From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Wed Mar 17 18:50:11 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!134.222.90.2!EU.net!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 18 Mar 1999 01:50:11 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 9/35 SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT 9TH ACC
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to
	<squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity
	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Message-ID: <43c532f7e6e9882226b0b84b9e4808c6@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1095
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690409 alt.clearing.technology:76261

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 9/35

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.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm 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 the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet
are allowed 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

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


9TH ACC CONTENTS

December 1954 to January 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Based on the solution to entrappment cassette version.

F# = File number (** = not available)
O# = Original Number (according to the master list posted by Pilot)
REN = As renumbered in the Solution to Entrappment cassettes

F# O#  REN  DATE  TITLE

01  1   1  Dec  6 Introduction to 9th ACC: Havingness
02  2   2  Dec  7 The Essence of Auditing, Know to Mystery Scale
03  3   3  Dec  8 Rundown on Six Basics
04  4   4  Dec  9 Communication Formula
05  5   5  Dec 10 The Practice of Dianetics and Scientology
06  6   6  Dec 13 Conduct of the Auditor
07  7   7  Dec 14 Mechanics of Communication
08  8   8  Dec 15 Havingness
09  9   9  Dec 16 Pan-determinism and One-way Flows
10  9A 10  Dec 17 Hist. & Dev. of Processes: Games & Limitations in Games
11  9B 10A Dec 17 History and Development of Processes: Q&A Period
12 10  11  Dec 20 Games (Fighting)
13 11  12  Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part I
14 11A 12A Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part II
15 12  13  Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing
16 12A 13A Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing: Question and Answer Period
17 13  14  Dec 23 Havingness and Communication Formulas
** 13A --  Dec 23 After Lecture Comments   
18 14  15  Dec 24 Pan-determinism
19 14A 15A Dec 24 Pan-determinism: Question and Answer Period
20 15  16  Dec 27 Training New People
** 15A --  Dec 27 Curiosa from Dianetics 55!
21 16  17  Jan  3 Auditing Requirements, Differences
22 16A 18  Jan  4 Time
** 16AA -  Jan  4 Q&A Period
23 17  19  Jan  5 Auditing at Optimum
24 18  20  Jan  6 Exteriorization
25 19  21  Jan  7 Elementary Material: Know to Mystery Scale
26 20  22  Jan 10 Education: Goals in Society -- Adult Education
27 21  23  Jan 11 Fundamentals of Auditing
** 21A --  Jan 11 Auditors' Conference
28 22  24  Jan 12 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part I
29 23  25  Jan 13 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part II
30 24  26  Jan 14 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part III
31 25  27  Jan 17 Auditing Demonstration: Six Basics in Action
** 25A --  Jan 17 Auditors' Conference
32 26  28  Jan 18 Auditing Demonstration: Spotting Spots
** 26A --  Jan 18 Auditors' Conference
33 27  29  Jan 19 Auditing Demonstration: Exteriorization
34 28  30  Jan 20 Background Music to Living
35 29  31  Jan 21 Axioms: Laws of Consideration -- What an Axiom Is

Note that 6 of the 9 discussion periods (Q&A periods, Auditors'
Conferences, etc.) were omitted from the cassettes, leaving us
with only 35 files instead of the 41 that were recorded.  It is
also possible that material was edited out of the lectures which
are available.  If anyone has a set of the original reels, please
post any missing material.

========================

9ACC file 9/35

9th ACC #9 - PAN-DETERMINISM AND ONE-WAY FLOWS

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC09    -   
5412C16 9th of 35 talks to students on the 9th Advanced
Clinical Course in Phoenix, Arizona between December 6,
1954 and January 21, 1955

PAN-DETERMINISM AND ONE-WAY FLOWS

A lecture given on 16 December 1954


If you were at a level of pan-determinism that permitted
you to utterly escape the mechanism of the one-way
flow - your auditing is simply a game with the preclear
because the truth of the matter is that you could be the
preclear, be well, then be yourself and that would be the
end of the session.

Now, that actually, more than anything else, is something
of a description of how hot you ought to be in order to
escape a one-way flow mechanism. I - almost anything up to
that point has some slight one-way flow liability to it in
auditing.

Now, I took an auditor who had audited and audited for a
long time and he hadn't gotten very much auditing. And he,
since the earliest days, had actually been self-auditing a
little bit, you know, here and there. And he'd gotten so he
self-audited more and more and he took care of everything
via self-auditing, you see. And he was very good at it, you
see, he could clip out something he felt bad about or
something that was a shock to him, and so on. He was very
comfortable about the whole thing because he knew he could
maintain status quo; but nevertheless he was self-auditing.

Well, what I put this poor boy through on one process only,
shouldn't have happened to anybody. And this process was
simply mocking up something out there to say all of the
various types of commands that you could say in auditing.
Now, it didn't matter what the significance of the command
was as long as the intention of that life unit - you know,
Stage Two, there's got to be something there to talk to.
All right, the intention of this life unit was to audit him
and that it did verbalize or talk or have ideas. And this
was the total consideration.

And this poor guy, while he was running this, went through
birth, conception, past lives, deaths, he was being
stabbed by - Greek fire dumped on his head and everything
else. But they were coming in and out with great rapidity,
you see. There was no real somatic to it, but the whole
track was flying by the way it's supposed to fly by when
you fall off the yardarm and you're about to die or
something. And he had never had any recognition, never any
recognition at all, because he was so good at this - taking
care of this via a circuit - never had any recognition that
he was suppressing any vast degree of engrams or anything
like that. Well, this boy could not exteriorize easily. He
could exteriorize, you know, create taffy, you know, sort of
a taffy-type of exteriorization. But he wasn't doing too
well. And he was simply suppressing, on a one-way flow
basis, any possible obedience of his own auditing command
by himself. See, he was suppressing the obedience of his
command by himself. He would say to somebody, "All right,
now touch the wall," (and this is the way the mechanism
works) and then he would suppress himself you see, from
going over and touching the wall.

Every time - he had gotten to a point where he was
actually - he was on his way down very definitely - where he
was handling things within himself with energy. You know?
He would actively suppress himself back into the chair when
somebody went over to touch the wall. You see? And he would
say, "All right, uh-now, uh-uh - oh, okay now, uh - let go 
of it," and he would hold on. Isn't that cute? In other words,
he was suppressing every auditing command. So, therefore,
he was putting the reverse command on himself And we had a
ball!

Now, if you tried to audit this out, command by command,
auditing session by auditing session, this would have been
about the grimmest thing anybody ever could have attempted
because this fellow would actually spend thousands of hours
in the auditing chair.

But, as I say, it started to peel off and he really got
another look at his track. He was using facsimiles to
suppress facsimiles. The devil wouldn't have it.

All right. Any type of a one-way flow of this
characteristic where an individual is maintaining,
maintaining individuality with great exclusiveness -
you see, he's maintaining his individuality with great
exclusiveness and he's sitting there getting somebody else
to perform the commands, yet he himself has - expressing his
individuality in his form to such a degree that his form
could act in those commands. If he were doing this,
naturally he would just get more and more mass; he would
accumulate more and more mass or he would be holding off
more and more mass. And this would be a ball that he would
be wound up in.

All right. There's another side to existence which is very
interesting - standpoint particularly in relationship to
this, but much more general than this point. And that is
that an individual has to make himself duplicatable. If you
are going to communicate with an ant you at least have to
work in the frame of reference of an ant or the ant can't
receive you.

Now, let's take skip-skop Schopenhauer and take this guy,
and read over his lumbering prose and realize why he isn't
more read. He's not duplicatable.

Immanuel Kant is not duplicatable with great ease, so
people don't read him. He possibly has a lot of wise things
to say. There's - this is doubtlessly true. But he had walked
out into an "only one" characteristic to a point where he
didn't consider it necessary to make himself duplicatable
anymore and so he went on out of communication. See that?

Well, so it is with anybody working - if he doesn't make
him - or communicating in any way, if he doesn't make
himself to some degree duplicatable, the funny part of it
is that his communication never arrives. Now, that's what's
fantastic. His communication never arrives. That means to
say, that if you are operating a widow-maker, one of these
pneumatic drills, out here on a cliff side, do you know it
won't - wouldn't run for you at all unless you were slightly
that pneumatic drill? Do you know that as you drive a car,
do you know that its brakes would not work, its clutch
would not operate, its motor would not run for you if you
were not to some degree a car? You wouldn't even see it.
You wouldn't even see this car.

So it is when individuals get into fixed individuality; a
fixed role of one kind or another, an intensely fixed role.
One of the things they do, by the way, is they begin to
assign more and more importance to this role, you see.

That, by the way, is a byproduct of this, it's rather - than
a processable thing; processing importance is fun but it
doesn't get you very far.

They begin to assign more and more particular importance to
this role and begin to freeze in it more and more and more
and more and they become less and less malleable, you might
say, less and less pliable as far as existence is
concerned, until they get down, of course, to an obsessive
pliability so that they just look at something and there
they - you've probably seen people that are bad off this way,
they look at something and they're immediately it, you
know, obsessively. They couldn't prevent themselves from
doing this.

If you've ever had - have you ever talked to a psychiatrist?
The psychiatrist, not to amuse you, he says, "Well, we
have these patients who are curled up in a ball." Got the
idea? He says, "Uh - and, uh - the way that uh - we generally
uh - work uh - around one of these fellows - it's all strapped 
up.

You know, he couldn't for the life of him prevent himself
from putting his hands up there across his chest to get
into restraint.

Now, you talk to somebody who is simply a good talker and
he wants to give you information, why, he's liable to make
gestures. Well, these gestures have a certain freedom to
them - one line of demarcation between these two states - 
these gestures have a certain freedom to them. He knows he's
doing it, you see. He has a very good idea of what he's
doing. There's nothing compulsive or obsessive about what
he's doing at all.

So let's get the idea there very clearly that malleability
could be obsessive and an individual could be shoved into
various roles, one after the other, by the environment or
by a particular individual.

Let's take, oh, let's take Grandma. You know, Grandma she
was - had something wrong with her communication setup, one
way or the other, and she gradually has enforced this and
that upon the individual and has furnished insufficient
communication to a point where the individual obsessively
takes over the role of Grandma. See, an unknowing adoption
of a role or a form.

And that's what we call valences and valence - life
continuum, a lot of other manifestations stemmed off from
this. But the important thing is, the important thing here
is that an individual assumes a role more and more fixedly.
They can assume a role knowingly at will; and just because
they can assume one role is no reason why they cannot
assume fifty roles. See, that's a desirable life basis.
Now, that individual can stay in communication or get out
of communication with anything he addresses. Anything will
run for him. Anything will patch up for him. You see?

The other side of the thing is the individual who is in a
fixed role who will not go into the valence of those things
he looks at, you see. He's just more and more out from it.
You know, he's fixedly himself or some object. He is a
cop - to give you an example - or he is a criminal, or he is a
senator, or he is a - a lord or he is a street sweeper. You
see, he's got himself terrifically fixed over here in this
role, see. And the environment gets dimmer and dimmer and
dimmer and things work less and less. And when he gets up
to make a speech the only place it ever goes is into the
Congressional Record. And when he - when he addresses you as
a citizen he looks at you and you're Pretty Boy Floyd as
far as this cop's concerned. I mean, he doesn't know the
difference between addressing an honest citizen and a
criminal. He just more or less all addresses it kind of
fixedly in the same way, you know, "Guess that's it."

We've got one down here in the Phoenix police department in
charge of forgery. And this man is in the incredible
state - as many cops get into. You notice that if you put a
complaint up to a policeman he's liable to find out what -
try to find out what you're guilty of. You know, he can't
differentiate. The complainant is not the defendant. He
isn't in communication.

So we get this cop down here, if you were to walk in with a
forged paper and you were to explain to him very carefully
how you came into possession of this forged paper and
exactly how this forged paper was affecting your life and
probably who forged it and why, when you got all through,
he would ask you, "Why did you forge it? You realize it's
illegal to forge things!" He's psychotic. He's completely
out of communication. He's enough in a niche and what he's
supposed to say is sufficiently formulized that nobody
notices this. See, it's not noticeable. He's evidently
talking about the situation. But I imagine the Chief of
Police could walk down there to him - and one of these days
it will be like this - Chief of Police will go down and
find out something on the subject of forgery or something
like this and he'll want to know why the Chief of Police
forged it! About that time, why, the Chief of Police will
recognize all is not well in that department and will
replace him.

What happens when he's replaced? He's got no role left, has
he? There's no role. In other words, this fellow is in a
fixed set of communication lines and with no role
remaining, he can't be there, can he? So he just goes
entirely out of communication.

Now, this is a fascinating thing, watching this whole
business of roles and so forth take place. Because we find
out if an individual rigs himself up as a man, he stays
fairly easily in communication with men. But as he gets
more and more fixedly a man, and an individual man, he
starts going out of communication on any other life form.

We're talking to a public right now that cannot conceive of
an awareness of awareness unit with any ease at all. "Life
forms? There's only one kind of life form I know, that's a
man and he's supposed to eat everything else or something."
Boy, that's really a fixed role, isn't it? Just like this
guy down here in charge of forgery.

The fellow says, "I am a girl, I am a girl," this fellow
says. He's an awareness of awareness unit and he's lost his
adaptability; he's lost additional beingnesses; he's lost
a pliability about life and after a while he wears glasses.
He wears glasses, this is a direct relationship. You see
somebody with some glasses perched on their nose, you're
looking at a fixed beingness. How did he get fixed? What's
the mechanism by which they get fixed? It's the two-way
communication after no two-way communication for some
little time. And the scarcity is so great that an
additional or other two-way communication - you know, an
other origin - then becomes obsessive, fixed or even hypnotic
to them.

Let's look at this. Here's this fellow sits out in space.
He's out in space. He doesn't have any second communication
line, see - just him self He isn't really on the ball. He
doesn't know what he could do to get himself out of this
situation. He's just, you know, more or less halfway down
and halfway out and his visio while exteriorized is real
poor. And let's just look at the high accidentalness that
this could have. And he hasn't had any two-way
communication for a long time, see? Dog senses his
presence and barks at him. What happens? "Woof!" See, the
scarcity of the communication makes the next communication
he gets on this at the level of obsessiveness.

Now, let's take a little kid who doesn't communicate - he's
communicating fine but he's debarred from communication
quite a bit. He has to come in at a certain time, he has to
go to bed, he has to stay in school and he can't whisper.
He's - you know, yappity-yappity-yap; he can't, can't, can't,
can't, can't.

And there's one person who communicates to him quite a bit.
Hm. Let's say that was Grandma. Let's say Grandma is just
terrible as a communicator. Let's say she has communication
lags and silences and obsessions on certain things and so
on. She's in real poor communication condition, you see.
But, nevertheless she does talk to him, addresses him
directly somewhat on the line of an equality, you see. I
mean, she's interested in what he's interested in. Anything
she says goes home with the value of a phrase uttered
during a blow, only more so.

Now we're talking about the factor - the aberrative idea,
phrase or beingness - above the level of impact. This is
the mechanism above the impact.

Now, we know very well what happens when we sock an
individual on the jaw and say, "You're a dog." He's liable
to wake up barking. We're quite well aware of this, you
see. It is the idea there opposed to the no-ideaness of the
blow. See, the impact: no life, no idea. In fact,
antipathetic toward a life form. And in the middle of this
we at least have some life; we have an idea sitting in the
middle of this blow. And brother, he just takes that idea
and he holds it to his bosom.

I dare say if there was an old desert rat out here
somewhere who hadn't talked to anybody for years and you
walked up to him, and you found him and you walked up to
him, and you said "My, you're a beautiful looking burro."
He would undoubtedly think he was one. He would have the
idea that he was one; he would at least have an idea of
trying to get rid of this idea. No matter what else you
said to him, this sudden idea appearing in the - in this
terrific desert of no-ideas, no-communication, would have
enormous value just because it's an idea. Now, it has
additional value because it has a significance. Gee!
Really got something there!

Why do beings get stuck as ants? skunks? men? Why do they
get into this fixed idea? Well, ideas are so scarce;
emanation of ideas are so scarce. And this great scarcity
of ideas, this great scarcity of communication origins,
actually fixes these individuals into the valence of that
which best or least worst communicates with them. Got that?
Fixes them on what least worst communicates with them. See
that, how easily this works?

Now, an auditor, an auditor who isn't getting around
talking to other auditors, who isn't in a free frame of
mind with regard to talking to people in general, gets
another weird one - at least a preclear talks to him. The
least worst thing that talks to him is a preclear. Huh? Now
we get this parity of identity. Parity of identity you can
use that as a technical phrase, you see, comes about on the
level of the least worst communication origin to the
individual. Parity of identity. In other words, if you were
to float around and you hadn't been talking to anybody for
a long time, you didn't have anybody to talk to, nothing
had originated any communication to you and a soldier ant
turned around all of a sudden and took a look at you and
said, "Hey, boy, what a halo that is, huh! How did you get
that black?" You know, some sort of an idea like this. "I'm
a soldier ant," you would say. "Where's my body?" Now,
that's about all that is necessary to fix anybody if he
were terrifically flat on communications; communication
origins zero. Something comes along and communicates to
him: Powie!

The aberrative quality of the phrase then depends upon the
relative desert of phrases surrounding it. A thetan will
pick up for communication the most life present and it
doesn't have to be very doggone much. See, he'll pick up as
communication the most life present.

Now, if you wanted to lead a group of men - let's say that
you were in the longshoring business and you wanted to lead
a group of men - all you'd have to do actually is talk
louder, talk faster, talk more continuously and pay less
attention to the rest of the men at the same time than
anybody else, and they would agree that you were foreman
and so would the boss of the longshore union. He would
agree that you were foreman of a crew. Even though that
isn't very much life, you see, merely talking and ignoring
and going along this particular line, just making a big
furor all the time. Nevertheless, that's more life than is
present in the rest of these boys, isn't it? Now, that's
what's - that's what's a very fascinating fact.

These people who talk obsessively or who at least move a
little bit, wind up in the higher places. Now, in view of
the fact that people depend upon other - necessity, you see,
other-determinism to start them talking, why, we see to a
marked degree then that man would be lead by mostly
somebody who just had some kind of a pet peeve or a saw and
he was 1.5ing about it. Wouldn't matter how clever an
individual was.

Now, the other thing a leader would have to be would be
duplicatable. Or a form would have to be, it would have to
be duplicatable. You'd have to have some idea of what it
was in order to duplicate it. Now, in view of the fact that
everybody has had such erroneous ideas as to what an
awareness of awareness unit was: It might be a spirit, it
might be a ghost - ghosts are bad, you know, they walk around
completely naked and clank chains. These things are not
duplicatable, they do strange and peculiar things like go
through keyholes. Their duplicatability is zero.

So an individual has gotten into the state of being that,
"I have no self" you see, "I have no identity because a
self-assigned identity is not good enough." And as a
self-assigned identity isn't good enough, therefore an
other-assigned identity, you see, is much better and "If I
were just myself why I would just be a ghost; and I don't
want to be a ghost. Or I'd be a demon or I'd be something
or other," see. He doesn't have a well-formed idea of any
identity and because he is so starved for communication
origination, you see, so starved for this, that he takes
these other ideas - he's got plenty of ideas of his own.

Now, the funny part of it is that the silences don't
process, there's no life in silence. Life is a quality. But
it gets quantitative when it comes up against time. There
can be a negative life, you might say. It seems to be able
to get into a fascinating state of not being present. It
really goes down - it goes asleep and then it goes to sleep
some more. You got the idea? So if we had to run out all
the unconsciousness or all the silence there was on the
track, why, we would be in - just up against it as auditors.

As a matter of fact, we don't have to do this at all. We
don't have to supply a quantity. We have to deliver into
the person's hands an idea that he can handle and control,
through pan-determinism, communication origin on two lines
at the same time. And when he learns that he can originate
communications from somebody else to him, why, he's in
pretty good shape. And he doesn't get into obsessive
identities.

If he found himself getting into an obsessive identity all
he'd have do is have that identity talk to him for a while.
Just say, "Hello, hello, hello, hello, how are you, Bill?"
Boom! It's the most workable form of the process and
actually self-auditing can be done with this.

But what else is it but self-auditing? Follow this? What
else is it but self-auditing? But it's the only process I
know of that can be done by self-auditing. Processes almost
as good as this, almost as strong as this yet wind a fellow
up in the soup right away because they miss this particular
facet. Now, it's a funny thing, we're right there at what
seems to be a very, very narrow hairline; just below this
point no self-auditing could possibly be accomplished,
above this point, any kind of self-auditing.

A desert of ideas, a desert of life, the manifestations of
life are very few and far between. Most people sit around
lacking imagination or ideas. What is this imagination or
ideas? It's simply a lack of the other communication
origin. That's the only thing imagination, lack of; is.
It's just lack of origin of communication upon another line.

When you see this with some clarity you'll understand how
people get into fixed identities. They get into the
identity of that thing which at least communicates with
them somewhat, you see. It communicates with them somewhat
so they can, to some degree, assume that identity.

Now, if the people, who are being communicated to by a life
furnishing an origin of communication, are in a rather
fixed state anyhow - they're living in an enormous
desert - and if there is no method, no way and no
understanding how we could resolve this particular
problem, that would be a rough go; see, that would be a
real rough go.

Therefore, auditing has a value and this technology now has
a value to life that life evidently didn't have. Life up to
that time would stumble along, you see, life forms would
simply stumble along remedying this scarcity in the real
universe wherever possible. So we had an almost totally
stimulus-response operation in progress. Happenstance,
accidental, practically no planning - everything going off 
by experience and evolution. See?

Now, the rationale of why you should be something isn't
there. There is no rationale on why you should be something
and why you should be something else and this is a good
thing and that is a bad thing and so forth. There's no real
rationale unless you were fitting all of this into some
sort of a frame of reference and you decide we can have a
good game here if we have certain beingnesses well
established and certain rules of the game in progress. But,
in the highest echelon of it there is no rationale beyond
that which communicates the least worst as communication
origin to the individual, tends to fix the individual in
its valence or identity.

A thetan will get so bad off - mind you, this is - this is
horribly true - he'll get so bad off that a theta trap which
re-echoes or has some musical factor is better
communication than none. They will take on the valence of
the trap. Just as neat as you please.

Did you ever see in running a preclear, did you - or in
yourself - did you ever run into a pole-type trap that echoes
everything the individual says or does or tries to push
away from? Well, honest, a pole-type trap- which is simply
sort of a mirror trap; it picks up the wavelength of the
thetan and reechoes it - it has no force or power in itself
People will swear when they first run into these things
that they have electronic potential, that they have
voltage and wattage running through them. No they don't.
They are - that is the trick of the whole thing. They have
nothing in them at all except the ability to reactivate
against the source any impulse which comes at them. Mirror
image sort of a thing. 

Now, we have a little psycho who was - last report 
yesterday - was getting extremely well. I just saw his 
auditor going back to the office, I suppose after about 
a two-day exile with this boy. Mama did not take care 
of an attendant on the basis - and there was no relief 
for the auditor. And this boy looks at himself in the 
mirror all the time. Well, brother, that tells you how
much life this individual's had around him. All right. The
most life communication he's going to get is from the
mirror. Right? And if left to his own devices this
individual would simply slab down to take on the form and
shape and function of a mirror. He'd have a tendency to try
to get that thin and that reflective. His skin texture
might even get shiny. I've never seen this preclear but I
could have probably described him very, very closely just
from his manifestation - he's looking in a mirror. So this is
the most life form there is. Now, this is a real short
circuit, isn't it? And a real confusing one because the
person he sees in the mirror is not, of course, the mirror
but it is a person in the mirror but this is himself
Da-da-da-da-da. But that is the most life there is around.

Now, why does a thetan continue to mirror a body? It's the
most life he can experience, because auditing and
thetan-plus-body are third dynamic functions - third dynamic,
not first dynamic. So the individual will continue to go on
taking the form of the body sort of on a pole-trap basis
because the body will mirror and reactivate every time he
puts a beam into it of any kind and because it's the most
life there is around. He doesn't actively perceive any life
in the space in his vicinity. But if you show - if he happens
to have some engrams and push some engrams up there, why,
he'll go into the obsessive beingness of those engrams,
won't he, because they're occupying the space around him.
He has some real cute mechanisms by which he makes some
life to put in the space around him. He invests an energy
mass, like an engram, with some life. He does all kinds of
obsessive and unknown to him, evidently, actions. He'll
fill up the whole environment full of engrams if you'll let
him. Gee, that's better life than none, isn't it? Well,
what a lousy form of life: a Fac One engram! Still, a Fac
One engram's better than empty space.

It isn't the mass. Now, this is the - this is where we pass
out and exceed the theory of havingness. It isn't the mass
involved here, it is what the mass will hold in form of
life or existence. Therefore, a remedy of havingness of
planets is extremely satisfactory - they sure hold life.
Suns - they certainly look like life. A sun, by the way, even
a dark star, is better than no movement manifestation.

Now, in the absence of life, they will start to pick up
emanating masses. In the absence of emanating masses, they
will start to pick up nonemanating masses as still better
and - because they're capable of motion, you see - than
nothing. And that is havingness. And the gradient scale as
we go down is an idea, a consideration, something capable
of forming an idea or consideration - something forming it is
best of all. Next to that the idea and consideration is
acceptable. And below that some symbol of an idea or
consideration - you know, a printed word or anything like
that - is still better than no idea. And we go down from
there - an emanating mass and a nonemanating mass. And all
these things are better than nothing, but on that gradient
scale.

So, you'll have - let's have this thetan and he's scared to
put out a force beam. You know, he's perfectly all right on
an idea level he thinks maybe, but he's kind of leery of
putting out a force beam. Why is he leery of putting out a
force beam? That's communication origin, isn't it? That's
an origin of communication. As an origin of communication
it can then get into the most remarkable state of confusion
you ever wanted to listen to.

Why? He didn't want anything else to put out a beam, it'll
destroy the form which he himself has. It'll destroy the
identity he's already fixated on even though that just may
be a mass of facsimiles. Something putting out a force beam
at him? Nah! How about him putting out a force beam? That's
again communication origin. So he stops putting out force
beams.

And you wonder why you can't see. Your preclear when he's
exteriorized, your preclear's energy masses as produced - he
has simply gone down this gradient scale. He's been
communication origin point as an "only one" so long that
the moment he starts to try to emanate he just runs into
the stuckest stuck flow there is. So, he doesn't emanate
energy.

I had a preclear the other day who got into a very sad
state. Preclear was coming way upscale, sonic, visio on,
everything was on, oh boy, just running beautifully, just
gorgeously, nothing wrong at all. And all of a sudden on
Route One of the Handbook, got real sad. He was copying
things, yes; but he was worried because his body couldn't
see the copies. His body couldn't see the copies and the
auditor couldn't see the copies and nobody could see these
copies and this made him sadder and sadder and sadder. Of
course, the more he was doing this, the more he was
sticking himself on the idea of creating energy, see. And
he was going down through grief on the subject.

Now, if we had had him make copies with another - attributed
ownership, we would have had an interesting situation
there. We had - would have had communication origin running.
So that actually, you could - you could do this. You could
take SelfAnalysis, and you could run it on a preclear just
come hell or high water without doing any of his side at
all. Just run it this way, just main strength, force and
awkwardness:

"All right. Have somebody else create a time or a scene in
which . . . " "Have somebody else create a scene in which.
. . " "Have somebody else create a scene in which. . . "
"Have somebody else create a scene in which. . . " "Have
somebody else create a scene in which. . . "

Just take those scenes, one right after the other and keep
the guy slugging away at it. Theoretically, we would again
boost back up to the point where the individual could
produce energy which was visible to one and all - theoretically.

The experiment has not been tried because the idea is so
superior and so senior, the origin of force itself from a
life unit is so junior to the production of a quality or an
idea, you see, that it evidently will run it out without
taking recourse to this particular energy pattern. See,
we'll run out the force manifestations too, just with this
same process which you have been doing. We'll run out all
of these as long as we remember that communication origin
is definitely a part of this auditing pattern. And if we
forget that communication origin is a part of this
auditing pattern, the preclear is liable never to remember
it. You see, it's just so long gone since there was
anything alive around producing an idea.

Now, pity the poor psychoanalyst. Someday we will have to -
when we get some grounds and tombs, city of our own and so
forth - we will have to have a little tomb there and we will
have to dedicate a day and we will - and it'll be the
"Unknown Psychotherapist." What a sad boy. He actually was
trying to remedy his own scarcity of communication origin
by making somebody talk and talk and talk and talk and talk
and talk and talk, see? If he just could have! And he'd
make this person talk and talk and talk and talk and talk
and talk and talk.

He would have won except for one thing: he was looking for
something else. He was looking for something in this talk.
Well, why didn't he just make somebody talk? It would have
made the psychoanalyst well. You see that? It would have
made the psychoanalyst well; it would never have made the
patient well. Never till the end of time would anybody
ever have gotten through a psychoanalysis. Because the
thing that's wrong with the poor old thetan is that he has
had to be the communication origin forever if there was any
communication origin done to remedy this scarcity.

He didn't understand the mechanism he was facing because
the mechanism is not necessarily native to the thetan. Not
necessarily, you see, it's merely one of his agreements.
He's agreed that this law of two-way communication will
now take place. It was done from that moment thereon.

Of course, you can say theoretically, "Why don't we just
run out this agreement and we'll be all set?" The
agreement runs out eventually, but it runs out on this
system. And then it gets solider and then it runs out again
and then the guy brings it into being again because he
hasn't got enough problems and he hasn't enough interest in
life and so on. So you run into complexities on it.

All right. As we look over this field of pan-determinism,
we better have a very, very, very good idea of what we're
talking about. I want to say just a few words about
this - and we'll talk about it again. The pan-determinism is
the willingness to exercise control - determinism, same
deal - along more than one dynamic. That's pan-determinism.
It's the willingness to exercise determination - control
along more than one dynamic. And the more a person is 
willing to control the various dynamics the better he 
can see them. There's an old saw: 'A thetan can be what 
he can see; he can see what he can be." So if he can't - 
if he can't be individually and collectively these
various dynamics, of course he can't see them at all.

I'll let - I'll let you in on something that's very, very
funny as a proof of this. This is a very cute proof It's
rather typical, this proof. This proof is not offered as a
logical proof; it's offered simply as something that - it's
offered as something that would have been dreamed up, had
they thought of it and had dared release it, by maybe the
Jesuits several hundred years ago. I have a book which
proves absolutely the presence of demons and demon exorcism
and proves completely a priori - oh, the most fascinating
reasoning is the bulk of this book. You just feel your
brains go creak as you read this thing. They say, "The
priest got there and said that he had a demon in him. Then
the second priest came and looked at him and found out what
had happened up to date - that there was a demon in this
fellow - so this proved absolutely that there were demons in
the man. Because of the word of the ch---" and then they go
on and prove absolutely that the word of the church is law.
And then they prove the fact there was a demon present.
Just as I say, you - just - brains go kind of creak. They - 
it's got one of these things in practically every column, two
columns to the page, quarto-size volume, for about three or
four hundred pages. It's a very old book and was printed
way way back when. Fascinating volume. Well, I want to
prove pan-determinism to you on this line now.

Now, a thetan can see what he can be; he can be what he can
see. Now, have any of you ever seen God? Well, come on,
come on, have any of you ever seen God?

All right. You've never seen God, huh? Okay. If you have
never seen God, this proves conclusively that God is the
Supreme Being at the eighth dynamic. Isn't that right?

Oh, yes it does! Because you've never seen God and - and
you're being self-determined, which is the first dynamic.
So this merely demonstrates to you that individuals are not
pan-determinism. You follow this?

Typical Catholic Church reasoning of several centuries ago
- or today.

Well, you mean I don't make my point?

Well, let's look at the fact that we have an enormous
prohibition about pretending we're God. Look at this. Boy,
about the awfullest thing you - that you could possibly level
at anybody, "Oh, my God, he thinks he's God." See. "He's
real nuts, send for the wagon." This is synonymous with,
"Get a butterfly net!" Well, that's curious, isn't it?

Look at the prohibition we have against somebody thinking
he's an object. See, people keep these insane
manifestations afloat as warnings. You know this fellow
who's in the insane asylum and he thought he was a
bedpost. She thought he - she was a tree. And I notice the
comedians on TV and so forth use this quite a bit. It's
quite a mechanism. Don't be the sixth dynamic, in other words.

Certainly nobody would possibly pretend to be a spirit
because a spirit is something good, you know. Now as we go
down the dynamics - fifth dynamics - why, he lived like an
animal. Now anybody who has tried to do anything for
mankind or as the fourth dynamic, and so forth is
immediately suspect - he must be nuts.

Now, maybe McCarthy doesn't need psychiatrists. He doesn't
look to me and he doesn't have a comm lag like somebody who
needs a psychiatrist. But every one of his opponents has
been label - leveling at him the fact that because he thinks
communists are going to do something to man, why, therefore
this proves immediately that McCarthy is crazy. It's
probably not true at all. 

All - by the way, one of the little points of strained
relations - I love this emphasis on strained relations; I
don't know anything very strained about the relations
between Great Britain and the United States. They did have
a point there where old Winnie was awful sore. I think - I
think somebody wouldn't loan him some money or something
and he got real mad and for a while there - Anglo-American
relations were having a rough time.

But they were - this was given a good high skyrocket by
McCarthy's refusal to let British seamen land in American
ports for liberty just on so many - just representation that
they were British seamen. And he said that they were - the
British crews and so forth had a great number of communists
in them which was highly detrimental to the security of our
own ports. And that these people were influencing our labor
unions and longshore unions and that British seamen were
acting as carriers of literature and messages and so forth
to longshore unions encouraging strikes and tying up ports
and so forth.

Well, after we stopped letting foreign seamen land - that was
not a British seamen, it was a foreign seamen; and it was
Great Britain that took exception to this - after we
stopped letting them land, we stopped having these
terrific, cataclysmic longshore strikes every time we
turned around - we only have them every day or something now.

But, Great Britain has just experienced a communist 
inspired longshore strike of devastating magnitude. Of 
course McCarthy should have a psychiatrist, there's no 
doubt about it! But I think this was real funny
because the only thing the British people really got mad at
McCarthy about was the fact that he said that British
seamen mustn't be permitted to land without showing a
proper passport and demonstrating the fact that they
weren't communists, you see? And all of a sudden here's
British shipping just tied up in knots by a
communist inspired strike. There's a communist someplace!
So this gets to look very funny.

But what happens is that any time somebody would come out
on a fourth dynamic basis he'd have his head cut off - one
way or the other. They - really, the only one that came out
on a fourth dynamic basis in recent times, and that two
thousand years ago, got himself nailed up rather neatly.

Male voice: "Wilson." 

Hm?

Male voice: "Wilson."

Oh yeah, there's - practically every one of them. Wilson,
every one of these guys gets mowed down sooner or later,
one way or the other.

We have a great suspicion on those upper dynamics, just as
bars to pan-determinism.

Now, we get down into third dynamic and we find this much
less suspect - as long as it's a small third dynamic - national
or lesser size unit. A person can be to some degree there.
But don't let anybody try to get pan-determined on the
second dynamic. Think of that one for a moment. You're not
supposed to have anything to do with this second dynamic at
all, are you? This is very bad; everybody agrees this is
real bad. And the most fascinating aberrations occur on the
second dynamic.

Freudian analysis tried to rise up into the second dynamic.
At least that was a further walk away from the first
dynamic than anybody else had adventured. And, boy, did
old Freud get - take a beating! Did he take a beating! Oh!
He, at the time, was labeled as a fraud, a bum, a hoax, a
dog by every medical doctor there was in Europe. They were
all breathing fire. He dared to move up into the field, the
sacred realms of - we don't know what medical science has to
do with the mind, nobody has ever understood this
completely but the doctors seem to or maybe they just don't
understand things.

But they considered it their province to really slam this
particular one flat as far as Freud was concerned. And when
he got more and more insistent on the second dynamic, boy,
people got madder and madder and madder about this thing.
And it was a hurrah's nest created in the whole field of
medicine and everything else. But this announcement of the
fact that somebody was going to think about the second
dynamic, ah! One of the quickest ways you could get
arrested would just be to have a packet of French postal
cards. You know, I mean real French postal cards. Yeah,
boy, you get arrested and thrown in jail maybe throw the
key away. What business of this is theirs? I imagine if you
had any Greek statuary around you'd be in the same boat. Or
would you?

I was rather interested that The Arabian Nights can now be
owned and read in the United States by a Supreme Court
ruling. They're a work of art. They previously were not
permitted. You get the British edition of The Arabian
Nights, you were subject to arrest if you had a volume of
it. Second dynamic.

First dynamic: I wonder if that's blocked any? "Well, I'm a
pretty good fellow." "Nyah, always talking about himself"
You see? I mean, you're not supposed to be you. Looks like
they just push right on away to zero - a no-dynamic situation.

So this pan-determinism would be - we could just as well call
it "some-determinism" on the dynamics. And if anybody
argues with you too violently about pan-determinism - they
get the idea, "Well, wait a minute, if you have
pan-determinism, why, then - " and they'll think it over real
good - they'll say, "Oh, you mean, you want to control
everybody!" You see, they're real scared of being
controlled. No, willing to control. Just reinterpret it
immediately as some-determinism on the dynamics. They'll
buy this. They'll think people ought to have some determinism.

So, actually the word pan-determinism is there because it
is an extreme; it is an absolute height, you see, which we
know quite well is not even vaguely obtainable. See? We
just know that this is not obtainable, even vaguely. But we
can - we put it there so we can at least strike toward it,
see. At least somewhere up along the line have something to
say in two sides of a conversation, you know. Mild
conversation like, "What will we have to eat for
dinner?" - be able to take both sides of the question.

Well, an individual who is not firmly fixed in an identity
is suspect and people will try to fix him firmly into an
identity. They want to have - everybody to have a label and
this is gorgeous. There is no reason why anybody should
have a label. But, it makes the wheels run more smoothly.

As a matter of fact the society suffers, really, from a
lack of labels rather than labels. The label "citizen" for
instance, is a meaningless label in this world of 1950s.
Citizen at one time meant something absolutely terrific.
For instance, you could not have been arrested or held or
tortured for testimony of any kind if you were a citizen;
your property could not be confiscated without the most
complicated processes of law and so on. I mean, it was -
it really meant something.

And you're liable to get a bad going-over in some jail if
you happen to bring up some point of the Bill of Rights
today. I mean, that's a bum deal - you better keep mum about
it. The way they handle a citizenship today it's not
issued, it's sort of inherited and then a fellow can
disprove his qualifications by murdering fifteen babies; I
think if he only murders fourteen he can get away with it,
something like that. But after he is on everybody's police
blotter and on all the records and the FBI has also agreed
and so on, and he has been sent to prison and so on, why,
then they will take his citizenship rights away from him.
That's - this is called "accessories." Generally attached to
military crimes more than anything else. Loss of
citizenship is sometimes part of the sentence. I think
penitentiary sentence of such and such a period of time
usually results in a loss of citizenships or civil rights;
it doesn't result in a loss of citizenship, it results in a
loss of civil rights. They don't even take citizenship away
anymore.

You get the idea? Here we don't have a fixed identity so
the whole world tries to surge up to a safe period of
identity - a safe point of identity or discover a safe
identity. Of course, the unsafe thing about the whole thing
is an identity! So we make a scarcity. We say there could
be an identity like "citizen," you see, that was real good
and we make everybody charge up to that - when he's in the
Boy Scouts or some such thing - we make him become a "good
citizen." This is a safe identity. And then we find out
that the Gestapo, today really finds a criminal just a
little bit dangerous to arrest and the people they arrest
normally, apparently, from - I've been doing some checking
over here the last couple of days since, and I've been
having a ball. All the arrest records I can find are
ordinary citizens. The people who get investigated,
questioned and so forth, or brought in are citizens;
they're not criminals. And yet we find one hundred
robberies a day occurring in a city of 100,000 people.
That's a lot of robberies. That means every citizen in the
United States will be robbed on an average once every two
years.

All right. So we're given this pressure, you see, to
believe that there is a safe identity and it's just a
complete inversion. There is no such thing as a safe
identity. A secure job; there's no such thing as a secure
job. The only thing that's secure is "no job." The only
identity that's safe is "no identity." All right. There is,
however, a way to have an identity and still have a game
and that's to have an identity that's not an obsessive
identity; to have an ability, an ability to alter or assume
identities. Unless you can assume identities, you can't see
anything anyhow. You wouldn't be able to see anything
anyhow if you couldn't assume some identity. It makes you
wonder how men can kill, by the way. It makes you wonder.
That is a very, very fixed identity. They are a man and as
a man are not even part of the human race, see. They're
sitting way back here by this time. And you've got your
average Homo sapiens. Although he is a man, he is not part
of the human race. He feels like he's a stranger and an
alien everywhere he goes. 

Okay?

(end of lecture)






