days in a totally different frame of
mind and attitude, just to get the idea he built this
universe, you know? And to somebody on the street this is
such a strange thought that it kind of staggers him, you
know; and he will go around, but he flip-flops through all
of the engrams about a "Creator who created the universe
without his permission, and created him too." And he goes
through a lot of stuff and comes out of it. He usually
comes out of this state of mind but he never felt better in
his life than during that period of time when he, himself,
is brought to realize that he built this universe.

He'll sometimes tell you, "Myself and ten other fellows
built this universe" or something like that. And then
people kept coming in. And this is a great protest.

No, what he's talking about is CDEI, turned into El. The
scale which begins at the top with Curiosity, goes down
through Desire, goes down through Enforce, goes down
through Inhibit, has now lost the "C" and "D," the
Curiosity and the Desire, and we now have left only the
Enforce and the Inhibit.

In other words, his sociability increased beyond bounds of
his tolerance or desire. After all, you can only talk to
so many people as friends if you have a time track, and the
fellow who has too many friends very often finds himself
with no friends.

Get the idea? It's just a matter of how much time can you
spend with your friends. It's a simple look.

The individual who goes to college, he maybe knows two or
three hundred fellows, you know? He winds up maybe knowing
a half a dozen well. Well, if the college were to be
increased by a factor of ten, you would find a great
protest from him. He would feel now that there were so many
there that he couldn't know them. And in such a wise he
simply becomes aware of more and more individualities. And
above a certain level these individualities are a matter of
protest.

Once upon a time the US Marine Corps, or the Army, or the
Navy was so small that an officer, by the simple means or
reason of being an officer, or a sergeant, or a petty
officer or even a sailor, or a soldier, or a marine, knew
practically every other person in the organization. So that
you'd be having a conversation in some part of the world
and you'd say, "Well, you know, Giddy Jones, you know, why,
he did so and so." And everybody at the table would say,
"Oh, yeah, Giddy Jones." Everybody would look pityingly at
some new ensign or some new private, depending on what
company you were in, because he hadn't been in long enough
to know the people in the organization, you know? And then
it swelled up to 225,000 men, the US Army did, as a result
of World War I when it had four million in it.

Now, it'd be a great oddity for anybody to know anybody in
the army - be a great oddity for any general to know any
other general or so forth.

They have generals here in Washington to such a degree that
people in Washington are forbidden to wear uniforms. I
think you know that, don't you? Because the town would have
the appearance of an armed camp. They found this out
several decades ago, that the public at large, as the armed
forces swelled up and as the heads swelled up - I didn't mean
to say anything derogatory about that sort of thing because
I have a great deal of tolerance for these fellows, see?
Have perfectly good heads; they never used them for
anything. And any time you're out of a home, why, just
remember, there are always generals.

And as they swelled up these armed forces to a remarkable
size, as they swelled them up, the public began to say,
"What is this?" Because naturally if you have a division
scattered out through the Southwest, the military
department of the Southwest or something like that,
naturally it has a general, and it has colonels and it has
other people. Naturally, in order to keep tabs on it, and
so forth, requires, I think, a general in Washington for
each officer of any other rank in the field, you know? And
it's funny - it's funny - in some military post somewhere,
why, a colonel drives up, and man, that chicken really -
really gets some snaps and pops, you know, almost anyplace
in the world except Washington. The fellow turns around and
asks him if he's carrying a message or something, or if he
has a hot-water bottle for some important man. You get the
idea? It's just a downgrade.

So, long ago they have forbidden officers to wear uniforms.
They discourage it here in Washington. Your streets would
simply be crowded from one end to the other with military
officers, and some of these sorry, unhappy-looking little
men who are scurrying up and down the streets that you see
here in Washington, nursing their ulcers tenderly, looking
very, very harassed and wearing, always, a suit or a hat of
several-years-old styling - especially the hat. You can
always tell a naval officer - the hat is something that a
horse wouldn't wear, you know, some civilian hat. He's had
it crowded into a ship's locker and into a station locker
for years, and when he gets to Washington, he breaks it out.

And you see these men up and down, and they are perhaps, in
the general scheme of things, very important men in their
own organizations, but they don't even know each other
here. See, they're totally out of touch.

Now, they are objecting to too much sociability. These
people are not happy with this kind of duty if you ever
talked to them; they're not at all happy with this sort of
thing. They are led to expect certain importances and
certain rights and privileges. Even a good professional
private has certain things that are supposed to come his
way, and when he's simply drowned in the fact that he's
just a particle, amongst a bunch of unnamed particles, that
alone, (now get this) robs him of his identity. See? So,
that numerousness is the best weapon to rob people of their
identities. Numerousness.

Now, here, out of this little fact all by itself, we get
this great sweeping fact: that quantitative and qualitative
aberrations are different to the degree that numerousness
is always apparently overwhelming.

So you have some very severe incident which is a tremendously
severe incident of pain and stress, unconsciousness, betrayal.
The individual has made it into a DED-DEDEX, using old-time
whole track terminology, an overt act-motivator sequence. In
other words, it was done to him and then he did it to others.
That's overt act-motivator sequence. He did it to others and
then it was done to him, and that's a DED-DEDEX, which is
much worse.

But here is incident quality. Now, that's a quality -
qualitative fact. There it is, you see. I mean they took
him and boy, they put him through the washing machine,
the bread kneader; they put him in the toaster for a while.
They had him on the skillet for some hours and then used
him for fuel, you know? This is - this is qualitative
aberration. See? Both of these are social in their source,
but that's qualitative. That is severity; that is duress.

Now, he gets very fixed on qualitative - qualitative
aberration and he pays very little attention to this thing
called quantitative aberration. That is simply the
numerousness of it all. There are so many people. One of
the things that people object to about past lives, they
say, "Well, what about this? There's two billion people on
earth today and there were far fewer than that a few
centuries ago. Where did all the extra people come from?"
You know? And you get all kinds of corny arguments of this
character.

I, by the way, always knock that one in the head by simply
saying very mildly, "Well, you notice - have you been hunting
lately?" And the fellow says, "Well, bah-rah," and so on.

"And you had, probably had trouble finding game, didn't you?"

And he says, "Well, yes, yes.

"Well, where do you suppose all the animals went?"

That finishes that.

But they will always stagger and boggle at quantity, and
you get Scientology 8-8008 with its abundance and scarcity
matters. Now, a thetan quite often overlooks the quantity,
the numerousness of things as an overwhelmingness which
goes along with him every day. Completely overlooks this
one in favor of the more dramatic, heroic and much more
easily spotted on the time track, qualitative aberrations
where all of these people or some of these people, or one
of these people he prefers, when he gets down the line,
that just one person caved him in. He would rather run one
villain than ten thousand villains any day of the week. You
see? And the quality of incident is what he normally
concentrates on. But remember, the quality - the amount of
force, stress, betrayal, injustice, and so forth, wrapped
up in that one severe chain of incidents - derives its power
from his basic objections to quantity, number of thetans,
number of people, because this basically robs him of his
identity.

The identity robber is not then a theta trap that eats him
up. The robber is the number of people he became sociable
with after having been comfortably sociable with a few of
his friends.

Now, I well know this mechanism. I've been through this
cycle, myself, several times in this lifetime, and it's a
very mild cycle; I know you have, too. As a professional
writer one tends to be rather lonely. As a matter of fact,
he seldom runs into his readers unless he's writing in
science fiction and then he's knee-deep in fans day and
night, but - and pleased to be so, usually.

But in writing general stories for the public, various
publications, he'll eventually pick up a few friends. And
these few sort of gyrate into an area of one kind or
another - they more or less conglomerate - and you keep
running into other writers, and so forth.

And then one fine day - then one fine day, why, you find
yourself messed up with something like Hollywood, and
there, everybody is a writer. Well, of course, there aren't
but about 500 writers at any given time in the United
States that write everything that people consume. That's
not very many writers.

But in Hollywood, everybody from Ricochovakia that ever
put anything together in a school primer has rushed to
Hollywood, and has overwhumped the director's wife, or
something of the sort - that's usually how it's done - and
he is now a writer.

And you have writers, writers, writers, writers. And you
have writers and writers and writers and then you have
writers, writers, writers. It's absolutely fantastic.

You go out there and I was - an old pal of mine, whose works
you know well from general publications, had me to dinner
one day out at MGM. And we were sitting down in the dining
room there, and he was telling me all about the great and
the near great and so forth around there. And I said, "Who
are all those fellows over there at that..."

"Oh," he says, "that's the writers' table."

And I said, "Well, what's the matter?" I said, "Give me a
knockdown on some of them; maybe I know some." "Oh-ho-ho,"
he says, "you don't know these writers, ho-ho!" He says,
"These are Hollywood writers." "Well, what's a Hollywood
writer?"

"Well, he's director's cousin or something like that."

And I said, "What?" You know, myself trapped right away
with the quantitative side of the thing. "All those people
are writers? Well, I know you don't have very many writers
over here." "Yeah," he says, "that's right. There are eight
writers on the lot. Eight." He says, "But there's 125 on
the payroll." After lunch he took me out and showed me.
They had writers in tents; they didn't have office space
for them. And true enough, there were 125 of them on the
lot. And this was the reason they were there: someday they
might write something. One never knew but what they might
not have an idea.

But everything that MGM did and produced and so forth, was
written by eight old standby novel, magazine, playwright
type person, any one of whose names you would know, you
know? And these boys had to carry on their backs, in every
story conference, eight or ten of these duds who, with
their suggestions, could completely spoil the mood of a
scene, the thread of the plot. And they'd all of a sudden
lean forward in order to order their pay, and make sure
that they were heard at the story conference; they would
say, "Well, I don't think it's dramatic enough in scene
178. Why don't we kill Joe?" A writer there has to say,
"Look. Joe is the hero of the piece."

Fellow said, "I don't see what that's got to do with it."

You know, he's quietly getting him out of the road and
so forth.

But this was hard to take for any pro out there. And what
they didn't see (and what I didn't see at the time) that it
was quantity that was getting our goats, see, because a
writer is as good as his name is known, or his pen names.
Now, you see, that's - he's as good as that. And you suddenly
surround him with a tremendous number of people who are
totally incompetent as far as getting their names known;
and you give them equal status with him, he gets unhappy.

Old Nunnally Johnson used to come in every night when I'd
be having dinner at the Palms - cafe down there on Hollywood
Boulevard - he'd come in, I'd be sitting there - same ritual.

"Red, you still here?"

"Hiya, Nunnally. Sit down."

"Red, I tell ya - it's no good for ya. Get the hell out of
this town! Go anyplace! I'm drinking scotch." And he'd sit
down and have a drink. This poor guy had on his back, Lord
knows, how many writers, so-called, you see. He was feeling
this - this quantity pressure.

After all, Nunnally Johnson, in his earlier days, was
simply a person who wrote in his name, wrote and appeared.
And he was sufficiently scarce to be valuable and he had it
nicely balanced. And then one fine day he was no longer
valuable from the determination of scarcity, don't you see?
So, his identity had been invalidated. You get the idea
there? I eventually took his advice and went back to New
York, where editors were editors, bums were bums, drunks
were drunks and writers were writers, instead of staying in
Hollywood where they were all seven.

Now, here's a rather dramatic idea, you know? You're a
writer and people read what writers write. This is a
somewhat favored identity in a society - which is somewhat
delusory - somebody who can make up universes and pitch them
out. But that isn't the purpose of what I'm telling you
here. The purpose is that this happens one way or another,
whether a person is in the military, in the arts, whether
he is acting and actually whether or not he's shoveling coal.

Now, you don't think a coal heaver runs into the same
thing, look around sometime. This fellow is doing a
perfectly good job shoveling coal, the boss likes him, he's
getting along fine, he is a good coal shoveler. There's two
more men that he likes to work with and they're shoveling
all the coal that's being shoveled around the "Burn 'Em Up
Coal Yards," you know? They're just shoveling coal and
everything is fine, and everybody trusts their work.

And someday, why, somebody all of a sudden decides that
"coal shovelers are shoveling too slowly," or "it's too
expensive," or something of the sort. And they suddenly
hire a bunch of very cheap labor that doesn't shovel very
much coal, but it's certainly numerous, you know? And these
fellows, as the company (quote) expands (unquote), find
themselves swamped in about it. And the first thing they
will complain to you about is "These other fellows won't
work. These other fellows are getting in the road." One of
the things they will tell the boss, probably with great
truth, is if he would just get rid of his supernumeraries
and shove them off somewhere and get them lost, why, things
would be much happier and maybe something can get done.

With some truth they will say this. I know - I know this
is a fact around the FC [Founding Church] organization
buildings. We have had some chap, matter of fact, the
current man who is a very, very fine boy, and we've had him
plead with us to get rid of somebody because the person was
just in the road.

Well, I don't know whether the person was in the road or not.
We listen to somebody who does his job when he - when he
wants to be less numerous. But somebody who isn't doing his
job quite ordinarily goes on the government solution which
is: "If you can just be anonymous and get totally lost ..."
You see, the government is on total inversion. "Why, you
want to get more numerous and the more numerous you get,
the better off you are, because the less easily you can be
located." And these guys have already gone up the spout;
their identity is shot; they're dependent on the government
for an identity; and they themselves don't have any anymore
and their numerousness depends on their overwhelmingness.

Now, you say, where's team spirit in all this? Well, I'm
talking about teams when I'm talking about a half a dozen
writers or three coal heavers, don't you see, or anything
like that. These are teams as well as individuals.

A man and his friends - could be said that a thetan considers
himself as strong as he has friends. So here is also his
strength, you see? But it gets so numerous that he can't
have any friends anymore, or things are so hectic, or the
lines are so crossed up, or things are so confusing that he
can no longer govern this quantity thing.

He usually looks over here into quality to find out what's
wrong with him. He makes this as a basic error. That it is
an error is manifest, but that he does look over into
quality of happenstance, he says, "I am unhappy because my
pay is too small; my boss is too mean; that incident
whereby I was dragged up and put on the carpet for
forgetting to light this or that, that is a shameful
thing," he says. You see? He's looking over here for
incident; he's looking for experiment, like into the field
of "What has happened to me that I do not feel important or
myself anymore?" See? Do you see this? He's experimenting
around in his mind, you get it? To find out what
circumstance in terms of incident, duress and so forth,
it is, that's made him feel less himself.

Now, all aberration can consist of in its mechanism is the
loss of identity and the assumption of new identities in
the hopes that these will be more dominant and more
successful, and thus we get qualitative activities
modifying the quantitative problems.

So, a half a dozen guys get together and they make great
big theta traps and they grab all the thetans that ever
come anywhere near them, and they're trying to bring the
quantity down somewhere into a more reasonable level.
That's all they're trying to do.

I think that all the government is trying to do with these
huge armed forces that they're accumulating - who will never
be any good in atomic war, they'll never even have a chance
to pick up a rifle to fight a real war. And yet
three-quarters of the tax dollar, or something like that,
is being spent on their maintenance right this minute; and
a lot of guys who would much rather be out in some bar as a
civilian enjoying life, are being held, confined in service.

I think this is a sort of a huge collection machine. I've
seen generals do this.

I remember I didn't have a single replacement for my deck
force. I needed - I certainly rated thirty or forty seamen
first, you know? I just didn't have anybody of the deck
force, and I was told there were no seaman first available
for sea duty in the middle of the World War II.

And I said, "What?" You know? "What's this?" And I found
there were a thousand seamen first class engaged in
sweeping dry docks. A thousand of them, just doing that one
thing. That was just one group of them, and some admiral
had them there on the base. And I went over to the
personnel officer, and I chewed him up one - down one side,
and ripped his braid off the other side, and bored a hole
straight through his head with a little invective. And he
all of a sudden shook loose and he gave me forty prisoners.
I didn't get any seamen first.

That was the second prisoner crew I had. I got awfully well
acquainted with criminals before the war was over. First
ship was totally criminals, and this was a total draft of
criminals that suddenly came aboard - made men out of them
anyhow.

Now, here is this thing of "Collect all the bodies," or
"Put all the bodies in boxes," you know? Do you get the
idea? "Push all the bodies under the bed" or "in cellars."
Or "Let's reduce them all to statuary," or so forth. "Let's
get a theory that every thetan should become a molecule and
join up with the forces of earth," you know? "Let's get a
bunch of weird ideas spread around that will reduce this
confounded quantity! And if we can get this quantity
reduced, why, we're all set." Now, he goes the other way,
too, and he gets too few people around. So he says, "How on
earth can we solve this great scarcity?" "How we going to
make some more thetans?" So, somebody like Abraham Lincoln
opens the gates of the United States, which I don't
remember what population it had back in the War between the
States. I have no idea what the population of the country
was, but it probably couldn't have exceeded - oh, I don't
think it was thirty million. I don't think it was anywhere
like that. I don't have my data on it.

But I do have this data - that the population of the country
practically doubled and trebled and quadrupled because he
said, "There's too few people in this country." So he
opened the gates of immigration, and even financed
immigration and so forth.

Of course, the States, as opposed to the nation, began to
get the idea that he was simply trying to recruit cannon
fodder to burn up against Southern soldiery by this heavy
immigration inflow and so forth. But I think that was
unkind. I think Abraham Lincoln simply suffered from a
scarcity of people to some degree.

And he said, "Look at all this tremendous country" (after
all, this man had been raised in the West) "and there's no
people in it. And a fellow can get awful lonesome out
there, sitting in a cabin." He was a very sociable sort of
fellow, so he just didn't want all that space.

I'd disagree with him. I like to be able to look for a
number of miles in all directions and not see a darn thing,
you know? You heard about the fellow down in Texas that
moved. Fellow asked him why did he leave? He said the
country was filling up.

"How do you mean, filling up?"

He said, "Well," he says, "I got up this morning," and he
said, "I looked over there to the horizon," and he says,
"to the north of me." And he says, "You know, I saw the
smoke of a cabin." So he left and went to a less heavily
populated country.

You get these ideas, however, of scarcity and abundance.

Now, do you see how ideas of scarcity and abundance
regulate the qualitative fact of accumulating and getting
rid of people and things? You see how this is? Now, as far
as things are concerned - as far as things are concerned,
anything is a good conversation piece; and I think
everything in the whole universe is simply a conversation
piece, or was at one time or another - something to talk
about, something to use so that you could make something to
talk about. I think the only reason man began to eat is so
he could talk about it.

And whether it's - whether it's a bit of stuff, in the case
of a piece of something, you know, when something becomes
too numerous, it is no longer a subject for conversation.

For instance, there are five brands of foreign cars, you
can still talk about them, see? But what if there were 280
brands of foreign cars? What would be their respective
merits? It's beyond the person's ability, utterly, to know
all the characteristics, and to have driven one of each of
these cars, and to have an individual opinion on each one,
unless the fellow was practically a swanking millionaire,
don't you see? I mean, that's - that's - would be a rather
fabulous study, and he'd have to come off of other things
and it could no longer be a hobby. He'd have to devote a
great deal of time to the study of this sort of thing.

But so long as there's five, why, he can say - he can say,
"Well, a Jaguar is always, you know, falling to pieces, but
you take an Alfa-Romeo, why, that's - yes, sir, that's a car,
that's a car!" And he can always get into a nice argument
with somebody else about it.

Probably the "C" is why you have friends, and when there's
too much "C," you wish you had fewer friends. And it's
probably the monitoring factor of how many people can you
talk to at the same time. Something on that order,
something that stupidly simple.

So, if you've got too much of something, the answer is to
get rid of some of it. And when you've got too little of
something, the answer is to get more of it.

And what is too much or too little totally depends on the
individual. Abraham Lincoln or the Texan? Which? See?
Abraham Lincoln says, "Well," he says, "we - we need - we
need five times as many people in North America as we have."
And the Texan says, "We need one cabin less."

You get the idea? "It's gettin' too crowded." this fellow
says, when he sees one plume of smoke on the horizon.

And Abraham Lincoln said, "Well, there's a place where I
can walk for two or three days in perfectly fertile land,
without seeing anybody at work in the fields at all. And
this is a shame. Open the gates of the United States to
Europe." See? Now, these are two vastly opposite looks.

Australia has a lot of this, and for years they've tried to
monitor this thing. They have arguments about whether they
should have people or not have people.

And one day I was looking across a very vast stretch of
country there, bush, and populated solely by a few lonely
wallabies. And I said, "Boy," I said, "you certainly got
some space around here. This is for me." And two Aussie
officers were there and one of them said, "No," he said,
"it's just empty." He said, "It's empty, it should have a
lot of people in it." And the other one said, "What are you
trying to do, drive us all out?" You know? So here were two
fellows from the same country, raised more or less the same
way, with contradictory ideas upon quantity. And perhaps
the only argument there is, is quantity.

Now, you wonder where all this is going and what it has to
do with the Rock. I'm telling you that the Rock that you
are running is the qualitative summary of incident, based
on the individual ideas of proper quantity. Now, that's
what the Rock is.

The Rock then, has still, scarcity and abundance for its
basic modus operandi.

Now, you could do things to a case by telling him to mock
up enough men, mock up enough women, mock up enough men,
mock up enough women. Just enough! You understand? One
fellow would chop out 90 percent of those he knows. He'd
mock up "no womens" and "no mens," see? And the next fellow
would mock up thousands, and the next fellow would mock up
billions if he possibly could. Do you see? His ideas of
quantity are the individual fact, because his identity and
his threat of identity - the threats to his own identity -
depend upon how many people are identified individually.

Now, that's the long and short of it - the way he loses his
identity, his individuality, which is to say his basic
personality, which is not a "Russian T-36 Model Yatglup"
which comes off an assembly line and falls into a slot at
the end.

And most people, when they get into this - ideas of mass -
will go back into their old communist days, couple three
hundred million years ago, or something like that when the
philosophy was still old. And they will say, "Masses!
Masses! Masses! That's the thing." You know? "And if
everybody has a basic personality, then it's all alike."
Hell, no, basic - person to person they are not all alike.

An individual is an individual. He does have his own ideas
which are not in any way regulated by experience. That's a
basic personality. It's the individual unmodified by
experience.

Now, when you start modifying by experience, he starts
dropping off some of these characteristics and adding
others, and swapping, eventually, his individuality for
some general individuality that he thinks would serve him
better.

But the first invalidation of you came about through
numerousness, or lack of numerousness. And there's no good
to be king of a country that has one other subject. All
small boys playing army learn this. There's no good to be a
general when you only got one private.

> And the Mexicans, they can't even enlist people in their
> army because there's only one private and several tens of
> thousands of generals. Get the idea?

Now, here's this basic personality, individual's in - is
himself, and then he gets the idea of third dynamic
sociability. He meets somebody.

Now, in the contest of this meetingness, in order to
achieve communication, you get a modification to some
slight degree of the total potential of the individual. And
you get at times an increase of some characteristics, again
to facilitate communication. So, you subtract from and add
to the person, don't you see, in order to continue
communication.

All right, now this communication goes out, then, further
along the line where an individual is just seeking to
adjust himself socially. And he has never ceased to do
anything else from the beginning of the track until now but
try to adjust himself socially.

And his two ideas are quantitative and qualitative.

What sort of a series of experiences are sociable
experiences? Now, that is a whole vast panoply of ideas all
by itself. What is a social experience? You'll find
somebody from the middle of the war meets an old buddy of
his, and all they talk about is the time they were pinned
down in the foxhole for three days and three nights with
four nurses.

Now, that's a type of experience which is very desirable,
which I've had myself. Well, as a matter of fact, I was the
only man on an island with a hundred nurses. That's the
sort of thing that one could... That's correct, I mean,
that's absolute fact. They were talking about this in the
South Pacific for a long time. "Hubbard always lands on his
feet." I'd personally disagreed with them. I didn't think
that was landing on your feet at all.

But here is this adjustment a person goes through, you see?

What is his idea of experience? What is an experience? Now,
that's totally an individual thing. So we have, one:
person's ideas of how much or how few of anything is
enough. See, that's totally up to him, it doesn't - remember
this, remember this, please. Don't go so communist party,
psychiatric "everybody's chipped off the same piece of mud"
idea, you know, to a point where you try to reduce every
individual to every individual.

This has been the primary barrier in researches of the type
that have been attempted before and which we have
successfully undertaken for the first time.

The barrier has been that everybody tried to chip everybody
down to some kind of the same looking piece of mud. Don't
you see? And that isn't what's going on. We won because we
can recognize this fact: that an individual is himself.

Now, he has characteristics and foibles in common with
other individuals only because there is a sociability
factor! And people rub off on each other.

And what you're trying to cure up with somebody is not
anything very specific but the modus operandi of how they
rub off on each other. You got the idea? How do they lose
their individuality? How do they lose their basic
personality? And this thing we are not necessarily trying
to preserve, but this thing, to have a better person, we
certainly must uncover, and that's BP. And boy, that's as
wild and as different as you can possibly get. All you had
to do was look at a few people after you've cleared them
up, and one's this way and the other one's that way, and so
forth.

And you'd have to - you get the idea of the social machinery
of the society as being some huge coffee grinder, and you
pour in a whole bunch of individuals, and you get out a
whole bunch of ground coffee. Now, that's what communism
attempts to do.

The cult of the personality, the individual - they take the
greatest clown probably that the world has ever seen, and
he's just wowing everybody. He's selling Russian and
Russkies and Vodka by the million butniks' worth, you know,
and he's just having a time.

And actually somebody in Moscow sends him a wire and says,
"You mustn't be so popular." He mustn't be so popular? And
since that time "Popov" is still very good in Russia, but
he is not permitted to perform properly.

Why? Because by God his individuality shines through! They
put him through a coffee grinder and so help me, he came
out Popov! This is the one thing they can't stand when
they're trying to deindividualize everybody.

Now, when people talk about socializing everyone, they are
going on the basis that all men are evil, and you have to
do something to them to make them good.

This is not the truth at all. To socialize men, you would
have to give them their experience with one another, not in
good, solid, biting form but just give them their
experience with one another, and desocialize them on all
their compulsions to a point where they, themselves, could
meet their friends. You see? Not Khrushchev could meet,
some muzhik could meet a bunch of people. It'd have nothing
to do with personalities. They're all - they're all coffee
beans that went in one end of it, and came out all coffee,
you know? Now, socializing it to knock everybody down to a
lowest common denominator, and I do mean lowest, is doomed
to failure because all you're working with is a person!
That's a horrible thing. I mean, it's one of these awful
simplicities, and why no philosopher has ever recognized
this is more than I will know.

The only thing with which you can make a society is people,
but that doesn't mean masses. Sheep are okay! Being from
Montana I have my opinions; I'm entitled to those. But
sheep are okay in their place, you know, but not in all of
the chairs of government, the chairs of universities, in
all the restaurants. See? They shouldn't be full of sheep.
I've had experiences with sheep.

Socialization and most of its principles are levered toward
taking people and putting them into the school or something
of the sort and getting sheep out the other end. And it's
quite interesting.

Now, your job is quite the reverse. You very often will
find yourself with a whole bunch of sheep, which include
many rams, which inexplicably - the socializing process
doesn't account for this at all - also includes several elk.
And then you have to put them back through the line, and at
the other end, what do you get? You get people! Now, this
thing flip-flops and inverts on itself as a society goes
along the line and there begin to be great customs, a
social fad, you might say, of "Let's get rid of everybody,"
and succeeded by a social fad of "Let's not get rid of
anybody," and social fad of "Let's get rid of everybody,"
and a social fad of - Space opera, for instance, is a "get
rid of everybody" sort of thing.

Fellow can become so easily accustomed to being with
nobody, anyplace, anywhere, at any time, that he thinks
"There are too many people anyhow." And so he'll go off on
the line of trying to waste and get rid of people like mad.
And somebody - somebody is born in New York City, or
something like that - he goes out to Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, or some such place. And he looks around, and boy,
he doesn't find any people at all, so he goes down and
joins the chamber of commerce, and tries to paint up the
beauties of Sioux Falls in order to get some people in
there, you know? More people, less people, more people,
less people - you think there's an optimum number, there's
an optimum more or an optimum less. No, there is not, not
any general figure; there is simply the more or less for
the person. That's what he has decided.

Now, if you understand clearly that you are trying to
unburden a basic personality, not get rid of a preclear,
and if you understand that his ideas at the final end of
the run may turn out to be quite different than his ideas
were before on the subject of "How much is enough?" and
"How little is little enough?" You know? And that his
capabilities should be so and so, and his activities should
be so and so - in other words, he turns out with an idea of
what sociability should be.

Some gradient degree of sociability is desirable. And he
will try to achieve that level one way or the other. Then
you can understand where you are going when you are
chipping off a Rock.

Now, I said the anatomy of this Rock, and to understand the
anatomy of this Rock, you must realize that it rests on the
foundation of sociability, desire for. And that sociability
becomes aberrated, first by numerousness, which gives you a
very hidden, "can't see it anyplace" sort of a aberrative
combination.

Now, these ideas of numerousness are not aberrative in
themselves; they are simply out of agreement. You don't
have to process anything to get rid of these things, you
see? But the attempts to run the "EI" on numerousness or
scarceness, you know - enforce and inhibit numerousness,
enforce and inhibit scarceness, the El end of the CDEI
Scale - where you've run into that, you've got qualitative
aberration, and that you can tackle. These qualitative
aberrations have paralyzed the thinkingness of the person
by enforcing or inhibiting his data.

Now, until you can free his compulsions, obsessions, his
unknowingness concerning all of this and his confusion
about it, by removing the pain, duress, unconsciousness and
the rest of it, he can't readjust his ideas back over here
to numerousness again. But he could do that awfully easily
if he was able to adjust his ideas.

Now, numerousness, the quantitative side of this sort of
thing, is susceptible to personal adjustment without any
real processing or anything. You could think up processes
that would help it along. But if an individual could change
his mind, he could certainly change his mind about that.
And that's just a matter of changing your mind.

But how about the actuality of pain? You can talk all you
want to about "pain is an idea" and that sort of thing. It
still hurts! You get the idea? And if somebody steals your
wife, by God, you haven't got a wife! You got the idea? You
could say, "Well, it's all in his mind that he thinks it's
bad to lose a wife." But he hasn't got one! See, he feels
bad about it and an individual can feel bad.

And don't, as a practitioner, overlook this tremendously
valid factor: that an individual can hurt. Sure it's in
only his mind. This doesn't make it any the less painful.

Sure he's capable of producing all this pain. Sure he's
capable of producing all this apathy and subapathy and all
this confusion, and all the rest of it. Yes, because he's
capable of producing it, does not make it any the less
unpleasant.

And so you have this qualitative line, and this qualitative
line is the Rock. It's those experiences aimed at getting
rid of or increasing people, readjusting them toward one's
own ideas of how many there should be, or shouldn't be. And
these add up eventually to such a potpourri of incident
that an individual finds them simply confusing pain.

Now, when the individual first raised his hand against his
fellow man, his fellow being, his fellow thetan, to run
into "E" and "I" - Enforce and Inhibit - of affinity, reality
and communication; when he first raised a beam to enforce
and inhibit affinity, reality, or communication, outgoing
or incoming, was the first Rock. Got that? It's the first
comm break, reality break, affinity break. Got that?

Now, we don't care whether it was in or out, whether he did
it, or it was done to him. Who cares! Now, on this you get
a rather monstrous pinnacle of incident built up.

And this incident accumulates just on this basis, whether
it's by being smashed in the face with a mailed fist, being
robbed by robbers, being taxed by governments, being blown
up on planets - no matter what the incident is - all the
incidents consist of, on the qualitative side of it from
beginning to end, is simply enforcement or inhibition of
affinity, reality and communication, done to or done by the
preclear.

Therefore, ARC breaks from the first to the last make the
Rock chain.

And that is the entire anatomy of the Rock: just an effort
to adjust numerousness and scarcity, resulting in enforced
and inhibited affinity, reality and communication.

When you've got this whole package, when you look at it,
you can see at once that you have the Rock. And it is, of
course, curable just by curing ARC breaks, and it's
hinderable just by making a few.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


