From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Wed Mar 17 17:30:04 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 18 Mar 1999 00:30:04 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 25/35 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: <c60b3fa8c85761aa334310cfbf468bb9@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1204
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690387 alt.clearing.technology:76256

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 25/35

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 25/35

9th ACC 19 (21) - ELEMENTARY MATERIAL: KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE

Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC19    -   
5501C07 Renumbered 21 for "The Solution To Entrapment"
cassettes

ELEMENTARY MATERIAL: KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE

A lecture given on 7 January 1955


There are some elementary materials of Scientology which we
mustn't overlook which have been of fascinating interest to
Advanced Clinical Courses for a very long time. The first
and foremost of these is the Know to Mystery Scale. I've
stated this in various ways, mostly because it was refined
in statement. But you get a condensation of knowingness. A
condensation of knowingness occurs down to lookingness. One
has something to look at. 

And then this condenses and we get emotion. And this
condenses and we get effort. And this condenses and we get
thinkingness - you know, figure-figure. And this condenses
and we get symbols. And the symbols condense and we get
eating and the eating condenses and we get sex and the sex
condenses and we get mystery.

Now, we could go on down south again and say, below mystery
we get peering. And below peering, why, we would of course
get misemotion. And below misemotion we would get horror of
effort. And below horror of effort, why, we would get
something on the order of a circuit instead of
thinking-ness, you see.

And below this circuit, why, we would get incomprehensible
symbols and sciences like psychology. And below, and below
this circuitry we would get indigestion. And below
indigestion we'd get sterility and impotence. And below
this, why, we would get unconsciousness.

And, now, this is a dwindling spiral. This is the picture
of the dwindling spiral and this is the scale. We can
recognize this scale today as - in various processes. You
might think it merely curiosa at times, but you had
certainly better know some of the things you are looking
at. It helps you out a lot with a preclear to know what you
are looking at. A few auditors have been known to get some
results because they knew what they were looking at.

Now, we go down scale in scouting preclears pretty darn
low. You could say this Know - it's originally called the
Know to Sex Scale, but you understand that it goes know to
sex, and then mystery to unconsciousness. You get the idea?
It could harmonic.

Just as we, in the Philadelphia lectures, demonstrated the
fact that the desire-ennforce-inhibit spiral is actually -
you could say desire is way up, and then enforce is in the
middle of the Tone Scale and is inhibited at the bottom.

Well, we could also draw the same scale this way:
desire-enforce-inhibit. And you've only come down one-tenth
of a millimeter. Then desire-enforce- inhibit, and you've
only come down another tenth of a millimeter, you see?
Desire-enforce-inhibit and you've come down another one, so
that you could draw the whole Tone Scale as a Know to
Mystery Scale. The whole Tone Scale could be drawn in this
fashion with one Know to Mystery Scale laid out on it.

Or it could be one Know to Mystery Scale and we've gone
down a tenth of a millimeter, and one mystery - Know to
Mystery Scale, we've gone down a tenth of a millimeter. You
get the idea?

In other words, out of this big section we can take little
sections of it and we find out they have all the essential
parts of the big section, you see?

In this particular case, in this type of graph, why, we get
the part as having all the characteristics of the whole. So
we take the band, let us say - this is not meaningful, I
mean, I'll just give you an arbitrary area of the Tone
Scale - and we would say from 1.8 to 2.0 and right in that
area we would have a Know to Mystery Scale complete, see.
The part is the same as the whole.

This is not always true. You take a machine apart and you
will find out that the cogwheels and the axle are not the
same as the whole. But in this particular case, they are
the same as the whole because you are dealing essentially
with just one thing and that's thought. And these are the
component parts of thought in its condensation.

Now, this becomes very curious in the running of Opening
Procedure by Duplication because if you were to closely
watch your preclear, and if you were to cause him to
describe what was happening and to describe what he was
doing and to describe the - exactly what you'd told him to
describe, you know, "Look at it," you know. And he looks at
it and you say, "What color is it?"

And he says, "Well, it's - uh - it's red." It's a book, by 
the way, with eight colors on the jacket, see, and he says,
"It's red."

And you say, "What color is it?"

And he says, "It's well, it's - it's red, with a little 
green here."

And you say, "Well, that's - that's fine." You go on along
the line. And the next time you come by this book, this
same object which you're repeating on, why, you say, "What
color is it?" And he's gotten away with this. He knows the
satisfactory answer to you is "It's red with a little bit
of green on it." Didn't look at it at all, see.

And you say, "What color is that?"

"Well, it's - uh - it's - uh - well, it's red with a little 
bit of green on it. Of course, there's a blue over here." You 
get the idea.

Brace him up. Just because he's found the answer to be a
satisfactory answer to you is no reason under the sun, no
reason under the sun why - demonstrates that he is looking at
it. But this sort of thing occurs.

That's beside the point. Just a little bit of an aside here
on making him run such a process.

All right. Completely aside from this, as the preclear runs
Opening Procedure by Duplication you will find him coming
up the Mystery to Know Scale. You know, you'll start to
come up the scale. And this is one of the more curious
things, because he is so jammed in at the bottom - in other
words, the scale itself is condensed down at the
bottom - that he is liable to hit sex, effort, know, you see,
bing-bing-bing. And then he will hit eatingness.

You understand, he's going over this scale, is so condensed
that he's only hitting spots on it. This is perfectly all
right. I just want you to know what you are looking at,
because this is one of the most curious things. As you make
him describe - as you make him describe the color, and that
sort of thing, why, he'll tell you "It's good enough to
eat," you see.

Or he will tell you "It is awfully heavy this time," or he
will tell you "I don't know I'm kind of bored with this."
That doesn't, by the way, mean he's up in boredom. He's
probably in the apathy of boredom when he tells you such a
thing.

Every one of the emotional bands has every one of the
emotions in it. Now, this is the part being the whole sort
of a thing. Well, let's take boredom as an emotion and we
find out there's the anger of boredom and there's the grief
of boredom and so on.

Let's take apathy. This is one of the most remarkable
things. There is a - an apathy of rage. Or a rage of apathy,
and so forth. I mean, "Oh, I don't know what I'm going to
do, but I could just kill somebody about this," you know?
So we take each one of the emotions and we find out it has
each one of the emotions in it.

All right. As he comes up the line, we will discover quite
adequately that he is hitting, see, he's hitting,
ping-ping-ping, up the line on the Know to Mystery Scale.
If he doesn't do this, he isn't moving.

And one of the surest tests in the world - is this boy going
on up tone. It is expressed not so much by his voice tone
or his emotional context, or something of the sort, but by
the actual text of what he is describing. He'll tell you
it's a mystery to him. He'll say, "I don't know anything
about that bottle now." You know - mystery.

And then he will tell you "You know, it looks like a
perfume bottle." You know, sex. It - it - "I wonder what 
this thing contained?" Eating, see? And you will find him
sneaking on up the band, you see? And of course if it's
heavy or it's - "This is a lot of hard work," he will tell
you suddenly, and something like that; he's scooting on up
through effort, and then, as he hits the emotion.

And then he will hit a period there where he stands and
stares at it. He stares at the thing, you know. He's not
comm lagging. He's just hit the look part of that scale.

Well, the scale is useful. You can discover that somebody
who is very afraid of effort will do a lot of figure-figure
on the effort. You would be amazed at some of the
procedures of yesteryear which simply decided that instead
of thinking about it we would simply shove it through.

If you had enough force, you wouldn't do any thinking.
You'd do a minimum of figure-figure, if you had enough
force. For instance, if this city had no slightest - no
dearth whatsoever of machinery in order to clean up
everything in sight, and if the machinery was easy to run,
didn't require many men to run, there was an enormous
supply of power available to it, believe me, it wouldn't do
much thinking about how it applied that power. It would
simply apply it.

It would say, "Well, let's see now. We need a street
through here. Well, street through here." And they are
liable to put one through there, even though the
inhabitants are still in the houses.

And you come by afterwards, and you say, "Hey, what was the
matter with you? You know, you know that you knocked down
about eight houses while you were putting that - ."

"Oh, did we? Well, that's too bad. Well, we'll build them
another house." They would. You know, it isn't that they
would be mean about it. It's just that, it's just they
wouldn't think about it. An enormous amount of force.

Therefore you get societies which are possessed of enormous
amounts of force, tremendous quantities of power, and So
on, doing very, very little thinking about consequences,
which is quite fabulous.

But after, after a few of them have gotten zapped very
thoroughly, and so forth, these people will start figuring.
They will start thinking. They will begin to write essays,
monographs, and tomes on the subject of justice. They have
been hit often enough so that they are now below effort and
they are worried about justice. You will very often find a
preclear who is under the effort band, or just sneaking
under the effort band - you know, he can still work as a
body - will almost spin if you start to talk to him about
justice.

"Justice. Figure-figure-figure-figure. How could I possibly
get any justice." Well, what does he want any justice for?
Well, he wants some justice.

All right. As we look over this scale we discover that it
describes various manifestations in life in a rather crude
fashion, but, nevertheless, in a very useful fashion. It's
crude because we haven't got a test meter that instantly
tells us how many points south of effort the individual is.
We know he is south of effort, though, you understand.
There isn't a psychotic in the land north of effort. There
is nobody above effort who has anything wrong with him. Get
the idea?

If somebody has something wrong with him, he's below
effort. This we know. So this leaves us a choice of places
for him to be. Figure-figure on south. Symbols on south.
Eating on south. Sex on south. Mystery, fixation upon. You
see this? So that we get the most curious things occurring.

We get somebody like Freud suddenly picking out a part of
this band, and saying, "Well, this is it." Well, that sure
tells you where his particular society was stuck, hm? These
boys were below eating.

By the way, sex is a solution to being eaten; the
production of another mock-up. And symbols, when they
condense very heavily, become forms; live forms. A symbol
can very easily get out of hand and take on a living
personality, an identity, and so on, and go ramping about
the land and doing an awful lot.

You would say this is impossible. What do you mean, a
symbol could do that. What do you think Alexander the Great
was but a symbol? He wasn't a - he was hardly a thinking
being. His interest in the arts was paying off his old
teacher, Aristotle, who probably talked him into some tight
spots and probably the only man that had ever bested
Alexander at anything.

So of course he sent a lot of specimens home to Aristotle
and launched us upon the Dark Age scholasticism under the
aegis of the Roman Catholic church.

But Alexander was not a learned man. He was quite able in
many lines, but boy, did he want to be Alexander. Which
tells you immediately that he must have been in the symbol
bracket. And I think if we had asked him to work very hard,
that wasn't immediately pepped up to show people how great
Alexander was, he would have been in a horrible spot.

He probably would have sweated. Of course, he's made his
name infamous right on up to present time in India so that
in India today mothers frighten their little babies to
sleep by telling them if they do not go to sleep, the
Skanda of the Two Horns will get them, and that is
Alexander the Great they are talking about.

Now, where we have a fellow who is terrifically fixed on a
symbol or where he is being highly symbolical, and so on,
we can be pretty sure he will drift off that point
immediately. He'll go down scale. He will start worrying
about eating. Eating will become a very fixed thing with him.

And now we go down scale further than that and he will
worry about sex and get stuck in this particular bracket,
and if he doesn't watch it, he'll slide out the bottom on
that and be enveloped in mystery.

Now, you understand the Know to Sex Scale only operates
after it has become obsessive and compulsive, when it is a
behavior factor, a fixed behavior pattern. When you get a
fixed behavior pattern on this it isn't by choice.

Now, let's look up scale and find that all of us, sooner or
later, sometime or another, hit one or the other of these
bands. But we do it knowingly. We do it quite knowingly. We
say, "Well, what I need is some exercise." And we go out
around, and so on. And we go down to the movies to have a
good emotional wingding - not an American movie, that's all
effort, by the way. It's the most beautiful picture of
effort. Everybody throwing effort in all directions with a
minimum of emotion, livingness or anything else condensed
in it. Actually, the American people keep looking at these
things because they are very pretty, not necessarily
because they like them.

Not patting a foreign movie on the back, the foreign movie
is technically inept. It has a tendency to go into
figure-figure and below this high technical level. But once
in a while you will see something that is really a story
and has some emotion in it, has some appeal to it and there
is somebody alive in the thing. The British movie, by the
way, has somebody alive in it.

The hero, the hero, by the way, of the American movie is
best described as a criminal. He has every aspect that you
could assign to a criminal. He is highly self-centered, he
is very silent, he cares very little about who he shoots,
the people around him come to grief and he himself is in
bad trouble and catastrophe. This is the - this is a
criminal. This isn't any hero.

A hero is somebody who goes out and engages in a game
of - this is by German definition - of freeing the chained and
slaying the bad baron, and so forth, and refusing any pay
for it of any kind. These are the German hero tales. That's
where we get the word "hero," from Germany, and the whole
characteristic there.

But the American movie hero today can be found in real life
in any penitentiary. He's silent, strong, careless of
others, has no thought for anybody else, really, but
himself and is involved in lots of trouble of one kind or
another. And in addition to that has himself a very, very
fine time not. Have you ever noticed one of these heroes
enjoying anything? No, he's just kind of woodenly marching
forward, like a wound-up automaton.

This is - these are all characteristic of a criminal, by the
way. A criminal shares these characteristics. People around
him come to gnef, and so forth.

But completely aside from an opinion on the line, I'm just
talking about the acceptable story. This story is really no
longer acceptable. But Hollywood hasn't found it out yet.
Their pictures are playing to empty theaters in all directions.

Neither has the American public found foreign movies. They
are bad, technically, for one thing. And for another thing
they are in a bad - some bad state of communication. You
know, they are in a foreign tongue or something like that.

Actually, Italian movies today have a tremendous amount of
vitality. The people in them are alive, and if the Italians
were real smart - they are once in awhile - they'll - they 
would dub in all of their pictures. They're pretty - technically
they are pretty good, but they would dub in their pictures
with English. I have seen several that have been and the
English is not, not too hot. But they don't do a bad job.
But they don't do a real good one, either. So, therefore,
it's really not terribly popular.

By the way, the Italian movie is too smokey. It is too hot
for the censor boards to handle. It's - their themes, and so
forth, are real - same kind of - if there's an Italian - well,
there - I saw an Italian movie one day in Spain that was an
interesting movie. It was the picture, it was all in what
we call in retrospect. This person was thinking over what
had happened.

And this person was sure thinking it over, all right. But
it was all dramatized what the person was thinking about.
And this girl had run into a guy, and she was a nurse and
he was a bum. She was a nurse in the hospital and he was a
bum, and they'd gotten all tangled up in various directions
and eventually she decided, grimly, to just turn her back
on a life of romance and go back to nursing in the
hospital. This was its total, total theme.

But that could happen. See, that could happen. It might
have happened within the last week up here at the McDowell
Hospital - the McDowell Street Hospital, up here. Might
have, see. These people breathe. They also have something
to say to each other. They don't walk around uttering
wooden lines which forward the plot.

Well, this is just differences on the Tone Scale. But at
the same time we might be looking in a foreign movie - I'm
not talking about movie, I'm talking about Scientology - we
might be looking in a foreign movie at a lower Know to Sex
Scale, you see, a little lower down here, whereas the
American movie is stuck just below effort, see, on a higher
band.

But, look, isn't this interesting that we could take a
higher Know to Sex Scale, you see, and we could say it's
stuck there in effort. And then we could get another Know
to Sex Scale which had a lot more livingness and humanity
in it, apparently, and we could say it's stuck lower on the
band. Would there be anything wrong with that?

Male voice: No.

Well, this is observably true all around us. We can't
necessarily say that somebody who is refusing effort is
then and therefore on the lowest ebb of the Know to Sex
Scale, see. This fellow who - that is the mistake you could
make in interpreting this scale.

We know this phenomena, and this is what we get out of this
scale. We know that somebody who has been working very hard
will sit down and think. We know that if he thinks a while,
he'll get lazy and put it into symbols form, see? So he
packages his thinking. That's a condensation of thinking.

And we know that if he puts a lot of stuff into label form,
he'll have something to do with eating. That's very
interesting that the commercial writer writes to eat. He's
right there next door to each other, see? Think, symbols, eat.

And only when he gets into thoroughly foul condition will
he begin to dedicate a life to sex. But he will slide down
these bands. You can expect.

Now, you can predict behavior because unless they're
psychotic or neurotic - see, Know to Sex Scales exist in
psychosis and neurosis too - unless they are psychotic or
neurotic, you can predict the next-door step to anything
anybody is doing. This is a curious method of prediction.

I remember a cartoon which occurred in Esquire a great many
years ago. It was a scene which was shot across the foot of
a bed into a kitchen where their great big icebox was in
the kitchen, a stove and so forth, and you could see these
things clearly, you see. And you could see the foot of this
bed and it was all dark in this bedroom. We were looking in
the direction of the kitchen door. And the legend on it is
"And now I'm hungry." You see? These things are right next
door to each other.

Now, when you get into psychosis and neurosis, actually
they're packed so close together that they short circuit.
They don't go through the next step. Get the idea?

And if you could conceive neurosis or psychosis just as a
short circuit where identification is taking place so that
A = A = A, you will see also that it is very easy for the
Know to Sex Scale to get in this condition: sex equals
emotion, mystery equals effort. See?

You ever hear of anybody talking about, "It would be a hard
job figuring it out?" This is idiotic. You mean somebody
uses effort to think? Well, that's what it declares. "It
would be a hard job figuring that out." I've had people
tell me, "My, you must use up an awful lot of energy,
writing and so forth." I don't know how we'd use up this
energy. You generally finish up a novel or something like
that, and you say, "Whee. I'm glad to stop sitting still
and go out and do something active," you know?

But this - we don't burn up energy by thinking; this sillier
sort of thing. All right. We can, though. You can go down
scale and fool around with some of the machines, and you
will find out that they are running on energy. They do all
their thinking on energy. That is why they are crazy.

All right. Now, if - just as you run Opening Procedure by
Duplication on a low-level case and find the individual
going up this stuff flip-flip-flip-flip-flip, so do you
find societies going in cycles. They go up and down this
scale. They have fads of one thing and then another, you know?

But this could be a low-level Know to Sex Scale. Now, you
could have actually the Know to Sex Scale in the direct
vicinity of somebody who is wearing a very thick pair of
glasses. This would be a different one, wouldn't it? It
would be heavier and more condensed.

Now, we are pulling this train into the station, so listen
real, real carefully here. Condensation is the keynote.
Actually, condensation of knowingness is the keynote of
all of this. And the Know to Sex Scale is descriptive of
the condensation of knowingness, and as we come down scale
on the Tone Scale - you see, the Know to Sex Scale is not a
fixed scale on the Tone Scale. It is qualities on the Tone
Scale; it is the sequence of qualities on the Tone Scale.

Well, as we come down the Tone Scale, we find out we're
condensing the Know to Sex Scale. You get that? So that the
Know to Sex Scale around 30.0 would be maybe a foot high on
a big graph we have up here, but the Know to Sex Scale
itself is condensing so that we get down around 2.0, it's
maybe only a quarter of an inch, it's all jammed in there,
you know? It's getting heavier and heavier and thicker and
thicker and all condensed.

Now, actually MEST itself is apparently no more and no less
than a totally condensed knowingness. It knows it is solid
and fixed. Knows it's got location. That's what it knows.

All right. But theoretically you start to take that stuff
apart, it would start to come up the Know to Sex Scale.
That's theoretically. I don't. When I take it apart I make
perfect duplicates of it, and it isn't there. So we don't
have any worry about it coming up a gradient scale. It just
goes.

But if you started to take it apart, expand it in other
words, you would get a Know to Sex Scale. And when you
start taking a preclear apart, you start expanding him just
as thoroughly as though you took that wall apart, you see?
You start expanding him. And as you expand him on out he
gets in pretty good shape. This would not necessarily even
be the amount of space. Now, this is what is peculiar. This
isn't even necessarily, although I graph it with space, the
amount of space in this preclear. That isn't necessarily a
case, you see? It's the solidity factor. It's the particles
per space.

See, we don't necessarily just put more space into this
preclear, you understand, but we could put less particles
per the space he has. And this would be a very good way to
look at it, particles are disappearing here someplace.

It's all very well for us to say Know to Sex Scale and it's
all fine for us to theorize like this and take man and put
a pin through his back and pin him there to the card and
look at him as a nice specimen. But there wouldn't be any
sense in it at all unless it had some practicality and
unless it demonstrated to you the causation of human
behavior and permitted you to take a preclear apart simply
by knowing this. It would have no value unless you could
take an action course with it. Knowingness for its own sake
is worthiess.

So, this fellow memorized the Encyclopaedia Britannica from
beginning to end. Ho-hum. So we have categorized and
cataloged humanity like Kraepelin. I think it's spelled
Kraepelin but it's actually pronounced Kraplin. He
categorized psychotic states. This is the most enormous
graph you ever saw. I do not think the graph itself has
ever been imported into America. I know that the graph
which is used in America is a condensed or deleted version
of the Kraepelin graph of psychotic states.

But in German this graph occupies a book. And you know what
that means in Germany. When you say "book" you mean a
broken back, you know? It's big. And when he gets all down
to the bottom of it he throws all other classifications
into unclassified. And nearly everybody using this scale
simply throws all categories into unclassified.

But it's a tremendous amount of something to know, isn't
it? Tremendous amount of something to know. But if we just
knew this psychotic scale from beginning to end and had
many examples and classifications of it, it would be
utterly worthless to us, just as it is worthless to
psychiatry, just as psychiatry itself is worthless.

That's because they catalog. They're stuck on a low band of
symbols, and to them, knowingness is symbols. We have
strung out this many words and therefore we know something.
Damned if they do. They don't know anything just because
they have laid some labels on things.

Just because you know somebody's name is John Jones is no
reason why you know John Jones. Look how much there was to
know about John Jones. An old pal of mine, Russell Hayes,
quite an inventor, holds the basic helicopter patents in
America and then the US government went over and got a
German Folcke-Wulf helicopter, which had stolen, and
perverted several patents, you see. And brought it over
and had it copied as the first helicopter we use. We owned
the basic helicopter patents. Oh, the government. Anyway,
Russell - Russell used to do quite a bit of writing, and so
forth. And he and I were good friends. We got into a
discussion one day about characterization. And we had it
hot and heavy, and we talked this thing over, we talked
this thing over for three and a half gallons of beer, just
to give you an idea. That was real discussion, what
characterization was.

And he finally estimated how long it would take for
somebody to actually characterize a hero. How many words
would it take to actually characterize somebody if you
characterized him all the way. And his estimate on it was
about a billion words. In other words, many times the
length of Dickens' complete works, just to characterize one
character, if we were to do it anywhere near fully.

This is kind of curious. Writers get interested in
characterization because editors who wouldn't know a human
being if they saw one are prone to say if they don't like
you or you didn't buy them a drink or you resented their
making a pass at your girlfriend at a party, other good
reasons that have to do with your skill as a writer - . 
Your skill as a writer is knowing who to pinch and who not 
to. All right, a billion words.

Do you realize that everything that has been written in
Dianetics and Scientology, right from the word go - every
word that has been put on tapes, and so forth - is still the
characterization of one man. The difference is, is this man
that we are characterizing, this is not a man or a woman,
and has no name. This man is not myself. This man is not
you. But he is all of us. He is the common denominators.

You can look - have you ever looked in the tape library down
at 616? Do you know that it cost about $5,000 to copy all
the tapes down there? And we can buy tapes real cheap.
That's four years worth of material. And this isn't
characterizing one man - not me, not you - this is simply
taking the common denominators to all men so that if we
added a few of these combinations together and made some
of the eccentricities, and so forth, possible out of this,
we probably would go on for several centuries before we had
even finished characterizing all the characteristics of one
individual.

This would be a real dreary look, wouldn't it? That's why
we have little things like the Know to Sex Scale and the
Tone Scale, and so forth, is to permit us to work our way
through this tremendous morass with the greatest of
ease and lightheartedness, instead of lightheadedness.

Well, Russell Hayes decided it would take a billion words,
and this is not true. It has taken well in excess of a
billion words just to describe the common denominators
amongst men. And we haven't ever described one man. So
that's quite a trick, isn't it? It must be a long subject.

If all we did was just describe the characteristics in
common with one man, this might be an interesting
adventure, mightn't it? It certainly wouldn't get us
anywhere. Putting a bunch of labels on him, stringing a lot
of symbols around him, garlanding him with as's and
wherefores, would not get us anywhere. No man would be
better off for this having been done. No condition would
have changed anywhere for this having been done. Because
nobody would have the patience or reason to read it. You
got to be able to do something with what you know or it's
no good to anybody.

And when you get a piece of information which is
nondynamic - I'll tell you something interesting to do to it.
Use it for a literary tea. One is hard put upon in literary
teas and political meetings, and things like that, to find
enough nothingness to talk about. And you have to have a
little store of it. So that's a good thing to do with
something that you can't do anything with.

And right now I'm inviting you, if there is any part of
Scientology that you are not doing anything with, simply
throw it away. Just discard it. Throw it away. Because I'm
going to tell you something right now which will do a lot
of clarification for you. I've done a lot of talking on
this subject and I think yesterday giving you the category
of first you had to change his mind and then you had to get
him to hold a couple of things in an alterable position,
then you had to get him into communication, I think this
kind of clarifies the goals of processing, doesn't it?
Certainly clarifies exteriorization.

And as far as what the auditor is trying to do, he is
trying to exteriorize somebody and make them
stable-exteriorized. Well, that's good clarification there.
That's really, how does he do it? Well, the modus operandi
is very easily delineated. You gotta get the guy into the
condition so he'll change his mind so he can hold two
points stably at a distance, one from the other, and so
that he can be in full communication. And don't even have
to have him in very full communication.

But you do these things, you got a goal. Your immediate
goals of processing are the last three, and your general,
broad goal of processing is the first one. If you do these
things, some fantastic things occur. This individual starts
to know, and he starts to get himself a better look at
existence and he can afford to be kind.

Being kind is a luxury. Remember that. If any of you have
any philosophic notion, you know, philosophic
maunder-maunder pondering whether it isn't really best to
be cruel, and whether it isn't really best to be evil or
bad, but you're being good but you've seen a lot of people
who were cruel or evil or bad, and they seem to be getting
along and winning. And if any of you are hung up on this
old philosophic seesaw of good and evil, whether you should
treat your - the world kindly or viciously, or anything
like that, if you are hung up in this direction to any
degree just let me point out that being good can be in
several parts of the Tone Scale. It can be highly enforced
and unwitting, it can be done to set an example for one's
fellows or it can be done because you can afford to do it.

But it is the, it is the - in the final analysis - it is the
easiest thing to do. And - well once upon a time the skipper
I had - I was a supercargo over in the Orient when I was a
kid for a while, most anything. I could play an awfully
nasty hand of bridge. So the three officers on the ship
needed a fourth so they made me a supercargo and I went to
Java. Well, anyhow - about the way it worked out. I had a -
an interesting time of it. The old skipper told me that -
now, it was real hard to stay on the straight and narrow, 
and it was easy to wander down that primrose path and to 
get into sin and so forth. And to be lured off of the track 
of righteousness. He told me this was real easy.

Well, I went ashore one night in a Chinese port, and I was
very bored as a youth is prone to be occasionally, very
bored with life, had very, very little adventure. Life was
dull. We had just gone through a typhoon but that was all
over. And I decided that I would stray from the beaten path.

I had more trouble. It was the most difficult thing you
ever saw in your life to try to get off the straight and
narrow, and I finally did manage to get involved, one way
or the other, and I had an awful hangover the next morning
and a terrific welt under one eye, and so forth. And he
stood there telling me - and he stood there telling me, "Now,
you - you should have stayed on the straight and narrow,
just, even though it was a difficult path," and so forth.

And I finally was - I was in enough of a vicious mood, that 
I said, "You see all the difficulty I'm in?"

And he said, "Yeah, well, I do."

I said, "Well, all that difficulty, that lies over there on
that primrose path that you've been dressing up for me."
And I said, "It's the hardest thing in the world to get
into trouble. And the hardest thing in the world to get out
of it. This is difficult. Being good, that's easy. That's
real easy.

Well, if you want to get into trouble, why, fall off of the
good wagon and you'll be in - you'll have all of the
difficulty and the application of effort and everything
that you could possibly imagine.

This is hard, sweaty work being evil. And very
unsatisfactory sort of thing, in the final analysis,
because you never quite find enough energy to go on and
finish it up. That's hard work. Hard work.

The only reason anybody is up here in the penitentiary is
because he didn't have enough energy to go on and finish
being evil. That's a luxury to be good. But it is also real
easy.

You have to put up barriers and do all kinds of things in
order to get over into a point of where you have games, and
then you have to put up a lot more barriers. And then you
put up a lot more barriers, and you put up a lot more
barriers, and then you put up a lot more barriers and you
are getting to a point of where you can be nice and evil.

And man, you have to work at it. You have to work at it. If
any young girl is given the impression that the world is
sitting out there waiting, just waiting to lead her into
snares and traps and so forth, she's mistaken. She's
mistaken. She will have to put out a lot of effort, lot of
effort.

She could probably drift down all of her years without
getting into any trouble at all. But if she wants some
excitement and so on, she is liable to have to start
putting up barriers of one kind or another, secrets. And we
get down to the crux of this matter which is she would have
to cut communication in some direction. In other words,
she'd refuse - several refusals - she'd refuse to acknowledge
or she would refuse to originate or refuse to answer or
refuse to receive an originated communication or refuse to
receive an answer or refuse to receive an acknowledgment.
And if she's got herself in these - any one of these six
categories, she's started to make barriers.

Now, she could work at it and there are very involved ways
to go about this. But she is working on condensation of the
Know to Mystery Scale.

The condensation of the Know to Mystery Scale comes about
directly from these particular crimes: refusal to answer,
refusal to acknowledge, refusal to originate, refusal to
receive an origin, refusal to receive an acknowledgment,
refusal to receive an answer. That is not necessarily in
order, but those are the six categories.

With two more categories. What are these two categories?
You already know them. They're the - both the two
categories, one for each cycle of live form. She could
refuse to be alive, or she could refuse to admit that
somebody else was alive.

Well, that's eight, isn't it? And these eight things, these
eight negatives, result in the condensation and behavior
patterns and considerations which we know as the Know to
Mystery Scale.

This is so much the case, this is so much the case that if
you were to take any ridge a preclear has or any ridge you
have and mock it up as receiving origins, answers,
acknowledgments or admitting the presence of a live form -
this is a new angle on Communication Processing, isn't
it - and make it give forth originated communications,
answers and acknowledgments, and be a live form, and that
ridge will disappear, and so will the center of Earth and
so will its crust and so will the sun, moon, stars and all
the space of this universe.

We have two methods of making nothing out of something. The
processing method: All you have to do is make something
receive answers, acknowledgments or originated
communications or deliver answers, acknowledgments of
originated communications or to perceive the existence of a
live form or to be a live form and it's gone. That's that.

And this type of processing, if engaged upon by the
auditor, does not require the remedy of havingness. Why?
Why doesn't it require the remedy of havingness? Well,
Burke had an observation on this which was an interesting
observation. He said, "I found, during the session, that I
was putting up screens in order to receive the
communication." There isn't any reason why he has to do
this. But he says, "Havingness is a necessity if one is
going to receive a communication."

Well now, this might or might not be true because I'll tell
you how that mass gets there. It's by receiving - refusing to
receive a communication. So havingness comes about directly
from a refusal to have a communication. Just the reverse.
Comes about from a refusal to have a communication or of
somebody else's refusal to have a communication or somebody
else's anxiety to deliver a communication or one's own
anxiety to deliver a communication; you get havingness.

So havingness will just cut to ribbons on Communication
Processing without needing to be remedied, which is one of
the more fabulous manifestations.

Now, if your preclear, of course, does start chewing on
energy you know what I mean, you're asking him to make a
ridge say "hello" or receive a "hello," something like
that, you're asking him to do this. He doesn't do this. He
rubs one part of the ridge against another part of the
ridge and creates heat.

Why, he's lost some havingness by reason of heat, by reason
of mechanical things. And when you lose havingness by
reason of a mechanical action, it's got to be replaced.
Then you have to remedy havingness.

But if you make things talk, if you make things live, if
you make things receive messages and livingness, no
havingness ever needs to be remedied. In other words, life
immediately exceeds - no clearer proof could exist of
this - life immediately exceeds any mechanics because it can
continue to thrive in the absence of the mechanics if we
permit communication to occur. Fantastic, but very true.

All right. There's two methods, then, of making nothing out
of things. One is to make a perfect duplicate of it in its
own time, in its own place, with its own energy. And you
just make a duplicate of it with all those things.

And sometimes people have a little difficulty understanding
exactly how to do this because they think they have to put
a second duplicate into it or they have to copy it and push
two duplicates together or they have to do something in
this direction.

This is not true. All they had to do was relax and simply
say there is a second one there made out of the same
materials and the same space. And that's all, I mean, and
everything falls apart. Except one thing - of course, one
other thing falls apart, too. There's one thing wrong with
this perfect duplicate, it cuts havingness to pieces as
though you were putting it through a meat chopper.

If - you know, we can erase an engram today with the greatest
of ease with perfect duplication. All you have to do is
have the individual look at the engram, make a perfect
duplicate of it, it's gone. Somebody will doubt this,
perhaps. And I imagine some old Dianeticist might. I had to
alter, by the way, the text of the - of one of the
Foundation bulletins. It said we could do this in a few
seconds. You could make an engram disappear in a few
seconds. But this sounded so unreasonable that I changed it
and put an error in there. I said a few minutes. That's not
true. It's a few seconds is the proper length.

So there's only one trouble with this, is it doesn't leave
any havingness. In other words, you could make a perfect
duplicate of anything and make it disappear and discover
that the preclear's havinguess had been reduced that much.

And if you started to make a perfect duplicate of his whole
bank from one end to the other, he would be a very reduced
man. Let me assure you, he'd be a very unhappy one, if not
a spinning one. Everything would start to go by the boards.

So, we say there's two methods of making nothing out of
something. But if one of these methods has a liability,
then we wouldn't say that it was a technique method, would
we? We'd say it was a method. Well, it wasn't a technique.
Get the idea? So that leaves us with actually just one
technique to make nothing out of things: Communication
Processing.

I've been running some tests - well, I could tell you about
them, and so forth - been running some tests on ridges,
lines, masses, MEST universe gravities, and so on.

Had a preclear lift an ashtray about three feet off of a
desk simply by making all the particles of the ashtray
receive the communication of gravity and make Earth receive
the communication from all the particles of the ashtray,
and gravity disappeared. I didn't say a mock-up of the
ashtray. I said the ashtray.

We could put all this down to this: resistance to or
anxiety about communication produces mass and
condensation, which we graph as the Know to Mystery Scale.
See that? Refusal, negation against communication produces
the condensation which we know as the Know to Mystery Scale.

Now, you think a lot of other things ought to be in there,
but that is not true. Nothing else belongs in that sentence
at all.

Well, we could do this. By test we could find out if this
is true, and we would get one of the more curious
manifestations. I've already told you, I think, about a
process, if you have some person that you completely
detest, you could work this process on them. If this person
is somebody that you mean utterly to destroy, go ahead and
work this process on them.

Scientology has moved up into a bracket of where one of its
processes can process in reverse, right down to death or
insanity just as fast as it can go the other way. This is
not a frightening fact, but it happens to be a true one. A
Scientologist can handle life. Well, if he can handle life
he can certainly handle death. All right. Now, what would
this process be? Be the one of the more interesting
processes because it would sound to the preclear like you
were running the most reasonable process under the sun.
Because this is what he is doing and therefore this
reasonable process would be acceptable by him and he would
run it.

Somebody who had never heard me talk about this process,
who had never heard it from anybody out in the field right
now would very happily run this process for you. "Give me
some things you do not have to be in ARC with."

And they - they're just sure that there will be an end to
this somewhere. There will be a stop to this somewhere. And
somewhere on down the line, why, all of a sudden the ridges
they're accumulating and this horrible mass they're getting
into and this terrific anger they're going down into or
this grief they're going down into will suddenly alleviate.
They'll think this will be a very good thing, you see.
"Look at all the charge I am - I am building up here and I'm
going to spill." They never spill it. It just gets more and
more and worse and worse. They go down the Tone Scale.

Now, you must know that the Tone Scale is simply a
description of the emotional band of the Know to Sex Scale.
The Know to Sex Scale is a much bigger scale of which we
have the Tone Scale as a livingness manifestation of
condensation.

See, you put the whole Tone Scale, fits right in on the
Know to Sex Scale at emotion. And that's a fact, it fits
right in there. Now, as we go below apathy, you see, we
run into effort. And as we go on down the line we run into
the other minus Tone Scale manifestations.

But the Tone Scale, as it was originally produced in - well,
Science of Survival and discussed a little earlier in some
other lectures and books and so on, actually just belongs
to that emotional scale, doesn't it?

So he'll go right straight on down the line and all of a
sudden he will find himself hard-packed into effort, and if
you kept up this thing he'd start to figure-figure his way
out of this. And if you kept him up with this he would get
into an anxiety about the symbols, the exact meaning of the
words you were using. And if you kept this up, he would
begin to get hungry or worry about being eaten. And if you
kept this up he would go right on down into sex and he
would begin to get sexually excited, and so forth. And he
would drop on down through there and he would tell you it
was all a mystery to him. Believe me, it would be.

You can create with this process a black five in two hours,
out of a thetan exterior. The process, again, is simply
this. "Give me some things you wouldn't have to go into ARC
with."

Now, the process also runs this way - it's a process, it is a
death process, the first one I've ever really come up and
described. I have described PDH to you, and so forth. But
this is real - a real death process. This is much worse than
PDH. "Give me some things you don't have to go into
communication with" produces the same result. "Give me some
things you don't have to agree with" does not produce the
same result. "Give me some things you don't have to like"
does not produce the same result. So "Give me some things
you don't have to communicate with" does produce the
result. And that was the isolation of that corner, as a
triangle, as the only important thing in that triangle.

All right. Therefore you have a death process which
produces this condensation known as the Know to Mystery
Scale. And this process is a very, very deadly process. But
it demonstrates to us that as we decide to go out of
communication with things we decide to die.

It was a very funny thing, running this process, to
discover that there is another side to the communication
process. Have all of the molecules in a pack of cigarettes
or a ridge or in the center of Earth decide to receive a
bunch of hellos. And then kind of throw them some hellos to
receive, you know. But that is all simultaneous action.
Have all these - all these particles decide to receive some
originated communications. They decide to receive "hellos."
They decide to receive "okays." And you will find black and
white phenomena turning on. The old Black and White
Processing? It goes black and white, black and white.

Too much origin? You know, and it will all go black. So we
have them receive some okays. Decide to receive some okays,
it will go white. Have them decide to receive some hellos,
go black, see. I mean, it will go white, black, white,
black, white, black, white, black. Get the idea?

But if we have them decide to receive some communications
or decide to receive the - or perceive that a live form is
around, we get a disintegration of the mass without any
liability to the mass itself. It simply evaporates into a
livingness.

Well, this is red hot phenomena. The discoveries which I
have been talking to you about are make and break
discoveries as far as Scientology is concerned, as far as
Dianetics, Scientology is concerned. With these discoveries
the problem of life might have a lot of ramifications,
might have a lot of developments, might have a lot of
conditions but it certainly doesn't have any problem.

Now, I have asked you to run Inventing of Wrongness.
Interesting process, isn't it? Fascinating process. Now we
are going to run Communication Processing, straight out.
And you will find all of these other things running off
automatically.

The need to have a wrongness would be the need to break
communication, would be the need to have a game. But
wrongness and havingness are infinitely connected. If a
thing is wrong you don't want it and after a while if you
can't have something you only have wrongnesses and so
forth. All these involvements take place.

But if wrongness and havingness are intimately connected
then, assuredly, we would find communication and wrongness
intimately connected, wouldn't we. So it is. So actually
the need for wrongnesses resolves on Communication Processing.

These discoveries, as I say - not necessarily the Know to 
Sex Scale, that simply describes the phenomena - but these
discoveries concerning communication actually make nothing
out of the problem of the human mind. There is no problem
with the human mind. Just a problem of how many auditors
can we train. That is about all there is to it. 

Thank you.

(end of lecture)





