From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Wed Mar 17 16:50:14 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.he.net!news.lava.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 17 Mar 1999 23:50:14 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 27/35 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: <215e38ec335f5b877a4e0745d4706bb4@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1201
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690368 alt.clearing.technology:76249

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 27/35

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 27/35

9th ACC 21 (23) - FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING

Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC21    -   
5501C11 Renumbered 23 for "The Solution To Entrapment"
cassettes

FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING

A lecture given on 11 January 1955


An auditor who doesn't know his fundamentals doesn't know
his preclear because these fundamentals exactly and
closely appertain to the preclear himself. They are a
description of the basic agreements which this individual
has made on the whole track in order to get himself in the
shape he's in. And if we don't know these basic agreements
then we're apt to go over along side someplace and go over
the hills and far away and start hitting something that is
terrifically ungermane to the situation.

Now, we could pile up a lot of things that we could call
the fundamentals of auditing. The fundamentals of auditing
would simply be those things which stressed and took apart
the basic agreements on the track and rehabilitated the
thetan's ability to make more agreements and make his own
postulates stick again. That's what we would do in
auditing, you see. We'd take apart the enforced, inhibited
agreements, the ones he couldn't do anything about. We
would take those apart enough so that we could get him into
a situation where we could rehabilitate his ability to
create and agree at will. In other words, we would take
this obsessive or inhibitive line and put it into a
knowingness category. And if we did that then we're
auditing. If we don't know we're doing that we're not doing
anything. You get what this is?

We've got to take him out of the unknown, unconscious,
stimulus-response type of behavior and activity and put him
over here to where he can cause this activity at will. And
when we've done that we've really got a boy. All right.

What are these compulsive and inhibitive patterns? What are
they? And they are contained in the Axioms of Dianetics and
Scientology; the Axioms and definitions. If an auditor
doesn't know what these are he might draw some of the most
interesting conclusions regarding a preclear. Furthermore
he will always have this feeling: "Maybe the HASI doesn't
know what it's talking about. Maybe it does. I don't know."

He's definitely on an uncertainty. That's the least thing
he's on. You can determine this immediately: Somebody is
getting results with auditing, it's because he knows the
fundamentals of this science. That is why he's getting
results in auditing.

Now, let's make - let's make a good comparison of this. Let's
take an engineer out here and he's building himself a
bridge. And if this engineer knows the fundamentals of
steel structure; if he knows something about grading,
overburdening, positioning concrete in place; if he knows
something about cantilevers, stresses, weights, overloads
and factors; that bridge will stay there. And if he is
shorted on any one of these things I've mentioned then any
goofball practical contractor - in our lines that would be
"crystal ball reader," you know, the engineer has this as
his little cross to bear. He's always dealing with
practical engineers who don't know anything about the
fundamentals of engineering. And they come up to him and
they start telling him what the stress analysis is and what
it isn't and he doesn't know and he takes their word for it
and that bridge goes crash down into the chasm.

Well, it works the same way with a case. The preclear is
your practical engineer in this case and he's going to tell
you what's wrong with him. And brother, if you do not know
the fundamentals of existence itself, then you don't know
what's wrong with the preclear and so he can tell you and
so the case can go on forever. And that's about all there
is to it.

There are just so many things that can get wrong with a
man. The best categories of these are simply categorized
this way: He gets out of a knowingness band into a
compulsive or obsessive band. Instead of using postulates
and handling things with postulates, he starts to use
energy and handle everything with energy. This is what
happens to your preclear. As soon as he starts to use
energy and handle everything via-via-via, energy-energy-energy, 
he is then in a condition where any piece of energy
that comes along directed at him can throw him.

If he is not using energy and if he can handle things by
postulates, he is impervious to the stimulus-response
patterns of energy itself.

So what gets wrong with him is he starts to handle things
in terms of mechanics. He is being totally mechanical. He
is starting to handle everything in terms of space. In the
absence of space he doesn't find or feel that he can do
anything. He has to have some energy in order to do
something, You know the final result of that is the guy
goes out here and he buys a bunch of fishing equipment and
then he buys a reel, which is a very special reel, and then
he buys a whole bunch of reels which dry line. And then he
gets some boots and then he gets a fancy knife in order to
clean fish. And then he buys himself a couple of outboard
motors and then he buys himself a boat. And then he decides
that in order to haul the boat around he's got to have a
trailer. Well, in order to have a trailer he's got to have
a special air-inflating pump in case the trailer tires ever
went flat.

Has this boy ever done any fishing yet? No, he's getting
further and further from doing fishing.

So he then decides that in order to really fish he better
get himself this hunting lodge out alongside of this lake.
And so he decides if he's got that he'd better stock it up
for long stays, so he puts a lot of stuff in there. Then he
decides that, actually, the crude plumbing that is out
there isn't so good so he had better put in plumbing, a
water pump, a well and a septic tank. He proceeds to do
this. 

Has he done any fishing yet? No, he sure hasn't.  There's 
this little kid down here with a bent pin has gone
out and emptied the lake by this time. He has to have in
order to do and that is about the lowest of the brackets
that man gets into. After a while he even inhibits this and
he decides he can't have which tells him adequately that he
can't do. But this is all getting over into compulsive and
obsessive behavior. He has these things that tell him now
whether or not he can do it. Does the motor run - does this
outboard motor run? Well, that tells him whether or not he
can go fishing. You got the idea, if the motor doesn't run,
he can't go fishing. What's the motor got to do with fish?
Well, if his hobby is repairing and putting into action
outboard motors he's all set. He - but let's not - let's not
worry about that if our goal is to go fishing. All right.

Now let's take a look - let's take a look at an auditor and
see the frame of mind that you actually could get into. You
might think that you have to have all this tremendous
number of possessions in order to audit, and that these
possessions are so tremendous and they're so big and there
are so many of them that you couldn't possibly grab hold of
them. And so if this were the case then you wouldn't be
able to get up to a point where you could audit, could you?
You always have something more in order to audit.

Well, these things are ideas. They have nothing to do with
mass. There are certain things you have to know. Do you
know that you can be restimulated by a preclear if you
yourself don't know the fundamentals of the whole track?
And if you know them you can't be restimulated by a 
preclear because you will understand exactly what he's doing.
It's only when you don't understand what this preclear is
doing that you can become restimulated.

Now let's look at that as a slight bonus of knowing this
science. These are ideas. These are the ideas, the
agreements, the postulates and they have nothing to do with
mass or energy. You are not in possession of a big lump of
stuff when you know this. It's actually true that knowledge
of the whole track and the common denominators upon it set
a man free. Why? Because these things undo energy.

If you've run, even for a moment, a little spot out there
saying, "Hello," you saw energy start to disintegrate. You
saw it start to come apart. You saw less masses just by
reason of a little communication. Well, it took us a long
time to win that particular datum but now that it's won it
should demonstrate to you whether it was therapeutic or
not. It certainly must have been educational if you look at
it this way: A mass of energy came apart.

What is senior - the energy or the idea? The idea every time.

All right. Here is an organized chain of ideas which
strings back over seventy-six trillion years. An organized
string of ideas which actually do not amount to more - as far
as the importance is concerned - than four or five dozen
ideas. That's a fantastic thing, there's just this little
bit of ideas. And those ideas strung back through time have
created every form, object or activity on the whole track.

Now as a student of this subject you are being asked to put
yourself into possession of these four or five dozen ideas.
You don't have to have anything else but these things
because once you've got these ideas, once you know that
they are the ideas which are the common denominators in the
track, then no preclear or textbook or anything else will
be able to fool you or put you into a state of "I do not
understand."

That's the one state an auditor must never get into, "I
don't understand," because that is itself energy. It's
incomprehensibility. The preclear can then sit there and be
incomprehensible. Only when the preclear is being
incomprehensible does the auditor get restimulated. If you
were to understand everything this preclear is doing, then
you therefore - you can predict this preclear. And what you
can predict you don't worry about. You could predict that
you would have to wait for eight million years for an
answer and a comm lag that you knew would be over in eight
million years, would then not worry you, if you knew
this - you follow me?

But if you thought that it might occur a year from now or
ten years from now or fifty years from now or eight
trillion years from now, you could then worry about it. You
wouldn't have to - you wouldn't be able to predict where it
is. If you can understand what is wrong with the preclear,
you can predict what he is doing and predict what he's
going to do. If you can do this then and there, you have
placed yourself in a situation where you cannot be
restimulated by anything. In other words you cannot be made
into an unknown, unknowing effect.

And that is the first and foremost reason completely,
regardless of results, why an auditor has to know his
definitions and axioms. The first and foremost reason is
for his own sake.

Do you feel comfortable with somebody fooling around with a
.45 automatic that they know nothing about; putting
bullets in it and taking them out of it and fooling around
with its safeties and its hammer and not knowing where the
safeties are and not knowing where the trigger is. Would
you be comfortable? Could you sit there adequately calm in
front of somebody doing this? You bet you couldn't. Well,
by God, you are looking at a .45 when you are looking at a
preclear that actually doesn't know where his safeties are,
doesn't know where his - the loaders or ejectors or injectors
or trigger or barrel or anything else is. This guy is this
terrific mass of incomprehensibility. You know one of
these days he's going to pull the wrong lever. Which way is
he going to go? Well, he'll go in the direction to give you
some trouble if you are living with him.

So let's apply this to the business of living. Still, if he
pulled the wrong lever and you could predict that he was
going to do so because you saw the motions which preceded
pulling the wrong lever, you would at least know it was a
wrong lever and you could be that comfortable about it,
that you could predict his activity and behavior. Only
those things which you do not understand can hurt you.

All right, let's go a little bit further in the making of
an auditor. And he's facing this case, and he's running
this case in an interestingly abstruse, obtuse sort of way.
He is saying some process like, "Well, tell me about your
troubles, and tell me some more about your troubles." And
he keeps this up and by golly you know the preclear gets
better - some more troubles and some more troubles and some
more troubles and you know the preclear is feeling - feeling
right nice. I mean everything is going along very fine and
some more troubles and all of a sudden the preclear starts
to get upset and uncomfortable. If you do not know and if
you cannot explain two-way communication in terms of
living, that first thing alone could cause an eventual upset.

We just use one process and we get a good one-way flow
started on it. And if we let that flow go long enough,
certainly by just communication alone we're going to get a
stuck flow, if we are going to do no more to this case than
that. Right? You should be able to understand that.

All right, next thing, next thing; you are going to give
him a scarcity of problems after a while because you are
as-ising every damned problem this fella can think of. You
haven't asked him to invent any problems or remedy his
havingness of it. You've just asked him time after time to
tell you about some more of his problems, and the next
thing you know there sits this poor devil who hasn't got
any game left.

Well, for instance, the sore tooth that he's got, you know
that once upon a time had tremendous workability and it
might again. My, was his mother sympathetic. Tremendous
workability, beautiful game. "I get a sore tooth, Mother
runs herself ragged." Nice game. Might occur again. Might
even work on the wife. And he starts telling you about this
sore tooth and you as an auditor can make him tell you
about this sore tooth in such a way as to as-is the entire
computation. Now what do you think will happen to him after
you've been up to this long enough? The first liability
would be that he would get a stuck flow on just this type
of auditing, you see. You're making him give you an answer,
him give you an answer, him give you an answer, him give
you an answer, him give you an answer. What are you doing
with the communication formula, huh? Huh?

Male voice: Sticking it - .

You sure are. You are sticking it and it will stick
eventually. I don't - I'm not telling you now how to remedy
it. I'm just telling you what can happen here. And if you
don't know the real application of communication in
everyday living, if you don't know that the two-way cycle
of communication actually behaves as it behaves, then
there's an awful lot of incomprehensible things can occur
with this preclear which you then have to look far afield
and find some very unsatisfactory answer for.

You did it; you were sitting right there. The first thing
you did was stick him by auditing him for forty hours, or
sixty hours or a hundred hours on how many problems he had
and because it produced results at first, we thought that
this was terrific. And the next way you stuck him was to
take all of his games away from him without asking him to
invent anything else to go in their place. So this wasn't
good. That's bad auditing.

Well, you know the fundamentals. You see there's really no
reason why I should have to teach you how to audit. If you
were capable of applying the Axioms of Scientology
immediately to the problem of another fellow human being,
you theoretically could dream up enough processes to
satisfy adequately every single condition which you would
meet. But it has been found by experience that auditors do
not do this. So we have codified processes.

And we have the codification of processes known as Two-way
Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure
8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness
and Spotting Spots. All of these are very intimately seated
in the Axioms. All of them have rationale back of them
which stems immediately from the definitions and Axioms of
Dianetics and Scientology. They were developed straight out
of theory. And they are only there for one reason - Is it
actually would be an imposition to ask every student of
this subject to come along and suddenly start to
extrapolate a hundred percent from these Axioms because he
would not have any objective reality on it. Furthermore,
the Axioms themselves are restimulative. They are
restimulative. They cannot help but be restimulative. The
fellow starts to resist them or fight them, the next thing
you know he's got a counter-blast going against one of his
basic agreements on the track and they fold fast.

You know, by the way, I don't worry these days, I don't
even vaguely worry these days about somebody popping up
somewhere grabbing a completely cockeyed brand of
Dianetics and Scientology and putting out a lot of yap-yap
to the public and patent medicine testimonials and so
forth, and starting to go to town. I don't worry about this
boy. You know why? He could have gotten away with it with
early Dianetics. There wasn't enough - wasn't enough of these
basic axioms on the track in early Dianetics. But he
wouldn't get away with it now. He's fighting the stuff of
which he is made. There could be no quicker way to kill a
man. And so it occurs these people last about a year in a
sane state. Now this is a horrible thing. We've got the
most awful self-protective mechanism you ever walked into
because they are stealing it or taking it aside - you see
they could have it. There is no reason why they should
steal it, but their make-up tells them they got to steal
it. All right. They could have it. But they don't do that.
They have a basic misunderstanding of its mission, its
activity and its form. And having this basic
misunderstanding of it, they then haven't got any better
sense than to start to buck it in some fashion or to say,
"Well, this and that of it is not true, and something or
other is not true, and we all know this," and so on; and
then start to tell people how awful a real auditor
is - you're in the area - .

By the way, don't think these boys just yap at me. That's
not true. They catch you in some area and they might tell
you how bad I am, but they tell the next guy that comes in
how bad you are. That's what that goes all about. It's just
bad over there. And this individual starts saying how bad
the real trained auditor is and they really don't have to
do that and so on, and he starts fighting a buzz saw. And
he might as well go out and find himself a nice, big
sawmill and fight a buzz saw, because he - it'd actually be
less painful. This is not a threat I'm giving you. I'm
just saying this stuff is there to be understood and
learned, and there isn't, unfortunately, is no short-stop.
You don't stop early on this. There is no stopping early.
You know that. That's why you've studied it for as long as
you have.

You were studying it at the same time I was studying it. I
was developing it along the line and I gave you everything
that I discovered that had validity as it was discovered.
This was good enough. This was good enough. But now there
are damned few bugs extant in this stuff. Very, very few
bugs. An alignment such as I gave you the last couple of
days - we'll call exteriorization procedure - this is simply
putting together a lot of stuff we already know and know
well to produce more rapidly a certain result.

Well, let's not go astray in the believing that you know
something if you can't define it. That is the sorriest trap
that anybody ever led himself into. This is what's known as
something like the recognition of words. You know about the
recognition of words? People have a recognition value of
words. It certainly doesn't make them literate. They know
that word means something vaguely resembling what it means,
but they themselves cannot use that word. Let's take a
college student, somebody with a pauperized vocabulary, and
turn him loose in Thomas Hardy - which is bad literature to
begin with - and they start running across some of these
words, and they give them recognition value. They think
they know what it means. When they see the word, they have
a vague idea of what it means. That's recognition value. It
certainly isn't knowing the word. And they will wind up
with the dimmest idea of what the author was talking about.

All right, let's get a little bit further. What is
basically the vocabulary of people? It is terrible. I can
really point you out an "It's bad over there." I was
utterly flabbergasted the other day to write somebody a
letter and have the entire letter misunderstood because the
person did not know what the word expect means! You'd say
this man was the champion moron of all time. Nn-nn, no he's
not. He manages a business. "Oh," you say, "Recognition
value or knowingness value of words couldn't possibly be so
bad that there's somebody out here who doesn't know what
expect means." Yes there are. There are lots of people
around that don't know what a word like expect means.

I try to use, by and large, simple English. Very few of
these definitions or Axioms in Scientology have complicated
words in them. They either have a made-up word out of whole
cloth; take some adjective and make a noun out of it,
something, just a whole cloth, because there is no place,
no hole - there's been a - there's a hole there in the
language. There is no word that makes up this hole; a
phenomenon nobody has observed before so we don't have a
pat word for it.

But you don't find us using words like telekinesis, or
telekinesis is the proper pronunciation of it. It's a gaudy
word, isn't it; telekinesis. Well, if you were studying
philosophy at Georgetown University in order to become a
priest, you would not only know that word but you would
know the four or five textbooks which go to explain what
that word means. And that's what somebody would expect of
you in one of our modern institutions, parenthesis,
laughingly referred to as, unparenthesis, learning. It
would be getting more symbols of the definitions of more
symbols to pile on the top of more symbols. You'd get
pretty giddy after a while.

I've never seen two priests that couldn't get into an
argument over some such subjects as the one I've mentioned.
They have observed certain phenomena and then they've
given them words and the words have become more important
than the phenomena. We all know this manifestation in
healing, in psychology and so forth. We've seen it there.
It's also in religion. A man who was really trained in the
field of religion has simply been made a walking dictionary
of symbols - not of understanding, just of symbols. You give
him one word and he can come out with the other combination
of words which explains that one word. See? Now you ask him
to explain one of these other words that he used to explain
it and he can come out with another regurgitation of words
which explains this word. All words explained by all words.
You get the idea? We got a word, so we explain it with
these words and then we get one of these words and we can
explain it over here with these words and then we got a
bunch more words and the next thing you know we've got the
symbol band beautifully hit.

Well, now listen - in Scientology we're not explaining words
by words. We're explaining words by life behavior and we
are unfortunately called upon to explain life behavior by
words.

There is another point on our communication line. We have
an actual comparison and that comparison is experience in
existence.

Now an auditor, because he's working definitely straight up
to and close to - very, very close to - the pattern of life
which is the preclear; therefore, has this before him: He
has life. He doesn't have words. So he'd definitely have to
have a comprehension of that life manifestation. And the
most fantastic thing that has happened here in the last
four years, that life in all these various complex
manifestations has been described by words. Scientology
and Dianetics are semantic triumphs completely aside from
doing anything. You get the idea? We can give a simple
word description of phenomena occurring in life.

You won't find very many long words in Dianetics and
Scientology mostly because Western scientific thinking has
gone over into the hands of the engineer. It no longer
belongs in the field of philosophy. The engineer has
captured all this ground. Today the psychiatrist and the
psychologist is turning more and more toward some
scientific explanation. He right now has turned rather
interestingly to the electronic brain boys to find out
what's happening - the electronic brain boys just as
though - he's still on the idea that a human being is totally
a machine with no other production in it, but a machine.
It's a basic misconception of philosophy. But he's being
forced over into the field of science.

It used to be enough for a doctor simply to be able to name
the bones of the body and not be able to do anything else
at all to be a physician. Now this is the most incredible
thing you ever heard of. Every one of these bones had a
tremendous number of names. This was way back on the track.
But they had all these names. Somebody had named all these
bones and this fella could name these bones and it took
them hundreds and hundreds of years on the subject of bones
to get up to a practical application of bones and healing.
And the first practical application of it came in the -
somewhere in the vicinity of about 1780, 1760. Somewhere in
that band of time, somebody came up and said, 'A doctor
should be able not only to name these bones but to identify
them by touch while blindfolded." Medicine had started to
get real. And a good physician could do this. He could take
all the assorted pile of bones; a skeleton completely
knocked to pieces in its separate parts in a pile, and he
could take each one of these things blindfolded and just by
touch identify what that bone was. Now we've gotten over in
toward reality.

But they still clung to the fact that the brain had an
enormous number of names. You could ask today the
psychiatrist what is a brain and it - in - the first thing that
would click inside of his head would be an enormous number
of names. That's his understanding of it - this great number
of Latin names. That psychiatrist was made to sit in class
day after day, week after week, month after month and
memorize some of the most incredible and misleading Latin
titles you ever saw. Latin. I wish I had a textbook here of
all the parts of the brain. I mysell, am just - I never look
at it but what I say, "What a tremendously complex waste of
effort. What a beautiful example of useless activity." Just
casting up these names for the brain.

But these boys could not do anything for the brain. Now do
you understand me? They have not to this date done
anything for the brain, but they know an awful lot of
names. So that you as an individual inheriting some of this
tradition of - learn an awful lot of category, learn an
awful lot of definitions and know nothing - you got that,
learn a lot and know nothing - have some tendency in
Dianetics and Scientology to discount the necessity of a
precision grip. This has been done to you. It's been done
to you in schools. You have had to learn, if you ever took
basic psychology, you were asked to learn all sorts of
parts. Completely useless, after you learned all these
parts, you couldn't make a man laugh or cry, but you knew
all the parts. What good was that?

Scholastic training back down through the years has
disabused us all of the idea of ever knowing anything about
definition. And then we moved into the field of
engineering. There have been engineers with us since long
ago. They were building roads and bridges in Gaul that
haven't gone to pieces yet. The engineer fought his
knowledge out of the physical universe, and the physical
universe is a very hard taskmaster. A man is right or he is
right, he never gets a chance to be wrong.

And the engineer has come up paralleling these humanities
with precision definition and formula. This is an entirely
different philosophy. The philosophy is: State in the
minimum number of words the exact behavior of this
particular action. Where there's a bad engineer in
practice, I will show you a person who as a student did not
think it necessary to learn the elementary definitions of
physics and chemistry. He didn't think it necessary. And
the educational system in which that man was unfortunately
forced to learn did not think it necessary to return him to
the fundamentals. One of the most laughable experiences
I've ever had in the field of education was trying to get
across to an engineer who was working with me on a project
in a big aviation company - I was called in on consultation
very briefly, I have very, very little to do with this sort
of thing - but I was called in on consultation in order to
resolve a navigational problem, they had all of a sudden
run into this and it was entirely far afield and they had
to look around for somebody who was in Who's Who or some
place on the subject, so I went in and I tried to talk to
this individual about kinetics.

And the individual had been taught kinetics in a university
which used advanced physics. And the boy had never had to
study elementary physics. He only knew advanced physics. He
knew none of the simple laws of motion, of inertia,
interaction, acceleration. Newton's basic three laws were
unknown to him. And I couldn't get across to this man
anything about the problem because he kept talking about
kinetics. He kept talking about the upper echelon formulas
of kinetics.

This man was an absolute master of theory of equations, of
differentials, not differential calculus, but that
mathematics known as differentials, of topology, a German
mathematics now about thirty years old. A master of these
things. He could get more complex than any man I have ever
heard of and yet he couldn't solve the basic laws of
motion, and could not understand why the whirligig device,
which was going to be the artificial horizon running on a
little reaction motor, had to have as much mass to
discharge in back of it, as it had. He just couldn't get it
through his head.

Mass interaction - every action produces a opposite reaction.
All right. Therefore, we just had to have so much fuel in
the little whirligig that was going to drive an artificial
horizon. He couldn't get it: Why we had to make any
allowances whatsoever for fuel capacity in this device, and
why the device itself was going to take down the actual
functioning of the guided missile to such a degree. It was
going to put on the guided missile immediately about 125
pounds of weight, in terms of its own fuel. And I kept
telling him the fuel has to weigh 125 pounds. Why? Well,
because there's 125 pounds of thrust going to be exerted
 - Well, something like you trying to explain to this kid
that he should put on his shoes, because there are carpet
tacks on the floor. And he says, "What do shoes got to do
with it?"

And I got curious about this boy, and he was the head of
the department that had this particular project in charge.
And his complete stupid thick-headedness was the reason
they had to send for a consultant. But was he stupid? No,
he could put up the facade of being the most brilliant man
you ever saw, and probably was a very, very brilliant man.
But when he was educated, he took his elementary physics,
his basic physics in high school, and he really didn't
start to study engineering until he was in the university,
and the university gave him a textbook on the subject of
kinetics, which he later on dragged out while I was over at
his house, and it didn't have anywhere in it Newton's three
laws of motion.

We're going to write a textbook on kinetics without the
basic three laws of motion. No we're not. Now, those three
basic laws of motion are the most simply stated thing you
ever heard of. They are most elementary thing; the inertia,
acceleration, interaction, there's nothing to them. Any kid
can understand them. And because they are so tremendously
understandable, a person pursuing this course of study
simply reads them, and he says, "Well, that's easy," and he
goes onto the next page.

Let me tell you something, that next page doesn't have
anything on it as important as Newton's three laws of
motion. The origin of these three laws of motion was the
surrender of the physical universe to the engineer. It was
the white flag. It ran up a white flag at that moment in
the face of man. This was enormously important. So what is
important and what isn't important is the basic part of any
educational system.

Now one time we were in the state in Dianetics that we
didn't know whether it was more important that the preclear
yawned - we thought the yawn might be a very, very important
factor. We watched for yawns very carefully. All a yawn is
is a change of his basal metabolism. It doesn't
demonstrate anything better or worse. He might yawn, yawn,
yawn and go into a boil-off. Boil-off is - we thought at one
time was therapeutic, until we had somebody run - . I got
this as a - set this up as a project.

And I had auditors make preclears boil off until we had in
one case three hundred hours of consecutive boil-off by a
case, with no change of psychometry. No change on an
E-Meter reading and no change of case or any rehabilitation
of ability. Boil-off wasn't important, was it? It just
wasn't even vaguely important. It's kind of found - we found
out that the preclear didn't even get rested in the
boil-off. It wasn't something that rested him. He woke
up - if he went into the session tired he'd come out tired.

All right, so all I'm trying to show you is we had an
enormous number of data, oh, just thousands of data, pieces
of this puzzle which belonged somewhere, some of which
were more important than another, but for God's sakes,
which were the important pieces? Where did they belong?
Which was the most important pieces?

And gradually as these years have gone on, we have built a
puzzle within a puzzle within a puzzle within a puzzle. And
the inside puzzle is the simple one. It's a very simple
puzzle. Pieces one to fifty, fitted together, make a preclear.

But you can look at the outside puzzle that's around this
puzzle and you can find out all kinds of interesting
things. You can find out about his familial relationship,
the relationship of his childhood, the fact that broken
marriages very often result in juvenile delinquents. We
can discover all sorts of significant data which is of -
still of interest to an auditor in the outer puzzle. But
that's not a puzzle anymore because we worked that one first.

All right. Now we go around and we find outside of this
puzzle we do get into a puzzle as far as life is concerned
and that is; contains such things as the parts of the brain
in Latin. And if I were today asking you to memorize the
parts of the brain in Latin, I would be ashamed of myself.
Because it wouldn't lead anyplace, wouldn't lead anywhere
at all. It wouldn't make a single person better and it
wouldn't increase your understanding of life one bit,
except to this slight mechanism: If you give something a
name it becomes more familiar, and becoming more familiar
is better owned by you.

There's a process that goes that way, a very weak process,
but it has some efficacity and it's simply this: Just start
naming - giving things names in your environment. Now you
look at that chair and that chair gives you its name,
doesn't it? It says sort of "I am a chair." You've been
told often this is a chair, so this process goes in this
direction: It simply says, That is a yumgetit and that is a
togwalla." And a guy just goes on along this line, and he
feels his vocabulary start to creak and come apart at the
edges. It's not a very effective process, but it's a
tremendously interesting process. It will certainly ruin a
general semanticist. It'll ruin him. But it's an
experimental process.

All right, the isolated data which were important as of
1951, end of; appear in Advanced Procedures and Axioms and
the Handbook for Preclears as the Axioms of Dianetics, the
Logics and Axioms of Dianetics.

Many of those still have validity. All of them have
validity in this outside ring puzzle. But they - they all
have some validity yet, but some of them are with us yet
and they were the ones with the greatest validity. And so
we look over all of these axioms, end of 1951 and we
discover out of them enough impact to cause me last year,
year before last now, to be welcomed with very widespread
arms anywhere I went in Europe.

"This is the man," not the fellow who invented Dianetics,
but "This is the man who organized psychotherapy into
usable axioms." And whether they are the right axioms or
the wrong ones had no bearing on it. Here was somebody who
had at least organized psychotherapy into a usable series
of rationales. And it became tremendously interesting from
an intellectual standpoint, whether anybody understood them
or not, because nobody had ever attempted this before. And
so, these boys were not in argument with me on whether or
not Dianetics was true or false or whether or not these
were valid axioms or invalid axioms or whether they solved
anything or not. They were with me all the way because I
was the first guy that ever organized psychotherapy into a
series of axioms, you see. That was quite enough for the
European scholar. That was quite enough.

He had good differentiation there, he didn't think you had
to do the whole job in one fell swoop. In America you're
expected to have solved the whole thing, and written all
the - and organized it and so forth, and then they'll let you
live. 

Now, here is a - here is an interesting viewpoint, there,
those 1951 Axioms. If you were being required to memorize
those 1951 Axioms and required to memorize and understand
them, you wouldn't really be undergoing a big imposition
because they still have tremendous validity. For instance,
gradient scales, the basic - the background of data and how
we understand data, and so forth, are all in those, that
data which hasn't been touched since. But as far as the
therapy end of it is concerned, we have overridden it. The
last coupie of hundred axioms out of those nearly three
hundred axioms have today been superseded by the fifty
axioms which appear in The Creation of Human Ability and
which you have a copy of.

The therapy axioms, the ones that immediately and
intimately apply to therapy have to a marked degree been
superseded. This doesn't make them any less valid. They are
all valid observations, but they are axioms which belong to
the outer puzzle. So we've at least condensed a couple of
hundred of them into some fifty, which describes life.

Now an auditor plunging into a case without having this
much understanding of existence is asking for several
things. One of the things he's asking for is case failures.
Another thing he's asking for is restimulation of himself
He's asking for that, he's asking for it very, very
definitely. Another thing he's asking for is a puzzle on
his own part as to just why Scientology works at all.

Now the basic thing most auditors try to change on
preclears is the preclear's mind. We know this is the most
basic therapy. They try to change him - change his mind by
feeding him various ideas. Well, the single change that has
happened here of recent months has been this: Has been the
understanding that given the ability to change his mind,
what he changes his mind to is of no importance.

The auditor a couple of years ago was trying to change a
person's mind into a certain direction, you see. We're not
trying to do that. All we're trying to do is get the
individual to change his mind freely; put him in a
situation where he can change his mind freely and then not
give a damn what he changes his mind to. Because if he can
change his mind he can change his goals. And if he can
change his goals, he can survive. So we sort of leave that
up to the fella.

Now that's a very much higher-toned view. But if you think
that by running some concepts or rearranging a preclear's
ideas you're going to get anyplace, you're mistaken. You
will only get as far as you restore to him the ability to
change his mind. If he can change his mind, he'll win. If
he can't change his mind, he'll lose.

Now we get from there immediately into mechanics - changing
the mind. If he can change his mind facilely, he'll be in
good shape.

Now we get into mechanics and we find out that experience,
education and other things may monitor the direction he
will change his mind because he's applying it to a set
pattern known as the physical universe. And we have moved
over into this and we find out the first thing the physical
universe demands of us is two poles. It demands two poles,
at least; that we can - must be able to have force and
strength to impose space on two electrodes - two positions,
two locations.

You see, the base of the electric motor imposes the
distance upon the two electrodes. And the floor of the
building imposes that distance upon the base. And Earth
imposes that - hold-apart on the floor of the building and
the sun and the Earth are imposing this distance that light
is going to travel, but something about this solar system
and the galaxy imposed the distance of the sun and the
Earth and somewhere, someplace - reductio ad absurdum - 
something is imposing distance between two particles. 
It just boils down to this: Something is imposing 
distance on two particles. Remember, we're into
the mechanical field of this because we're going to ask
this individual to perform a mechanical trick, and the
mechanical trick is simply be a distance from his body and
reactive mind. He's already convinced of the distance,
therefore within this framework of conviction we're going
to impose a mechanical trick on him of ask him to be a
distance from this body and mechanical mind and we're
still going to ask him to control it while he's at that
distance, which is cute.

And then we're going to put another trick to him, we're
going to ask him to communicate with anything and
everything there is in this universe. And if he
communicates with everything and anything there is in this
universe, as far as he's concerned there can or can't be,
can be or doesn't have to be, a universe.

See, he could take the MEST universe or leave it alone.

Now, therefore, the first and foremost of these three
things is something called change of mind. Now that's very
silly that something which has nothing but the quality
to - of mind change should have any difficulty in doing it.
This is real wild, you see. I mean, this individual who can
do nothing but mind - change his mind, he can certainly do
this you see. He can make postulates or he can change
those postulates or he can end those postulates. Well, if
this is all this individual can do, then if you please, if
you please, why do we have to work at it? Well, we actually
don't have to work at it very hard, and it's certainly not
something that we should stress considerably in processing.
We should simply work in the direction of doing it.

Well, all right. Let's take these fifty axioms of which I
spoke. These fifty axioms are a pretty good codification of
existence, but remember each one of them was once part of
an enormous sea of data, the sea of data of just two years
ago; those axioms were afloat in there someplace. But that
sea of data of two years ago - three hundred axioms - was -
they were captured data, captured territory from an ocean of
maybes. They were some captured certainties from an ocean
of maybes.

And if an auditor is still afloat in that ocean of maybes,
if he doesn't recognize that some of this territory has
been captured, then he can be shipwrecked and drowned with
great ease because he get - well, let's say he takes Opening
Procedure of 8-C and he works it a certain distance and all
of a sudden a great big mass of something moves in on the
preclear from some quarter. And it might be a very painful
mass, might do very bad things to him, and the auditor
didn't know really that this could occur and didn't know
why it occurred. Maybe he wouldn't know anything about this
business about two terminals, there's got to be two
terminals. He didn't recognize that every preclear is using
his body as one terminal and an enormous amount of
reactive energy or machinery for other terminals. And he
goes over here and he touches - has the preclear touch the
wall, and he touches the wall and he touches the wall and
he touches the wall and he touches the wall and all of a
sudden the preclear has terminal trouble. Why shouldn't he
have terminal trouble, he's getting his attention fixed off
of these terminals in the bank up to the fact that he
actually has terminals in present time and doesn't need
these damn terminals in the bank. So he starts letting go
of them and actually they start flying around in all
directions.

Is it serious? No, it certainly isn't. It merely shows you
that 8-C is working. That's all it tells you. But
if you didn't know this business about terminals, you
could get awfully baffled. And you probably, if you didn't
know that much, wouldn't know that I knew enough to tell
you to go on and run 8-C, and that you would solve this
particular juxtaposition of terminals. The individual has
just started to abandon the terminal, he will abandon it
all the way when he discovers that he can have another mass
than some hidden mass, ball of engrams, in the bank.

See, he's counting on these engrams around in the bank.
He's counting on masses. He's counting on old electronics.
You wonder why these people bring in these electronics on
themselves all the time. Well, you shouldn't be baffled
about this particularly, they're just in search of a
terminal and these terminals move in and they use them. And
they generate electricity between the body and these
terminals. And they're trying to set up automatic machinery.

Well, there's no reason why they should do this when
they've got a terminal right there. There's a wall. And
you get their attention on the fact that, look, they've
always got terminals. Present time is just strewn with
them. They're all over the place. There's other people,
that's the most valuable terminal. These boys who go off
and start finding terminals down in their bank someplace,
and so forth, they've become unaware of other people. They
don't think other bodies are standing around there to
discharge against. Nobody to argue with, nobody to talk
with, nobody to fight with. They must think this is the
case or they wouldn't go using these isolated terminals.

All right. We find this individual starting to work here
with the wall, touching the wall and letting go of the wall
and approaching it and moving away from it. We could
actually run 8-C, you know, all the way. We don't because
the reason behind 8-C is simply get the guy under the
auditor's orders so we know what he's doing and get him a
little bit solved as far as this terminal problem is
concerned. But we could make 8-C an end-all process and you
as an auditor certainly ought to be able to make it an
end-all process and do nothing but 8-C.

Somebody asked me yesterday would you touch the boss. We
were running Reach and Withdraw with adult education. All
right, would you go ahead and touch the boss? Yes! But you
don't have to have the boss there. The simplest thing in
the world would be for this individual to reach and
withdraw, touch various parts of; and so forth, a human being.

Let me tell you how I worked a psychotic one time. I worked
this psychotic for four auditing periods of twenty minutes
each and she went out and got a job and we haven't heard of
her since and she's a waitress in some place or another
right now fairly nearby and having a happy time of it. This
person didn't know her name when she came in. She gave four
or five names doubtfully and then didn't know any of
those. This is quite a - quite a interesting little case. Not
an isolated case, not a selected case, one that walked in
off the street and there were no available auditors so I
audited her.

The oddity in this case was that nobody else was alive
anywhere in the world. See, there was nobody alive. This
person was walking around as the only one. But some dim
circuit did walk her in the front door, so she couldn't
have been too bad off, you see, I mean, she couldn't have
been too serious of a case because some dim circuit did
walk her into the right place. And when they come to you as
an auditor, you haven't got the worst psychotic you could
get by a long ways.

All right. I had this girl touching the walls and I had her
walking through space to discover if there was - anything was
in it. She'd move her body through this space fearfully,
feeling she would encounter something and reached the point
indicated that she was to proceed toward with the greatest
of relief I just had her walking back and forth in the room
because I could make her do that at first. I couldn't make
her touch anything. So I just had her walking back and
forth through space finding out if there was anything in
it. "Now, you walk over to that exact spot there and find
out whether or not there's anything between you and it.
Okay, now let's walk over there. That's right, that's
right. Well, was there anything in it?"

"All right. Now, you see that corner of the rug over there.
Now you just walk over there and see if there's anything
between you and it."

This psycho, of course, was less psycho every second of the
auditing session, relief; relief; better off. Well, I
finally got her up to a point where she'd touch the wall
and let go of the wall and so on. I was still running A. I
mean, I was directing her to the spots, picking them out,
so forth. But I never came off A. I just ran A all the way.

And I said, "All right. Now, walk over here and touch my
shoulder. That's a good girl. Now, you go over there. Now
I'm going to walk over and touch your shoulder." "Okay."
And I did.

And we did this for quite a little while, you know, several
minutes, back and forth, many times. And now I said,
"Breathe on my hand." She did. So I said, "Now you come
over here - you come over here and I'm going to breathe on
your hand." And I did.

She almost hit a terror charge. She recognized that I was
alive - breath, very intimate thing to life. She recognized 
I was alive, got quite shocky, wanted to go hide herself;
immediately, she wanted to hide under the desk or in the
closet. She actually was trying to pull the closet open.
Another time she tried to get under the bed just to get out
of sight because there was something else alive there. She
was convinced now there was something else alive in the
world. That was a big uptake. Although she was afraid of
it, she now knew there was something alive.

The next immediate gain was this: "Show me your hand. Thank
you. Very good. Now, look at my hand. Okay. Now show me
your other hand. Okay. Now you look at my other hand. All
right." Back and forth, back and forth.

"Show me your head. Show me the back of your head. Show me
your foot. Show me your other foot." Next thing you know,
she definitely knew somebody was looking at her and she was
no longer afraid. And she definitely knew she could look
at somebody, and she was no longer afraid. And that was the
end of the case. This is running 8-C all the way using a
live terminal.

Now, I dare say it has considerable benefit in this
direction but it has never been put out completely in this
form. But why would I essay to do this? What would be the
cue for this? Simply I knew the basic modus operandi of 8-C
which happens to do with terminals. This is a process that
has to do with terminals. First and foremost it overcomes
the willingness or unwillingness of the individual; the
obsessive or unwilling following of orders. It overcomes
that which of course reestablishes communication. But the
next thing it does is overcome terminal trouble. And other
people are alive in the world; there are other people
around in the world. And sometimes a person doesn't know he
doesn't know this, which is one of the more peculiar things.

So, there is a background to 8-C, you could give other
backgrounds to 8-C. But it's a codified process. It's
actually there codified for the excellent reason that it's
pretty hard to get somebody at an HCA level of training to
grab hold of the idea of terminals, electrical charges
running between the other. Because he always tries to make
it much more complicated than it is. This is a universe
with the basic unit of two. This universe has two as its
basic unit. And a thetan gets in here being one, and he's
done. He has to be able to duplicate himself sooner or later.

Doesn't make a game. This universe will collapse on
anybody, because he has to fight it. He starts fighting
this universe instead of fighting another live thing. And
the second he starts to resist this universe it caves in on
him.

So there is the type of reasoning which an auditor should
be able to accomplish through his knowledge of Axioms,
through his knowledge of definitions.

If he knew these well, he could figure out, he could know,
and he could predict any preclear he was called upon to
process. And the only reason he doesn't is because he
doesn't know this basic material. So, you're being asked to
know this basic material.

It's all very well to say, "Well, it's not really
practical." Well, I'll tell you what's impractical: is
having to know eighty-five thousand processes. And I'll
tell you what's practical: to be able to evolve any you need.

And if you know the definitions, you can evolve them.
That's a lot to ask of anybody. But if he knows the
definitions he will at least be able to understand what he
is looking at. Because he'll gradually get a great
certainty on the fact that these are the definitions that
make up life. 

Okay.

(end of lecture)





