From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Tue Mar 16 17:10:03 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!feeder.qis.net!nntp.primenet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 17 Mar 1999 00:10:03 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 22/35 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: <aa878b6be907a9b6a487847c57cb9ddc@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1152
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690045 alt.clearing.technology:76141

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 22/35

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 22/35

9th ACC 16a (18) - TIME

Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC16A    -   
5501C04 Renumbered 18 for "The Solution To Entrapment"
cassettes

TIME

A lecture given on 4 January 1955


You process a preclear up, you get him into a certain level
of speed, and you know very well that he's going to drift
back somewhat from this level; somewhat. He might go
halfway back to what he was before, so on, unless you bail
him all the way up and out with your processing. Just a
handy little tip here: Process a preclear rapidly, get him
up as high as you can get him in the short space of time
that you can get him and then knock it off and arrange to
process him again in three to six months. You got the
formula, hm?      

Now, this is definitely a formula. Your preclear is going
to go out into the society. He's going to get himself
slowed down. He's going to be running at a high rate of
speed, going to be in pretty good shape when he gets
through with your processing. He's going to be perfectly
willing to fly at a jet plane speed in the society, and he
goes out and he finds out this society has not yet got up
to burro back. Speed's slow, real slow. And he will average
out fairly well the difference.

We're talking now about speed, you understand? Speed is a
factor in processing. If you were to process a preclear
and you were to say, "Um-well, um-well, give me another
one of those."

"Okay."
"All right. Uh - can you find another place?"

You're going to be amazed at the fact that the fellow is
not going to make much gain, you know? That's the speed
factor. In the first place, time in its most basic
condition is instantaneous for the preclear. And you start
processing him, you say, "All right. Give me another one
of those. Yep, all right. Another one. Okay. All right.
Another one. All right. Another one. All right. Another
one. All right. Another one." You're still up a little
higher than his tolerance, but he will come up to you.
Always lead him a little bit in speed, always.

And you can count on the fact that after he gets out of the
processing, the intensive, after he's left you as an
auditor, he's going to move back into an area where the
speed of auditing which I've just demonstrated would be a
high-pitched screaming chatter. See, I mean, "Well, I don't
know why you want to but uh ..." You know, high-pitched
conversation, just terrific tension, dynamic pressure in
this society is just wonderful. I was on the telephone the
other day and while as a - while a salesman, who should
certainly have known better, was trying to sell me a piece
of machinery which I didn't think much of and told him so
two or three times, and in the length of time that this
individual was trying to sell me this piece of machinery,
his comm lag, his delivery and my prediction of what he was
saying were such that I actually dictated two letters while
I was talking to him on the phone. I just kept one hand
over the mouthpiece and kept dictating with my foot on the
foot pedal. It didn't disturb me any, because he certainly
was, at that slow rate of speed, was no obstacle. He was so
predictable.

That's another thing you can't ever quite forgive this
society for after you've gotten processed up along the
line. It gets so damned predictable. You just know that
when the guy walks down the street and stands there for a
moment, he's going to remark - damn his soul - on the weather.
This high, quivering, dynamic excitement is probably too
much for the society to stand because it tries to slow even
that down. All right.

So, you know your preclear's going to drip-ping-flop-drop-skid 
back toward this speed. But the actuality is he about halves 
it. You know, you bring him out brrrrrr and the society's 
going putt-putt, and he gets it about poppita-poppita
poppita-poppita, see. Even though he went out of auditing 
brrrrrr; he'll still drop down to poppita-poppita
poppita-poppita, see? The only trouble with a society of 
this character is that it imposes such a tremendous strain 
upon communication. There's just too little of it. The 
number of unit - the number of communication units per 
minute of time in this society's conversation is not enough 
to keep anybody Clear. You get how that would be?

All right. Let's say the society is talking this many
communication units: "Hello-hello-hello." Do you see that
there is a waiting time in there greater than the
communication time? All right. Here would be another one:
"Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello." Now, you see that
there's communication units, you might say, for that same
duration of time, overpasses those intervals of silence,
see, intervals of silence.

Well, now, what slows people down isn't anything very
esoteric. It is simply this interval of silence in
relationship to the communication unit. The interval of
silence in relationship to the communication unit.

How many unit - communication units - this is just a word 
just to communicate with you concerning it. Let's say that 
we have a rate of ten communication units per hour. Well,
this would just be almost certain to spin somebody after a
while, you see? It's just not enough communication.

Now, I'll give you some sort of an idea on dictation on a
tape recently. Some of those tapes have five hundred
communication units per minute, if we think of a
communication unit as a word. Now, this is quite speedy.
Well, therefore, there's a lot of communication per unit
time. But let's not get all mixed up with this thing called
"time." Time simply is the change of position of particles
in space. All right. We could define time as the absence of
communication because in the presence of communication you
don't accumulate any. You accumulate nothing, get it, in
the presence of communication.

Now, if you get a lot of communication, it's just going
along boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-bop,
boy, time passes. See, it's zing-zing, you're not conscious
of it. But when the too few communication units occur, why,
then we get conscious of this thing called time. So you
could say that time comes into being to the degree that the
number of communication units drops. You got the idea? So,
with no communication units, you'd get a forever. And
that's MEST. See, that's no communication units.

For instance, that wall doesn't have any communication
units. You can come along and impress a form or an idea on
it in some sort of shape or at all, but that, remember, is
a wall. That is one communication unit, and that is going
to last that wall - just as far as even impressing the idea
on it, you see? It doesn't have any itself, but we're going
to impress one on it. And let's say, "It is a wall. It is a
wall at 401A East Roosevelt. It is a yellow wall at 401A
East Roosevelt," and we've just about done it. We could
trace the property classification down here in the zoning
regulations and we could get the owner of the property and
so forth, but this is a transient sort of a communication;
it isn't intimately connected with that wall - not
intimately. We've got its time and location. Well, what is
its time? Its time is one communication unit: wall. Get the
idea?

Now, it's a - it's a wall. You see, for - I don't know how 
long it'd last - twenty-five years. See? That one unit has 
got to last it, got to last it for twenty-five years. Get 
what comm lag is? Hm? One communication unit's got to last 
the wall for twenty-five years.

Now, don't be surprised when Joe Blitzkrieg out here gets
awfully speeded up and is able to do all sorts of things,
if Joe Blitzkrieg, being in contact with a wall which is
one communication unit for twenty-five years, slows down.
No, don't be amazed that Joe Blitzkrieg, after he finishes
getting processed by you, slows down a trifle from the
level he attained while under processing. Also, don't be
surprised if Joe Blitzkrieg does not speed up at all if you
insist on processing at the rate of ten communication units
per session. Get the idea?

Now, actually, time enters in as communication enters out.
Get the idea?	It's a sort of a silly thing. It's - it's
the absence of something makes something and the more
absence there is, the more it is made. You get that?

Well, it's a very, very amusing thing; it is tremendously
amusing. Wherever we find a preclear who is having a hard
time in life, we have a preclear who has not had enough
communication units. Not per anything, that's the horrible
part of this. He's just not had enough communication units.
Well, what determines how many communication units he ought
to have? His own expectancy. That's all that determines it.

Guy - he now - this'd be the test. If you were to get somebody
and you were to say, "You know, you ought to be talked to
more."

And the fellow says "Why?"

"Well, I don't know. Company, companionship, you're liable
to get lonesome. You should be talked to more."

"Oh, I don't know. Why should I be talked to more?"

"Well, it's just the fact that you'll be lonely. In your
old age you don't want to be lonely. You want to get
married to some nice girl so that in your old age you will
have somebody to talk to, see?"

"To have somebody - what do I want somebody to talk to for?"

"Well, because you ve got to have somebody to talk to.
That's all there is to that. Because people are lonely, you
know," and so forth. And actually, he just needs a good
talking to, that's what he needs. "And the people are
awfully lonely, and - and they should have a lot of
communication, you see. And if they don't have a lot more
communication..." and so forth.

And the fellow says, "You mean this? You mean this? You
know, I wonder if that isn't true. I wonder if I shouldn't
be talked to more; I wonder if I shouldn't talk to people
more. Let's see. Yeah. I ought to talk to people. I
actually only talk to about one person a month. Maybe I
ought to talk to a person every day, huh?" A big idea, see?

Well, now, he expects to talk to a person every day, so he
misses a week. And he's created, by his own consideration,
a starvation. You get the idea.

All right. Now, the liability and danger of teaching people
about communication is that they have an expectancy
increase. Then they expect people to be in good shape if
they're talking all the time, or something like that. See,
they misapprehend this. But you've got to have this factor
in there, too; this factor's got to go right along with it.
It's the expectancy of how much communication the fellow
ought to have. Now, if he expects a lot of communication
why - and he gets no communication, he's unhappy.

Now, let's take Joe Blitzkrieg, and he didn't expect a
letter from anybody; let's make this even plainer. He
didn't expect a letter from a soul. He didn't expect any
letter. He went two months and he didn't think anybody was
going to write him. And then he - his girl goes off, you
know, and she's gone down to Bide-a-Wee Summer Camp or
something like that, to two-time him, and she's gone down
to Bide-a-Wee Summer Camp and she doesn't write. See, she
doesn't write. "I wonder what could be wrong. I wonder what
is - what's this all about?" You see? Here he expects a
communication and he doesn't get one.

Now, here again is an absence of communication leading to
franticness. The first absence of communication led simply
to tranquility. He didn't care whether anybody wrote him or
not. But now he has a reason for somebody to write him and
he knows that he ought to be written.

Well, people get this computation on wrongness. They think
that if they don't hear from somebody, something is wrong.
They get all sorts of odd things. But whatever it is, here
we have expectancy. How many communication units do I
expect to have? And it's just as though a fellow invented
time and waitingness in order to force people to
communicate. Waiting is so horrible, you see - and he can
explain this thing to them, you see, that therefore they
ought to communicate more. Follow me?

You see, he invents waiting to make them communicate more.
He says, "You see, this is so horrible, you being down
there at Bide-a-Wee Summer Camp for all three months, and
you didn't write me a letter? Those three long months you
didn't write me a letter." See, he's invented the
horribleness of waiting, and at that moment he has invented
noncommunicational track. He has invented time interval by
saying it would - had no communication in it, but it existed.
And this is your first and primary lie on the track, and it
leads to walls and things like this. See how it is?

Well, he invents at once the communication and the time
interval. He invents the fact that she's going to write
him. Maybe she can't write. Maybe she went to Vassar and
she can't write, and so on. He doesn't take any of these
things into consideration at all. He's invented this
letter, hasn't he? Has he? He's expecting a letter which
isn't ever going to exist, so he must've invented it. She
isn't going to invent it. It isn't what is expected of her
or anything else. He has invented a letter. And then he
invented the waiting period. And so we get the interval,
this silly looking picture of communication units per unit
of time. But the time itself is being expressed on a clock
which is an invented waitingness. And we get this total
lie: mechanical time. And we get time as being the action
of particles, the action of masses, an action which takes
place in spaces; and none of these things can exist unless
one expects a communication that isn't there.

It's not real hard to unravel this. If you look over it
real carerully, you'll see at once that both of these
things are an invention: The communication unit is an
invention, which we agree upon and so it exists; the
interval when there is no communication is invented by the
expectancy of the communication which is not answered. Get
this very clearly, that the next moment, by agreement
amongst us, is invented way back somewhere - there is no way
back, you see - but it's invented by the fact that we agree
it can occur.

Okay. I'm going to say something to you in exactly five 
seconds - .

Now, what did you suppose, that something was wrong with my watch?

Audience: No. 

Here, I was merely giving you a demonstration. But did you 
get that? Get the fact that there's some oppression starts 
to enter in there. You got that? Well, that oppression is 
put there by the fact that you were expecting a communication 
five seconds from there which didn't occur. But here's the 
trick: The trick is that blank period - the blankness and 
the period is an invented thing on which we have agreed. 
It's total invention. And it only exists anyhow because 
of an expectancy.

We've invented an interval when there is no communication,
and boy, that is - that's an invention. That's a terrific
invention. It leads to a whole universe, an interval in
which there's going to be no communication. First you
would've had to invent the idea that there was such a thing
as a communication, you see? And then you'd had to invent
the idea that there'd be an interval when there would be no
communication. And when you've got these two things nicely
boiling on the back burner, why, you're all set, then, to
consider an existence and time span.

And then for the measure of this time, there being no
communication, you've got to juggle some particles around
to say, "Now, look. These two particles move from here to
here all during this time. And we get motion. Motion takes
place in the absence of communication; motion does not take
place in the presence of communication."

Let's look at it on a higher theoretical echelon. ARC,
total ARC, gives you no triangle. You see the affinity,
that affinity sitting there? We've got everything
coincident with everything, haven't we. It's all sitting on
the same spot. So we have no triangle, which is all
triangle. You see that? So, we're all sitting on the same
spot very neatly, and believe me, there's no universe.

Now, the proof of this is an entirely different process. We
ask somebody, "What things wouldn't you mind occupying the
same space you're occupying?" And boy, we start to boot him
right on up-scale on the affinity corner of the triangle,
of course. Now, it is lack of affinity, it is lack of
communication; get the idea, see? Any thing we say about
one corner of this triangle, we've said about any other
corner of the triangle. So when we have lack of affinity
for the environment, what do we have? We have a triangle
there, anyhow, don't we? We've at least got two things
occupying different spaces, so there must be some lack of
affinity. So communication itself, in word form, must
express some - to some slight degree, coming way down scale
from the - from the terrifically high theoretical. Just
communication, just talking to somebody, no matter in what
friendly voice, is really a lack of affinity, and
demonstrates a lack of affinity. Do you see?

Now, this is so marked with some people at certain portions
on the Tone Scale, this is so very marked that they can
talk together, two people can talk together for a very
short time and they wind up in an argument. You would say,
"Well, now, here, wait a minute. This is a violation of
this triangle." Here you have, you say, "This
communication - the more communication there is, the greater
affinity there is." Not necessarily true, because you can
invert on this darn thing, and you can actually get two
people talking together in the friendliest way and have
them wind up in a screaming fight. You see how you could do
this?

Well, that would be when the individual's expectancy of
communication was "No communication expected, thank you.
I'm happy with these here particles and all of this
waiting time. This waiting time is fine. Wonderful stuff,
this waiting time. It's just what we need, more waiting
time," you know? Well, you don't - you don't quite click
unless I say "What we need is more havingness." Havingness,
waiting time; same difference. Same thing. Mass, waiting
time; same thing. You'll understand it much better if I say
space, waiting time; same thing. And don't tell me that
space isn't waiting time. You ever had to drive across the
United States? Well, that's waiting time; that's waiting
for it to - for an arrival to take place.

See, waiting time. Space equals - is waiting time. Particles,
motion of, may move in some uniform rate, but we don't care
what uniform rate they move in, it's waiting time, you see?
Pyramid, waiting time. Packard car, waiting time.
Buckingham Palace, waiting time. When you get around a
large amount of mass like Buckingham Palace, I'm sure that
you would be made to wait, too. Get the idea?

Mass, space, energy: communication lag. Communication lag:
waiting time. So I've been talking all this time about
communication lag, which is simply absence of
communication. Well, when I'm talking about absence of
communication, I'm talking about space. When I'm talking
about absence of communication, I'm talking about
particles. When I'm talking about absence of communication,
I'm talking about mass. When I'm talking about absence of
communication, I am talking about clock faces, which of
course are just particles moving in space. Clock faces are
particles moving at a uniform rate in space.

And in the absence of communication, and in the absence of
affinity, in the absence of coincidence, you get the
goddamnedest universes all out of these two inventions: I
expect a communication; I'll invent a wait to enforce its
arrival. You made me wait for this communication, see, so
therefore you're a dog. So we have space, time, universes
and so forth.

If you can break down this ARC triangle you will see that
it becomes no triangle, whatever, as soon as affinity
becomes total because no space exists with total affinity,
total reality, and total communication. See, we don't have
a triangle; we don't have a universe either. We don't have
particles. We don't have masses. We don't have waiting time
either. In fact, we don't have any time at all.

But there's an inversion of this. Individuals trying to
dramatize the truth of this get down to the bottom
triangle, which is an enforcement of the communication of
the reality or an inhibition of all, or some thing of the
sort, and nothing is quite coincidence with anything else,
but boy, are they held tightly together. You see, you've
got everything compressed. Everything is gorgeously
compressed. The distance is still there under terrific
duress. And there's the bottom of the triangle. Now, this
sounds very odd, but there is no silence at the top. See,
there is no silence at the top. Silence is an invented
thing, see? Silence is an invented thing. You have to
invent an absence of something to prove that the something
exists. So there is no silence in a totality of triangle,
but boy, is there silence at the bottom. You see, we go
down scale, we run into silence.

Now, silence would be this communication unit per moment of
wait in a tremendous ratio. One fellow in one billion years
has uttered one word in this space. Begins to look awfully
permanent, doesn't it, huh?

All right. Well, the tests of these things are: "Give me
two things that could occupy the same space, or "Something
that you wouldn't mind occupying your space," or anything
like this. You could go on processing in that direction and
you'd get somewhere. There's actually a faster way to get
there. Faster way to get there; it's just on communication
itself Let's increase the number of communication units per
the expectancy of the boy's bank. Well, we'll just take the
expectancy of his wait - you know, the wait - for granted.
There's a lot of wait there, and we'll see him dramatizing
this. We say to him, "All right. Now, give me some things
you wouldn't mind having touch somebody you didn't know."
You know, some mild process.

And he says - "What was the question?"

Now, what this boy's dramatizing is the waiting period. So,
it means that his expectancy of communication has been
violated. Just doesn't mean any more than that. It doesn't
mean that he has a lot of time in his bank or it doesn't
mean anything else. It doesn't even mean that he has any
real masses around. But it does mean that his waiting time,
his expectancy of communication, has many times been violated.

He went in and he said, "How are you, Mama?"

See, he expects this communication to occur, and it doesn't
occur. In order to get Mama to answer, he might even
explain to her, "Do you realize that you're making me
suffer by standing there."

Now, what he's done is a very simple thing. He's given over
some of his responsibility for communication, exactly 50
percent. He is only willing to occupy one end of the
communication line so he is less pan-determined by 50
percent the moment he says, "How are you, Mama?" and gets
no answer. So his expectancy is that some other-determinism
will enter into conversation. This is an expectancy which
creates masses and actually creates time itself. Expecting
somebody else to take part in his communication is 50
percent less determined than taking part in both sides of
the communication.

Could give you an example of that. It's an old Unit 1
demonstration. You have a fellow sit in a chair and say
"Hello," and then go over and sit in the other chair and
say "Hello." And then in the other chair, he says, How are
you?" and goes over to the first chair and sits down and
says, "I'm fine."

And the - a fast way to run this would be to simply have the
individual stand there and say, "How are you?" then have
him go over and face the position where he was standing
and say, "I'm fine. How are you?" And then go back to the
first position and say, "I'm okay. How's tricks?" And have
him go back to the first position - the second position again
and say, "Well, they're fine. How are your tricks?" You
know, just any kind of verbiage that you could throw in
making him change these two positions, one against the other.

It has a considerable efficacity, but it does not bail out
the preclear. See? I mean, he's tremendously amused; he
gets very relieved; it has undoubtedly great therapeutic
value. But it's slow freight because you're making him bust
in, while he's at the lower part of waiting time you see,
into lots of communication and both sides of it. And he
gets pretty confused because he has a tremendous number of
considerations he has to undo before he can do that.

A much faster method would be to have somebody sit down for
ten hours of processing and simply have him tell - tell you
things he wouldn't mind occupying the space he's occupying.
And he goes on and does this. Now, you see, you have worked
there the R corner of the triangle, spaces you wouldn't
mind occupying. But both of these methods - one because R,
reality, contrary to the expectancy of everybody in 1950,
reality was not the key. More people have come up to me and
have said to me, "Ron, do you realize that the reality is
the most important corner of this triangle? You know, the
way I look at it is that reality is the most important
corner, and the other two corners are, you know, just there
to supplement reality. And reality's really the important
thing."

I never bought it. I never made up my mind which corner was
really the most important corner. I might have skidded once
in a while and said that possibly one was or one wasn't,
but the fact is that communication is the important corner.

Well, all of these processes have the liability that they
don't hand out enough communication per unit of waiting
time, see? Now, the processes I was giving at the congress
will tell you rather rapidly - with the amount of masses that
moved around and so forth - will tell you rather rapidly that
having something out there which chatters at you - and - you
know, you've got something that is talking almost
incessantly, you know: "Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello,
hello, hello," is violating this mass-waiting time ratio,
you see. And boy, the masses start flying in all
directions, and the person's idea of what he can do per
unit time changes. I haven't taken any survey of the
congress; I don't need to. But I know that everybody who
was there, and did run the process, had at least a small
and mostly a fairly large change in the number of projects
or activities in which they were willing to engage. Had a
change in this, you see?

Well, what changed there? The R changed like mad, didn't
it? Reality did change. Well, now, what would happen if you
had a process that changed the R and the C at the same
time, and which gorgeously violated the A at the same time
by giving people their proper acceptance level of A? What
is - what is the acceptance level of your preclear on
affinity? Real bum.

If you were to walk up to a preclear and tell him that you
were very, very fond of him and that you had a great deal
of affection for him and so forth, he'd probably get upset.
You'd say, "You know, I really am very fond of you and I
like you very much and..." and so forth. He'd think
something was wrong here, see? He'd assume this. He'd get
embarrassed. This is one of the first reactions he would
have - just an emotional reaction.

All right. Now, we take over - we take a look at this - at this
A and let's find the proper level for A in this process,
and then let's get an agreement going of one kind or
another, see, to get the R. And then let's throw lots of C
to it. And if we did all these three things at once we
would theoretically have quite a process, wouldn't we?
Theoretically. And there is such a process. This process I
gave you yesterday leads right straight to it.

Now, I told you to run it; I told you to run it in a
particular way. Just have the preclear invent some
wrongnesses. I told you to run that in a particular way,
didn't I? Well, actually, that is a good test flight. Did
you use that process on anybody? Hmm? You did. All right.

Now, that takes all three corners of the triangle and
includes in it acceptance level, but it has a difficulty
when run in that fashion, is it can get hard on the preclear.

Female voice: I certainly did find that out.

Did you find that out? Well good.

Trying to give you some subjective reality. All right. Now,
you understand that "Invent some wrongnesses ..." Let's
get - let's get real factual here. This would go up, straight
on up scale, just "Invent some wrongnesses," because you've
got some A, you've got your A identified, but it'd be rough
on the preclear because A, as distance enters into it,
drops. See, as distance enters into it there's less and
less A, right? All right.

Absence does not make the heart grow fonder; it simply
permits her to find another guy. This is not - not a workable
maxim.

All right. We get a faster entrance. Now, did you get
subjective reality on that process? You did. All right. We
get a faster entrance into this process with "Make somebody
else, have somebody else or create somebody else invent
some wrongnesses, right there." It's a faster entrance. And
then you will swing, of course, into the other one.
Wrongnesses become fun after a while.

Well, now, did anybody have an automatic machine go brrrr
and start inventing wrongnesses like mad? Did you? 

Female voice in audience: No, but I had a preclear and she 
said, "My God, this is the first time in my life I've had the
privilege of making a mistake!" 

Oh, yeah, yeah. That's right.

All right. Now, for a case that is having any rough time or
difficulty at all I mean, with processes, if you would just
start it in - "Have somebody else invent some wrongnesses,"
you'll find out that you get a much smoother run at it.
Why? Because you've detached the A's.

Here, let me see some hands here. Who did run this process
on a preclear yesterday? And who had it run on him - same
way to?

Now, I want you to get a subjective reality on this because
you'll see the modus operandi of existence - very clearly.
And the process, the indicated process for an
entrance - you've always got to do it the hard way, you
understand - but the indicated process for an entrance on a
case that is having any real difficulty at all is "Have
somebody else invent some wronguesses." And you will
occasionally run into a machine - it's more than
occasionally - you'll run into a machine that is inventing
more wrongnesses with the preclear than you could shake a
stick at.

Now, why has he got to have wrongnesses? That's so he won't
close terminals with the whole universe; so he'll have
something to fight. Only he's gotten too good at it. A
constant flow of wrongnesses has been hammering and
pounding him, lo, all these years. And he's fought them
all, and by resisting these wrongnesses, he has accepted
them. That which ye resists, ye shalt accept, indubitably,
inevitably and horribly.

Now, something else that you will run into in running this
process - I'm going to point it out to you, because I don't
want you to miss it - when a person is no longer permitted to
invent wrongnesses to hand out to his fellow man so as to
keep space stretched apart and the universe in action, he
begins to represent them in solid masses, forms and
actions. When he drops from the permission to invent
wrongnesses, he keeps insisting on it and wears them, acts
them and wears them. Get the idea?

A little boy, little boy walks up to his mommy - . By the
way, I was at a swimming pool one day at a very swank
country club and there were a couple of gay, gay, gay
matron-class couples there, you know. I mean the - not quite
grown up enough to be older folks, you know, and not young
enough to be considered juvenile delinquents; just hanging
in between. And they had some kids and so forth, and they
were in the gay, gay social whirl. I think you know the
kind: tremendously shallow people that go on doing
everything because they're supposed to do it, but it's the
gay thing to do, you know. You know, they never have any fun.

Anyway, they were at this country club and they were having
a little bit of sport with me. One of them had accidentally
found a copy of Dianetics and had probably picked it up
upside down and had tried to read it and had noticed
something in it about prenatal. And was saying, "This is
the most nonsensical - we've disproved this years ago, you
know," and so on. And this little three-year-old kid,
little three-year-old kid was standing there looking very
serious about this and listening to this conversation, and
started to frown a little bit. And Mama ran on and on the
subject. "Why, you know that a child can't remember
anything at all. Now, Johnny, could you remember - you
couldn't even remember yesterday, could you, Johnny?"

"I don't know, Mommy. I remember when I was in-inside you,
Mommy, and you screamed at somebody and you hurt me,
Mommy." Eek! Kid was able to recall at that early age a
prenatal. Horrible violation of reality.

All right. Let's say this little kid got this hammer and
pound of "You can't remember that, you can't remember
yesterday, and you..." Of course, now, I imagine he got it
for the next year or two "Now, Johnny, it's just a
hallucination, you really can't remember that, can you,
Johnny?" this sort of thing.

You know what he'd do to communicate? He would wear the
prenatal. You got that? You got that? In other words, he's
not permitted to say, "Mommy, when I was inside of you, you
knocked hell out of me," see? He can't tell her a
wrongness, so he wears it; and that's a deterioration. That
is the entrance of the waiting moment in the absence of the
communication, you see? So that we start to communicate in
masses what we cannot communicate straight as
communication, see, so, that a mass becomes a covert
communication.

I imagine the fellow who invented and builds cars, let's
assume he's one fellow just for the fun of it, this fellow
who invents and builds cars could be said - we could describe
this this way - is not permitted to tell people about
automobiles. Got the idea? So he expresses it in mass. When
restrained from communication, you get mass. That's the
mechanic of it, you see? When expectancy of communication
is there and then you can't communicate, you will still
communicate in mass. And if you're restrained from
communicating too much, you're liable to go mad and start
communicating with bullets or something, you see what I
mean? You start communicating in masses. You get the idea?

So what is - what is this engram in restimulation? What is
this advancing age factor that people have? I mean, they
grow older; this is nonsense, they shouldn't grow older.
It's just an insistence on the pact that they're old
enough. Not "to what," but they've had the first twenty-one
years of not being old enough, and they finally get so they
insist on being old enough. And this factor is so constant
in society that they - you get a constancy of aging. Do you
follow me? You can - you can remember immediately insisting
that you were old enough or that you were grown up enough;
you can remember this instantly, I'm sure, if you think it
over.

And what is this but representing in mass what you're not
permitted to communicate. So that we have a law - and I do
mean it's a law - operating, is anyone who is representing
something in mass forms - has been prohibited from
communicating it in any higher verbal or thought level. So
that anyone who is talking - such as I am talking to you, or
you think I am - actually has been restrained from
communicating as a thetan to a point where he puts words
into MEST form. You follow this?

Any time you see a mass, you know that you have a
restrained - of a communication; somewhere there's been a
restraint of communication. There's a chair: therefore,
there's been a restraint of communication somewhere. Get
the idea?

All right. So this preclear has a goiter, so we know
there's been a restraint of communication. You get the
idea? You come along as a thetan and pick up a body and
push this body around, we know very well that you have been
restrained as a thetan from creating a body. But we know
that you would have created a body only if you had been
restrained in communicating as a thetan. You get the idea?
In other words, the body would be a protest against being
restrained in communicating. You see how this works out?

You could just take this as a law, see, that any time you
see a space or mass, it must have been preceded by a
restraint of communication; just like that. Follow me? And
the only way people can keep spaces really stretched apart
is by inventing wrongnesses so as to cut down the affinity
enough so that they can be separate from somebody.

The only way you could get an individuality would be to
explain to somebody how bad he was. Get the idea? You'd
have to explain to somebody how he couldn't communicate in
some fashion or another in order to get him back there
eight or nine feet away from you. Otherwise you'd be
occupying, to some marked degree, the same space he's
occupying. But in view of the fact that an individual can
control his postulates when he's in pretty good shape, he
of course could occupy the other fellow's space with the
greatest of ease, just like that, and unoccupy it again
with the greatest of ease. So is - therefore, you see why we
want people to exteriorize easily and not be afraid of
interiorizing after they've exteriorized, so they'd be able
to go in and out of bodies with the greatest of ease?

Well, how would we accomplish this, to put them into a
position where they didn't have to push forward a mass
every time they turned around? We would accomplish it
simply by reestablishing the number of communication units
per waiting time, according to the expectancy of the
preclear. And therefore you audit fast; therefore you audit
in terms of communication. And because the individual's
basic effort is to be separate and distinct, to some degree
or another, you could very well have this process, "Invent
some wrongnesses," "Make somebody else invent some
wrongnesses" solve all these purposes simultaneously.

Okay. I want you to examine this, because by examining it I
am sure that you'll come into a possession of - by auditing
it, by getting it audited on yourself - you will come into
possession of more data about life and human behavior than
you ever thought possible. But more importantly, you will
come into data as to how to regulate, control and live life
than you ever have before. Yes?

Female voice: Ron, would that fit in with the with the
attempt to communicate with God - no return of communication
to the masses?

Sure. You're going to show him there's a mass there. You're
going to show him there's some space there, is the first
thing you're going to show him. For instance, there's a
restraint on communication on the subject of religion,
very definite restraint; I - you mustn't blaspheme is the
first, most obvious restraint. You mustn't say, "God's a
bum" and you mustn't build this and that. Furthermore, it
restrains people from building images, which is - they
needn't have put that law in there at all. They couldn't
possibly have gotten the law obeyed. It never has been
obeyed. People build images in religion constantly and
continuously, because they are restraining communication.
If you just said, "You must approach this God reverently"
so forth and so on, you've just restrained communication to
the degree that sooner or later you're going to impose a
lot of waiting time there.

Then in the absence of a direct communication from God,
why, you're really in trouble. Now, now we're really in
trouble because he obviously doesn't think you're important
enough to talk to. If you believed somebody was there,
ready to talk to you, and then didn't talk to you, he must
therefore be ignoring you. So your expectancy of a
communication is terrific, isn't it? So you get a mass. And
so all churches, sooner or later, go into tremendous masses.

Our idea, for instance, of a center for the HASI has to do
with quite a bit of space and very little in the way of
very solid buildings. Enough to air condition, is about the
extent of the buildings. The idea behind its structure is
that you have lots of space and darn few walls. You get the
idea?

Yes, Peggy.

Female voice: Ron, there is - there's a story written by
one of the leading writers about a woman who went out of
communication with her lover; and she got fat and fat, and
she got to be 350 pounds.

Say, I have an interesting example of that; I have an
interesting example of that. I know of that happening, and
never thought about it before. I wondered why this girl
pushed herself on up to almost 400 pounds. She did, though.
She was a fairly slender girl, and in the space of two and
a half years of absence and no communication - which, by the
way, she had broken off - she had gotten up to this terrific
weight and was trying frantically to reassert these
communication lines. Fabulous.

Yeah, that's right. That - that -

Female voice: One of Faulkner's stories. It's one of the
big stories in the... She kept getting fatter and fatter.
She was a belle. She was slender and charming and
beautiful. Then she just got well up to 350 pounds in the
story. He doesn't tell you why, but I mean, he starts out
by saying...

Well, we've gotten - we've gotten a tremendous insight into
Freudian work. If a man were to work on the sensation
particle of sex, as a therapy, we would get nowhere. We'd
just get nowhere.

Therefore, we start to push around flows as such, you see?
And a man can just - . I know this. We've set up a couple of
little tests on this. But a guy can just push around flows
just endlessly. It's about the most fabulous thing you ever
heard of. And they solve rather rapidly in the presence of
communication.

Well, all of these things are very very explanatory, very
illuminative of exactly what is going on. You - wait'll you
run across one of these automatic "It's wrong" machines,
though, on some preclear. You might not have any present.
If none have triggered so far, probably none will.

Female voice: That seemed to work two ways. In one case,
there would be a resounding repetition of resentments,
inverted. And then the other way would be a complete
prevention of something that was in existence. Mm-hmm.

No, you'll watch these various shifts in tones, and the old
communication - pardon me, the old Tone Scale of Dianetics
never behaved more reliably. There are some very
interestingly pat ways in which you can exactly reverse
this process, that is to say, making somebody else invent
some wrongnesses and have the preclear invent some
wrongnesses. It's not terribly - it's not terribly vital
that you follow this by rote, as I told you yesterday. They
get stuck and various peculiar things occur. It becomes too
arduous. You get a - you've actually run into a stuck flow.
The easy way to get out of a stuck flow is simply reverse
the line.

Now, we take boil-off. Boil-off starts to occur, the
actuality is all boil-off is, is a flow going too long in
one direction. That's all boil-off is. Here this fellow has
been outputting his mock-up around the society all day
long. Naturally he's going to go to sleep for hours.

You know what you can do to conquer sleep? Just reverse the
flows in which he was engaged that day, with
communications. And all of a sudden he'll be bright and
wide-awake. This sleep is your automatic process of so much
outflow, sticks, sleep. And then it kind of has a tendency
to rebalance itself, and the guy gets up the next morning,
too much outflow or there's, for that matter, too much
inflow and then, see, he would - . But we know that the
person is asleep or is tired because he has engaged in too
much directional flow. He has outflowed too long or
inflowed too long, and so he is sleepy.

Well, there's one of the most fascinating examples of this
in my own life. When I used to pound a typewriter at
tremendous rates of speed, with great quantities of work, I
finally got on a stuck mechanical flow at this damn
typewriter. And I was at a point one time, back about 36, I
was at a point where actually, I could only write for about
an hour before I had to lie down. That was all there was to
it; I would just knock myself out, just literally and
actually, write for about an hour and knock myself straight
into a boil-off, see? I'd write for another hour and knock
myself into a boil-off, and write for another hour and
knock myself into a boil-off. I didn't know what the hell
was wrong with me.

The number of communication units which I was putting out,
actually, were terrific, but these things were being put
out in mass form. I was advancing masses, and I was
shoving masses out. You know, words, pieces of paper,
symbols and so on, and of course, this made a stuck flow to
end all stuck flows.

I finally skipped it and went on a trip. And it's got
rebalanced and so forth, and I didn't pay too much
attention to it. Started doing a lot of dictating after
that, and that's much easier, much easier.

But here's-here's an example of a stuck flow. Sleep and
that sort of thing is from this. Now, as far as the
invention of wrongness, you possibly need a word on the
mechanics of running a technique. If your preclear is doing
anything that you consider off-beat from what you've said,
you make him tell you what he has been doing. You will - this
is understood, you see. But to make him tell you every
wrongness that he has invented or had something invent out
there in front of him is simply to cut down the actual
amount of communication time and make him verbalize it. You
see that? In other words, you've cut down the amount of
processing you do by having him tell you everything of
which he has thought. You follow me?

But if you have the least, faintest suspicion that this boy
was not quite tracking, you would immediately bring him up
standing by asking him, "Oh, all right" just
conversationally, you know, "What did you invent that time?
Now, what did the person invent that time?" and anything of
this character, you see, which would make him then tell you
what had taken place. And if he hasn't been doing what you
told him to do, you will run into the fact that he has
said - . Here's the infallible sign: you've said, "All right.
Have somebody else invent some wrongnesses."

All right. "What did the person invent?" And at this moment
you get a comm lag. He wasn't doing the process. You get
where that - where the - the comm lag is there. Now, he
possibly is doing the process. You say, "Now, have somebody
else - make somebody else invent some wrongnesses."

"Yeah."

"Now, what did you have that person invent?"

"Oh, he in - " see, "he invented some shoes that people wore
on their heads."

See? You see where the comm lag goes. The comm lag was in
the actual invention, not in the relay of it.

When you ask somebody to relay you a communication and he's
been slow about it, why, bat your ears as an auditor,
because the possibility is this person is wool-gathering,
wandering, doing other things. Very often a preclear will
get into energy chewing. Stenographers chew gum, preclears
chew energy. You know? He isn't going to get anywhere
chewing this energy. And he's got himself a fabulous,
fabulous amount of off-track. You know, he's not doing what
you said.

And when this sort of thing occurs with a preclear, it's
quite often that it's not been malicious or willful on his
part. He's just simply had a machine flip 'em, you know, or
he's just gotten too involved or he's - so on.

Now, on this boil-off, if your preclear started to boil
off you've just had him invent - let's go back to Self
Analysis in Scientology, some of the remarks in	there - 
you've simply had the preclear invent - you've had him
make somebody else invent some wrongnesses from in front
too long. You know, he just starts going nyah. There's no
sense in wasting any time on boil-off at all; it's just
simply the wrong - the flow has continued too long in that
direction.

Now, it is so thoroughly mechanical, the boil-off is so
thoroughly mechanical, all you'd have to do is have him
make somebody invent some wrongnesses behind him. It's just
as simple as that. See, he - you had him have a person out
here - it wasn't a mock-up or anything; but just the idea of
a person or a thetan or whatever you wanted to fancy up out
here, but it's better not to get too fancy. Just some idea
coming in from here and inventing some wrongnesses
that - he's going to convince you that you had two left feet.
That was what he invented, you see. And so - and then all of
a sudden your preclear starts to look just a little dopey
and he's getting slow. It's another manifestation than
direct comm lag; it's boil-off.

So, if we were to then say, "All right. Now, have a person
behind you invent some wrongnesses," why, you'd find your
preclear pick right up and become alert and bright. For
that reason, when I lecture to you, why, at the - . It
doesn't occur, by the way, if you're not creating masses to
amount to anything. When I lecture you for a short time and
I feel myself not particularly alert, I simply turn myself
around as a thetan and use another face, and it works
exactly the same way. I'm actually flowing in exactly the
opposite direction, but as far as you're concerned, I'd be
flowing the same direction. You see? I just turn around,
and what I've been using for a face faces the wall back
there, you see. But then I start talking out, you might
say, through the back of my head. 

Thank you.

(end of lecture)





