From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Wed Mar 17 20:20:09 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!feeder.qis.net!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.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 03:20:09 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 28/35 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: <ca1ca491b29ed415d36dffcb48c098e8@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1242
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690569 alt.clearing.technology:76292

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 28/35

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 28/35

9th ACC 22 (24) - DEFINITIONS: GLOSSARY OF TERMS - PART I

Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC22    -   
5501C12 Renumbered 24 for "The Solution to Entrapment"
cassettes

DEFINITIONS: GLOSSARY OF TERMS - PART I

A lecture given on l2 January 1955


You have had quite a bit of the material of Scientology
written to you and explained to you. You found out quite a
lot about it, but if these were just a series of arbitrary
definitions so that we could process, they'd be worthwhile
but they wouldn't be very valuable.

Let's take up this business yesterday. Miriam suddenly
discovered that the word symbol as given in the English
language means a substitute for. Now, that's a very
definite English definition. And instead of meaning this,
she found out it meant mass, meaning and mobility. And this
was a shock. Of course, it would be until she examined it
further and found out that mass, meaning and mobility were
a substitute for the thing which was life. And all of a
sudden - I don't think I am drawing a longbow to say so - her
understanding of Scientology in just this one little point
broadened somewhat. Right?

If you can't get that kind of a spark out of every one of
these definitions, if you can't get a broadening of your
understanding of life out of these definitions, then there
is something you have missed about one. Got it?

We are in the very happy state that there's doggone little
added baggage riding along with us now. Now, you've seen me
actually throw away with wild abandon, although you haven't
noticed it, a tremendous amount of stuff. Man, we were
accumulating there for a long time until we were the - it
was up to the Plimsoll mark of Indian Ocean Summer. And
we've just been strewing the wake with stuff

Look at all you don't have to know about engrams. Well,
that's just one of many. Overt act-motivator sequence isn't
very important, but it sure does explain a lot of behavior.
We don't use it very much in processing.

More important than that, the whole book What to Audit got
thrown into the wake, although today people read that with
great fascination because it explains what these preclears
have been up to all this time, you see; what they're
dramatizing, and so on. It's a piece of understanding, but
we don't use it in processing. And similarly there is a
tremendous amount of bric-a-brac.

Well, if all of this throwing away has been going on, what
has been kept aboard? Because there still is a small amount
of cargo in Scientology which is the more important
factors. Scientology, even though it now resembles a
Missouri steamboat... A Missouri steamboat by the way was
a remarkable thing. They tell the story about a steamboat
pilot who got one of these Missouri riverboats in the
early days well up the Missouri, passenger and the captain
and the pilot were about all the people there were aboard -
course a couple of guys to stoke the engines. The passenger
woke up and he looked around and he saw nothing but prairie
in all directions, not a sign of water, not a sign of water
this morning. And he saw the captain and the captain looked
awful bleary-eyed, the passenger was bleary-eyed and they
had both been drunk the night before, and the captain said,
"That's right, we're eighteen miles from the river. The
goddamned pilot got drunk last night and there was a light
dew."

Now, we almost resemble this wonderful state of affairs
except nobody's drunk. We can travel on a light dew, and
this is what you're studying right now. It's not very much.

But by golly, given a hole in one's understanding of the
data which we still retain, an auditor can now get awfully
puzzled, he can get very upset this is certain.

Let's take first and foremost one of the early basic words
in Dianetics: aberration. The actual English derivation of
the word means a crooked line, an aberration. It's a term
actually which comes from the science of optics. A lens is
aberrated if it twists the lines out of plane where they
belong. A lens has as many aberrations as it twists the
light out of a straight line. Look: cause-distance-effect,
straight line between, the introduction of a via. Get that
whole philosophy? 

Audience: Uh-huh. 

All right, it's right there in that word aberration.

We say, "somebody is aberrated." Well, is there an absolute
state of aberration? No, because you could just keep
winding it up and winding it up. But is there a theoretical
nonaberration? People who are - yes, very definitely it
would be cause-distance-effect, known cause, known effect,
straight 1ine between and no vias, and that would be
nonaberrated and would be nonaberrative.

Well, this is an interesting thing here. Let's take the
boy, he knows he's right there, the preclear does, he knows
the wall is right there, and he reaches out his hand and he
touches the wall. Well, he's coming awfully close to
cause-distance-effect, isn't he. And we make him go around
cause-distance-effecting until we finally get him in the
state where he recognizes that there's no via between him
and the wall.

Now, many of the preclears that you have will stand up in
front of a wall and can see that there is something between
them and the wall, old masses of energy, all kinds of
things and stuff and they will actually reach too deep,
reach too shallow. It's just like the pilot who tries to
land 20 feet under the ground or 80 feet above it. He can't
reach his effect points anymore.

Well, you'll see this manifested in very, very many ways.
He can't arrive for one thing. He'll start a task and never
finish it. See, he knows there's so many vias.

Did you ever run into anybody that - they'd start to - did you
ever ask anybody, "Can you please fix this tire?" And they
are there and they got a couple of tire irons and so forth,
and then they realize they have to have a jack and they go
find the jack and they put that under there. Then they
realize that they probably have to have a different type of
lug wrench, a fancier one, and that one doesn't work very
well, it works a little bit, you know so they have to go
and get another lug wrench. And then they realize by this
time that they are wearing pretty good clothes, so they've
got to go and put on some different clothes. And then they
look over the spare that they're going to put on, and they
decide that this needs some repairs first, although it
looks all right to you. And they keep accumulating data,
until at last they start accumulating excuses, and there
sits the flat tire on and on and on. They are just
departing on vias that keep them from arriving. And the
more vias they hit, the less they are going to arrive.

You get a government, a bureaucracy. The reason we object
to a bureaucracy is because it's
via-via-via-via-via-via-via-via-via-via-via, and it never
gets anyplace. What men are trying to do is make the system
responsible. The system has got to be responsible, not the
individual, and if this keeps going you have a very
aberrative state of affairs, because you are looking
straight at an aberration.

Aberration means no more, no less than a great many vias.
Now, did it say a great many necessary vias? Unnecessary
vias? No, it just said "a great many vias."

For instance, here I sit talking to you. We have dispensed
with a great many vias. There actually is a possible via on
this line; there's a tape. All right, but this still has
been un-viaed down to a minimum.

You will notice however that every once in a while somebody
objects to tapes. They just don't like these tapes. Well,
they just - so, it's a via, it's obviously a via, so to some
degree it's aberrative - some slight degree. Now, it just
depends then on how much deaberrative material there is on
an aberrative tape. It's just a sort of a contest between
these two points. All right.

Now, we look at this aberration, if we understand
aberration very well as	a word, and as a definition, if
we understand it - not just be able to quote it - if we
understand this thing, we'll understand an awful lot about
what's wrong with Joe Doakes and Bill Frud. We can also
understand what's wrong with a psychiatrist.

A psychiatrist is sitting there looking at the patient and
he's got to go find an electric shock machine. Dah! And the
electric shock machine doesn't make anybody well. He's just
putting some more vias on the line between the person and
his own body and anatomy, see. But there the psychiatrist
sits, you see, and there the patient sits. Now, let's take
an E-Meter. Actually, what was originally called an E-Meter
is going to be called shortly a physiogalvanometer, which
word is trademarked by the HASI - a physiogalvanometer, it
just happens to be a happy combination of words that has
never been used before so it can be trademarked.

And the main difficulty with the old E-Meter was that the
fellow who was making these things just couldn't bear to
arrive or something, and we would have a conference and
there had to be certain things put on this E-Meter to make
it work, or certain things taken off to make it work and so
on, and I'd get this thing pretty well streamlined and
agreed upon with him, and then son-of-a-gun, we'd go back
and put on two more dials, until we got something that was
all dials and no meter, or all meters and no preclear. It
just got to be so many vias.

In the first place, it was a big via between the auditor
and the preclear, big via. But it had its purposes. It was
actually merely a substitute for communication lag. That
was all it was a substitute for. Now that we understand
communication lag, our own understanding came up, what
possible use is an E-Meter? Well, the funny part of it is,
it does have a use, but not in auditing. The
physiogalvanometer today will be produced, probably, by the
HASI or the HDRF for the purpose of personnel counseling.
And it will be used to check employees' references without
going into the vias of more letters.

We'll just ask him, "Why did you leave the job?" and he
says, "Well, I just got tired of it." And the needle goes
wham, you see. And you say, "You mean you got fired?" And
the fellow says, "Well, yes."

This, by the way, gets around the fact that many employers
will give an employee a reference, a good reference, just
to get rid of him.

All right, so we can really then, with Scientometric
testing, turn around and get a - with this
physiogalvanometer - give a personnel counselor a very,
very valid tool. We are going to indulge in just as an
experiment a little bit of personnel counseling. We are
going to start an employee certification service. And we
are going to give anybody whose references are in good
shape, or who is in good shape, and who can do the job a
little card that says so. And in addition to that, if they
can't do the job we are going to give them Group Processing
for the same fee as their testing. See, this is a very
direct line to raise the employability and employment
capability of the country at large. If anyone wishes to
start this up, it could roll.

We might start it up and let it roll.

The physiogalvanometer though, which will be used in order
to accomplish this, doesn't even vaguely resemble in its
parts, circuit or anything else the old E-Meter. It has two
lights; it has a switch; the switch says ON and OFF. And
one light is red and one light is green and they burn in
varying degrees of intensity so that the needle is really
falling. On an old E-Meter, you'd get that thing burning
red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red, and
if it were rising, you would get
green-green-green-green-green- green-green-green, and if it
were neither rising nor falling but were stuck, both lights
would be out, regardless of what the tone is. Nobody ever
made sense out of tone anyhow.

So this will be the personnel counselor's
physiogalvanometer. You have a red light and a green light,
it'll have an on and an off switch, it'll have a plug which
you plug it in, it'll have one electrode that the person
holds in his hand, and that will be the end of the meter.
There's nothing more there. No other adjustment, no other
dials, nothing. And it'll probably look like a desk
ornament. Or it'll look like a nice little desk clock or
something of the sort. Now, that's taking the vias out of
the line.

The only reason we are giving it to the employment
counselor is because he doesn't know his Scientology, so he
needs something to give him the word.

Actually a Scientologist can be very ruthless on personnel
counseling, he doesn't like to cut his ARC down to the
point that he would have to cut it down by reason of
talking to people; he just doesn't like to cut it down this
far. He likes to believe for the best - and he knows
doggone well that that person with that neuritis - ding!
below 2.0. He knows that. Experience will bear it out. He
doesn't need an E-Meter to tell him this person is telling
lies about his last employment. He would just look over the
physical condition of the individual and tell you whether
or not he had the straight dope. The easiest thing in the
world if he really wanted to study it from this angle and
recognize exactly what he was looking at, he could do this.

All right, let's take this word aberration, and let's find
out that the greatest via in the world is an unknown.
That's the greatest via there is. All right, if the
greatest via is an unknown, therefore the more mysteries
that you impose on auditing, the more mysteries you impose
on living, the more aberration there is going to be.

The more data which I would - I don't - but the more data 
which I would hold in my back hip pocket on the subject of
Scientology to secure it for the HASI, the more data which
I would withhold one way or the other or would misprint or
not print totally of, the more aberrated you could expect
this science to be. The science is not aberrated for the
good reason that when I get ahold of a datum, I just hand
it to whoever is handy.

But you'll find groups where the leader of the group is
withholding data and boy is that an aberrated group.

Do you know, nobody realizes why we made it necessary for
every member of an authorized group, every real member of
an authorized group, to be a member of either the HDRF or
the HASI. You know why we did that? It's so that nobody
could sit there in the middle of that group and withhold
any data. In other words, we had a communication line to
all the members of the group and therefore if anything
important was being released, it would be released to all
those people.

There's - withholding data or twisting data or perverting
it in some fashion leads to an aberrated condition in the
society. One of the most aberrative things in the society,
by the way, right this moment is a newspaper. The newspaper
is specializing in one tone level: emergency disaster. It
doesn't match the tone level of a great many people in the
society. Furthermore it does not report its news
accurately, and even after the news has been reported by a
reporter who is already repressed and didn't understand
what he was looking at anyhow, it's then edited to fit the
policy of the paper.

And today you find the newspaper world going very steeply
out of communication. This is almost an impossible thing to
recognize unless you actually go into a newspaper office
today.

Many of us have had experience with the press. Many of us
have worked for the press one way or the other and we found
the press at times could be a very great adventure and that
reporters very often were very crusading people and that a
lot of good has been done by the press. But we don't - that
isn't the condition which obtains right this minute. It is
with great shock that my attention was suddenly jerked to
this circuit that is going on right now just a short time
ago, and I tried to discover what the score was, and found
out that the reason why a press release couldn't be issued
to the press had nothing whatsoever to do with the press
release but had a great deal to do with the fact that most
of the sections of the country today are depending on a
thing called a teletype, and this teletype is spreading its
little ticker tape far and wide and what comes off the
teletype is news. This is not at all reasonable.

And they have gotten so dependent on this darned teletype
and news services that are someplace, that I don't think
there is any beginning on the teletype. I think that the
boys up at MIT developed some kind of a brain machine that
simply dreams up some news, you see, at opportune dates
consulting an almanac or something of the sort and shoots
it through the teletype.

We don't have today an accurate picture through the
newspapers of what is going on in Europe. We have a highly
wildly colored account of what them commies are up to. We
have - I've seen no news stories - I've seen a couple in a
magazine - but I have seen no news stories today that told us
accurately that Germany was trying to get on her feet.
Actually, Germany is trying to get on her feet desperately.
If the American people understood a little bit more about
Europe and got some news through from Europe instead of
colored propaganda, we might have a greater responsibility
for that very small section of the world. It's a very tiny
section of the world.

You could lose Europe three times in Texas. A tiny section
of the world, not very many people in it to tell you the
truth, this thing called Europe. Why we didn't annex
Germany and why we didn't square away this hot bomb that is
sitting over there is more than I will know.

We went over and took her government, we took the
government of Germany, of half of Germany, we are busy
governing it now just as though it was Minnesota, and yet
the Germans themselves are getting on their feet with what?
With resentment. Why resentment? Because we have to some
degree repressed their initiative and we're just cooking up
another hot spot of resentment.

But it is up to the news today to report what is happening
in the world, not what some political party wishes people
to believe is happening. And so we introduce this colored
via. And actually we mean prop - when we say propaganda we
mean there is a via on the line, the word itself is colored
today, so that we say propaganda; aberration, see, the
same words, equal magnitude. Not equal, similar magnitude:
propaganda; aberration.

Unless people get the straight story about what's going on,
they can't solve any problem. The way you keep a problem
from being solved is to introduce enough quirks in the
line. Now, let's take Freudian analysis. Here sits a
preclear, patient; should be a preclear, he is a patient.
And the analyst goes and pours to him a lot of
interpolation, an analysis. I know, the analyst will very
often tell you that they have stopped evaluating, but then
a lot of them have read Dianetics: The Modern Science of
Mental Health.

And by the way, a recent survey, a recent series of letters
to analysts brought back quite a few responses on the
subject of "Good heavens! I didn't know I could be trained
in it! How much is it and where?" about Dianetics; they'd
been using it.

And God, I tried to train some of them. Lord knows what
they are doing and calling Dianetics.

But they introduce a via into the fellow's bank by
evaluating for him. Now, so does Mama introduce a via into
a little kid's bank until you will find many a preclear in
this condition: You will say, "Now, what happened? Where
were you when you were about four or five? What happened
during that period?" And this person will give you the most
glib response you ever listened to, and then you would
say - if you were very wise to this particular fact - you 
would say, "Now, are you remembering that?"

"Well, yes." 

"Well, what are you remembering?" 

"Oh, my mother told me all about it." 

"Well now, how about you remembering what happened?" 

"That's impossible. That's all blanked out."

Childhood memories when blanked out this thoroughly have
been blanked out by somebody else evaluating for the child.
And here we have evaluation now in auditing up to its full
stature. So we don't evaluate for the preclear. Why?
Because we will introduce a via into the line; we will keep
that line from being straight; we will bend it through
ourselves back to his recognition. And if we have done
this, then good God what have we done? This individual is
not then capable of stringing a straight line between cause
and effect. We have given him a via, you see? So evaluation
is just a via and evaluation is aberrative because it
introduces one.

Now do you see what all comes out of this word aberration?
And a very interesting long line of understanding has come
out of it.

My instruction of people, of you, might be considered to
some degree a via. Oh, it very definitely is. It's a
justified via, however, in my viewpoint because nobody has
dug it up for the last two or three thousand years that I
know anything about. And it was about time somebody did.
And my instruction of you is justified only to this degree
that after I have called your attention to something, you
as you go along the track with auditing and living, will
all of a sudden string the straight line yourself and say,
"Hey, what do you know!" So that you do it first
analytically almost superficially as a subject and then
suddenly you run into this thing and you'll string a
straight line - zip! Sometimes you will even feel a little
electric spark as you just knock out all the vias on the
line, you see. And suddenly you've got a grip on this
particular datum, and you say, "Gee. That lines up real
nice." And the next thing you know, you're running a
cause-distance-effect on life instead of a cause-via.

But think of the number of vias one might have had before I
started digging this stuff up, see. They must have had
tremendous numbers of vias, you see? So I'm actually
short-circuiting a tremendous number of vias and then I
leave it up to you with your experience with preclears and
with life at large to short-circuit the remaining vias. Do
you see that? So that your understanding should eventually
become very clean and clear on these. But it won't if I
keep being very powder-puffy on the subject of giving you
the straight definition. I mean, if I keep saying, "Well,
it is all right. You probably understand that," and so on.
If I don't really try to get you to get to the exact meat
of a definition of just exactly what I am talking about,
then all these various words which I use will remain as a
definite via. My effort to get you to a straight definition
and recognition of it is simply an effort to get you to
un-via, to take the aberration out of the subject. See
that? All right.

By the way, this particular glossary was - which I am not
going over with you in full, I am just telling you about
it - was compiled by Burke, and he dug it up out of a lot of
copy here and there and wrote it up because we were in a
very bad crush to get through to the printer with Creation
of Human Ability And he wrote it up and sent it through,
so many of these definitions had to be just extrapolated
by him at that time.

It is not that I am taking no responsibility for it, but I
am telling you that you may have a, you may have a briefer
series of definitions. These are all very acceptable
definitions, but you may have a briefer definition or a
briefer series of definitions, a briefer glossary with that
book on its second or its third printing when I get around
to writing one.

I write up a glossary every once in a while, every six
months or a year, something like that, I will write up a
glossary.

The last two glossaries which have been published, however,
have been written by other people who have taken the
meanings, usually directly from my work or lectures. All
right. Acceptance level: There's a whole PAB on this
subject, one of the more fascinating subjects. But
rejection level is its companion, and as Accept-Reject is 
a very, very high echelon process, you should understand
something about acceptance level.

Therefore when somebody - you understand something about
acceptance level, you better had. Because I will tell you
that a preclear who sits down there and is playing a
superficial game with you and this person has a very, very
bad neuralgia, this person has glasses a half an inch
thick, this person has a pretty bad comm lag, and this
person says to you, "Well, I can accept all Packard cars
and fur coats and diamond rings." Ding. Ding. Ding. This
person can accept garbage cans, sewers, decayed bodies and
that's about it.

When you get yourself a good command of acceptance level I
am afraid you can look holes through the activities of man,
and his rejection level will explain to you a lot of
rebuffs that you have had and have seen.

Just whys. And that's it. It's acceptance. What is their
rejection level? What is their acceptance level?

Now, the statement here, "The acceptance level of a
preclear is the condition in which a person or object must
be in order that the preclear be able to accept it freely."
It's not a bad definition if you know exactly what it means
and what acceptance level means.

Acceptance level is simply that level in existence which
Q-and-As with that level in existence. You got a
duplication here, of course.

If you find the preclear at the sewer level then, Q and A,
he'll accept sewers. Get the idea? If he is really at a
Cadill - you know there are a lot of people around
driving Cadillacs whose acceptance level is a two-wheeled
donkey cart? Hm? And you know they have more trouble with
that car? They just can't understand why they get into all
that trouble with that car. There's a social acceptance
level there. There's a social acceptance level - what a
person is expected to accept. And he very often finds
himself completely at war with what he can really accept
and what he is expected to accept. And if we get this, we
will understand all we need to know to get the war between
social man and individual man. If there is a war it is
between these two levels.

Social man is expected to reject certain things. He is
expected to reject foul play. He is expected to reject
disloyalty, infidelity. He's expected to reject this and
that. He is taught carefully to reject an enormous number
of things, and these may not be his rejection level at all.
His rejection level may be loyalty, courage, decency,
fidelity. That may be his rejection level. These things may
just be fingernails on the blackboard to him, these
qualities. Any good quality of the society may be just
horrible to him.

And someday along the line he does an unsocial act. Why?
Well, he'd just break down, that's all. He just can't stand
this tension any longer, being told at every hand that he
should be honest. You'll have somebody talking to you
sometime about how honesty should apply or shouldn't
apply - you know, whether or not it is really best to be
honest. They are teetering around with this curious thing:
Their rejection level is honesty, their social acceptance
level is honesty. Get the idea. Their real rejection level
is honesty, and their social acceptance level is honesty.

So somebody comes along and has told them and taught them
very carefully they must be honest, where actually all the
factors in their case cause them to reject honesty. So you
get a war, and you'll get a war in the individual. He'll go
around puzzlingly about this, worrying about it, thinking
about it, and most of the worries which a preclear comes to
you with are these two worries: social acceptance level,
personal acceptance level, social rejection level, personal
rejection level, at war. And those are the problems of the
preclear. It really breaks down with great rapidity.

The reason Freud could have so much fun on the second
dynamic is because the society has more to repress on this
than anything else; there are more vias put on the second
dynamic and the second dynamic is itself a via.

Why you just simply can't mock up another human being is - .
Well, I guess it makes a better game. Well, anyhow - .

Now, here is another word here - affinity, affinity. It's
one of the least understood of the three words: affinity,
reality and communication. Yet you'd better have some
feeling about affinity; you better have some sense to affinity.

Now, affinity is the consideration of the individual about
the distance. And that is the definition of affinity. It's
the consideration of the individual about the distance.
That's all. I mean there isn't any more to affinity than
that. It's the least understood of these things mostly
because it's so idiotically simple and because it can get
balled up.

You realize that somebody appears who is dressed exactly
like you, looks like you, talks like you, comes from the
same part of the country and you hate his guts, and yet
he's making a perfect duplicate of you.

Male voice: Over there.

Yeah. Over there. You get the idea? So, you ca - your - the
reason you dislike him is because - if you do dislike him -
the reason because you dislike him is because you consider 
that there is a distance, that's all, see. And you just don't
like that distance. All right, at the same time somebody
might have somebody walk up to him who is dressed like him,
who thinks like him, who talks like him and welcome him
like a brother, you know, a wonderful guy, a terrific guy.

I've seen this happen. I knew two Marines once who were
exactly alike and of course being Marines they did wear the
same clothes. They didn't come from the same part of the
country but they talked more or less the same language. And
these two boys were absolutely inseparable, they were just
like twins.

And I knew two others that were quite similar to each other
who just hated each other's guts. The more distance between
these two, that hated each other, the better they liked it.
See? This was gorgeous. I mean what - "You mean that guy is
going to be shipped to Quantico now. Well, that is
wonderful. I am over here on China station. The further the
better."

Whereas this other pair considered that if one of them had
been shipped to Quantico they would have been real upset.
Get the idea here? It's the consideration about the distance.

Now, reality takes the similarity into effect, the
duplicate is taken into effect under reality, agreement. 
See?

Now, you have to have a consideration of whether an
agreement is taking place or an overt act.

So affinity is the consideration about the distance.

Actually all emotions and everything else are simply
considerations. And there is no other thing but
consideration when you come right down to it. The next time
you see an art critic, please tell him so. He is making a -
he's trying to mathematically codify consideration. I'm
sorry, but it can't be done.

The acceptance level of art can change for a whole society.
The Greek for instance - wasn't it the Greek that had to have
fat hips on a woman and wasn't it some other period that
the only beautiful woman was a pregnant one? When was that,
the 12th century or something like that?

Male voice: The 14th.

Fourteenth century? Fantastic. But we wouldn't consider
that the same way now. So we've had a consideration change
on the part of the whole society. Well, who indoctrinated
them this way in the first place? And we have merely social
acceptance level. And social acceptance level can add up to
acceptable art, but this doesn't make consideration any
different than consideration. Just because a lot of people
are considering a thing in one way really doesn't make it
real, although it does under R make it real.

Now, R is simply the agreement upon considerations and
that's R. We had a lot of agreed upon considerations. We've
got life. We got reality. We got walls and floors. And if
we've got disagreed on considerations, why we don't have
any masses or spaces. We have some that are orderly or
arranged. If we have disagreed upon considerations - you
know, nobody is agreeing upon these considerations at all -
we have chaos, one kind or another, or we have no universe
at all.

We have to have agreement upon considerations before we can
have anything.

Scientology is the study of the agreement of considerations
which has evolved into existence as we see it today, and
that is the study in which we are engaged. We're studying
the agreed upon considerations, and these agreed upon
considerations as listed are the Axioms. An axiom then is
not a self-evident truth as it says here in the next word
or two. It is a self-evident agreement upon. It's just
obvious that somebody must agreed upon it; it's there,
isn't it? Well, if it's there, then somebody agreed upon it
including the person who sees it. All right.

The consideration of the distance is affinity.

An ally has been with us a long time. We don't use an ally
very much today. But it's a nice thing to know that
somebody is in somebody's valence. And the ally - the
person he's likely to get - most likely to get into the
valence of is an ally.

It says here that an ally is "A person who has aided in the
survival of the preclear under engramic or highly emotional
circumstances and whom the preclear reactively regards as
important to his further survival." Very well stated, so true.

The only trouble is, with the ally computation - and remember
now that the preclear reactively regards as important to
his further survival. And because it's under engramic or
highly emotional circumstances, you will find quite
ordinarily that a person considers these allies to be
allies until you process him and then will become angry
with them and will become upset about them and so forth.
He just goes up tone on them, and going up tone on an ally
is uptone from an engram which is pain and unconsciousness,
and that's pretty low toned. So as he comes up, he will hit
the whole emotional bank on the subject of this ally and he
will start hating them and reviling them, and then he will
get up to a point of where he can take them or leave them
alone.

Now, the ally might have been actually repressive to the
person's survival for his own good. So it doesn't mean
that the person was nice to the person, you understand. It
isn't necessarily true that this individual was nice to the
person. An ally is simply somebody who is regarded as
important to his further survival. And individuals will go
into the valence of allies just to keep them around.

And the analytical mind is that part of a person's thinking
machinery and memories over which he has relatively full
control. Oh, that's a good First Book definition and
perfectly good definition.

But let's recognize something further here. The analytical
mind can be defined much more sharply today. It's 'the
thetan plus his machines. That is the total of an
analytical mind, and we can separate the thetan from the
analytical mind. There's no thinking machines left around,
and the second there's no thinking machines left around, we
no longer have an analytical mind; we have a thetan capable
of consideration - many qualities, but no thinking machinery.
He can remember without a machine.

Analytical mind interposes the idea of a machine, the idea
of a computer, a computation of automatic memory banks and
so forth; of analysis of data to summate into conclusions.
Well, anytime you have an analysis of data, you've got an
analysis of experience, which is an analysis of past, and
that's a machine because a thetan does not need an analysis
of past in order to think. All he needs to do is predict.

He can take a know at the environment, you see. He doesn't
take a look at the environment, he takes a know at the
environment and predicts its state. Get that? That's the
way he thinks. And the second he begins drawing up things
from the past and past experience - we've got a banker or
we've got a government or we've got something else or we've
got an electronic computer up at MIT or we have an
analytical mind. See? And that definition is imposed by
the words themselves: analytical, which means analysis. It
would be a mind which did analysis and it analyzes via
machinery.

We understood this very clearly back in 1950 that the
analytical mind was something which was capable of sane
conclusions based upon rational experience. So an
analytical mind is that part of a person's thinking
machinery and memories - get that "and memories," see,
memories - past; memories are part of this analytical mind -
over which he has relatively full control.

But that isn't the way a thetan thinks, and if you've still
come up from Book One thinking a thetan thinks that way, he
doesn't. He takes a know at the environment and predicts.

For instance, as I sit here, I can't tell you why because
there is no why to tell you about, but I can tell you that
certain events will transpire on certain days and hours of
the coming six months. Now, this is very easily dragged
down scale to crystal ball reading or something like that.
I first encountered this as an analyzable, observable,
demonstrable phenomena in the field of navigation. I could
look in at a - on a navigating machine and know whether it
was right or wrong, and I thought, "This is real peculiar.
That's a machine, and machines are right, and yet I know
whether that machine is right or wrong." And I puzzled this
for some time. This was on expeditions where I had a lot of
fancy equipment to measure things for the Hydrographic
Office and so forth.

Came the war and I didn't have time to navigate. I used to
bawl out the assistant navigator or something or other,
"Why don't you get the right latitude and longitude for
God sakes. You haven't even been near the nav shack," see.
But we weren't in the right position according to his piece
of paper.

"How did you know that?"

Well, you just knew it, you see.

"But how did you know it? Why did you figure that out that way?"

Well, I didn't figure it out, I just know we are not in
that position and that's all there is to it.

And this drove me to despair because it drove other people
to despair. Here was this phenomenon, not in the field of
crystal ball reading, but being applied to life and death,
you might say. It is a very - and therefore open to
question on the part of people in the immediate
environment. And I knew I'd been doing this for a long
time, but I didn't know how.

I thought there had to be a how to it, and the more I
worried about their being a how to it, why, the less I did
it. You get the idea?

If you could be totally relaxed about existence and not
worried about it at all, you would know what the president
was going to have for dinner in August - that's right - if 
you could be just totally relaxed about it. If there was
nothing you were trying to prevent, if there was nothing
you were trying to vigorously and violently effect, you
see, you could really relax about this.

For instance, I tell the boys around here once in a while,
"Well, such and so and so and so, or that's a bad deal."

And they say, "How do you know because you haven't read the
despatches on it yet?" Well, they no longer tell me that.
They no longer say to me, "Well, you haven't read the
despatches yet," or "You didn't know."

I just say, "Well, that'll wind up in a bum beef. That's no
good," and so on. Because I had to redevelop the faculty
with the first Foundation. Any one of you has this same
faculty. It's only when you think you had better depend on
it in order to survive that you lose it. See, if it's not
important, if it's not an important part of your survival,
you can always do it.

So we have this interesting trick. The early Foundation
where I was teaching about eight hours a day and evening
and morning and I was trying to get stuff written and had
all even - I was even buying the desks and renting the
typewriters and so forth, mostly because we were moving a
little bit above the speed of most of the people around.
They couldn't get up to speed on it, and it all would have
fallen in on our heads if we hadn't gotten up to speed. So
anyhow, had to redevelop this faculty. But because it was
desperate, for a little while the faculty took a steep dive
and went out of sight.

I'm very well acquainted with this particular phenomenon,
very, very well intimately acquainted with it.

I've had people stand around and tell me that this could
not possibly be true, that such a phenomenon could not
exist, and boy, as the track unreeled, it certainly was
true that these people did not mean me any good. You get
the idea? If they could just knock down your ability to
predict in this wise, they could knock your survival and
luck to pieces. And this is luck. The faculty known as luck
is the ability to predict.

When an individual depends utterly upon luck without
predicting, he's going to be failed. But if he is relaxed
about winning the poker game, he will win. You get the
idea? Why does he win? Well, it's because he is so relaxed
that he predicts whether his hand is the winning hand or
not. He doesn't try to read it from the faces of his fellow
players. It doesn't matter; it's not on their faces anyhow.

I've gotten so I don't play cards anymore for an entirely
different reason: It's just too much restraint to stay
three feet back of your own head. It is, it's just too much
restraint. Now, when you start to analyze a situation, then
you are giving over your own basic power to predict because
you can know the situation and know its future without
analysis.

And one of the most wearisome things there is, is to
explain to somebody in accounting or someplace how he
should keep an accurate record of finances, when you
yourself know whether the organization will be broke or
solvent at what date. And when the government comes in and
tells you that you must keep an accurate record, you know
that you are only keeping it for the government.

Now, you can then know whether or not you should spend or
not spend and so change the future. Whether or not you have
to get wildly active in order to alter the future, because
the odd part of it is is the future is alterable by the
individual; the future is alterable by the individual, and
this is what makes this also confusing. You know exactly
how things are going to be if you keep right on sitting
there; then you know how things are going to be if you act
in direction A and then you know how things will be if you
act in direction B, but you've got a hundred and - a thousand
directions that you could act in life. Well, so therefore
you would have a hundred thousand conditions to be
predicted couldn't you. And so you get an evolvement which
can be very easily explained by memory, experience,
analysis and prediction. And memory, analysis, experience
and prediction is a very lame and involved explanation for
the ability to predict. Because the only thing you have is
the ability to predict, and the more vias of how you
predict you put on the line, the worse off you are going to
be. You know, it is an old saw that somebody reading the
crystal ball for somebody else or telling the cards for
somebody else will eventually lose that faculty. You know
that old saw.

Female voice: I heard it for money.

And it's also for money, that gives it stress, you see.

But the crystal ball, the deck of cards are the via which
enter the aberration. So if you are ever going to go into
mind reading for sport or otherwise just simply pass your
hands magically through the air to attract the attention
of the person whose mind you are going to read and get a
dreamy expression on your face, if you feel dramatic, and
give them the future. Don't tell it off a deck of cards or
out of a crystal ball. You don't need either the deck of
cards or the crystal ball. If you use them, remember, you
don't need them, you don't want them. Curious, a very
curious thing.

The easiest thing in the world to understand is thinking,
if you don't try to get yourself involved in the factors of
memory and experience and computation. The psycho is up
there in the psycho ward because he's tried to compute the
future too long. Now, this "must and mustn't happen again"
is the most revelatory process that you ever wanted to run
on anybody. He's trying to prevent things from happening.
In other words, he's holding onto experience so as to
change the future. There's no reason why he should do this
at all.

He should be able to tell at any given moment what tire of
his car is going flat. He doesn't have to recall a
facsimile, or hold onto a facsimile of tires going flat to
know a tire can go flat.

As you come up scale and exteriorize and so forth, you find
yourself dealing with this. And the only reason it ever
falls down scale is the introduction of a via and it gets
to be an analytical mind just because you rig up a
computer. That computer will always fail.

Well, that's a long way from lecturing, telling you how to
crystal gaze. But the odd part of it is, instead of a wild,
unheard of or strange activity, it's the woof and warp of
existence for a thetan: crystal ball reading.

Oh, I must tell you that one day I had a big chronometer
case under my desk on the USS Algol, and I had taken the
chronometer out and put it down in my room because the
quartermaster kept winding it at odd moments and so forth,
and so I took this out of the case, and it left part of my
chart table with a big glass-covered compartment in it. So
I got a goldfish bowl and - ashore one day, and I mounted the
goldfish bowl on a little velvet pad, and, oh, it made a
very, very pretty little crystal ball; it was down
underneath there. And this was my big gag, you know.

And one day the admiral of the transport division with
which we were working came aboard, and he walked in and he
asked me how things were going and what kind of
navigational equipment us guys had these days. And of
course he was interested because he was an old-time
navigator, and we did have lots of new equipment.

And I showed him around, and then I said, "Of course, this
is my best equipment." And took him over to the chart table
and showed him this gag, you know. And he looked down
through this and saw this crystal ball sitting there on a
black velvet pad. And he says, "Fine," and he went out of
the chart room. And a little while later the captain came
in absolutely bursting - absolutely bursting with laughter.

The admiral had come up and reported me for using crystal
balls in navigation. I never knew how dumb you could get
but that was pretty dumb. I guess you have to be that dumb
to get to be an admiral. But it wasn't a joke at all. Well,
maybe the admiral had had a lot of experience too, you
know. I suppose this is all very logical.

Well, you guys certainly don't know, don't know how upset
anyone would be if you failed to know what ARC was. If you
didn't know what ARC was, everybody would be real upset,
boy! And that tells you where the center of this science is.

If you looked all the way down the list and found the one
people would be most upset about if you didn't know, you
would have the middle of Scientology, wouldn't you. And so
you have the ARC triangle which was developed in July of
1950. I developed the first two parts of it, C and R, I
think they were. No, they were A and R, and gave a lecture
on it as A and R, and then all of a sudden hit C, some such
combination, and there was this triangle.

Now, about two months after that I did a paper which has
not survived unfortunately, because I will never do it
again, which extrapolates ARC into mathematics and
demonstrates that mathematics cannot exist in the absence
of any one of the factors, and that a mathematical formula
must contain A and it must contain R and it must contain C
in order to be mathematics. All mathematics is therefore
derivable from ARC; which was a cute little stunt, but more
important - not any longbow, I mean, it's unswervably true
that ARC, affinity, reality and communication, are the
basic and component parts of mathematics and there are no
other. All you're trying to get is the agreement amongst
factors; all you're trying to do is communicate from one
mind to another.

Notice one of those Logics in AP&A? "Mathematics is a
servomechanism of the mind or mind is a servomechanism of
mathematics." It only communicates those formulas, and as
far as A is concerned, we are just measuring the relative
quality of similarity.

There was much more to this, but the fact of the matter is
that understanding, mathematics, reason, all these things
are in the same basket, and we got the oddity right there,
in I think it was September of 1950, that these three
things composed understanding, these are the three
component parts of understanding. And when we have raised
these three parts we have raised somebody's understanding.

Now actually, your understanding has raised enormously, I
am sure, though it hasn't been tested, it wouldn't have to
be, simply by running Communication Processing. That's
what's peculiar. Communication Processing, by the way, on
one of its early tests under original investigation, was
demonstrating this continually, that it was raising the
prediction quality of the preclear, the very factor I was
just talking to you about.

You kept running Communication Processing, Communication
Processing, nothing more than that and all of sudden this
individual was predicting better.

If you want to know what permits an individual to predict
it would be raising his ability to communicate. Of course,
then he could take a know at the environment and could
communicate it into the future.

All right. The other data here similarly has use. But
behind each one of these there is a considerable amount of
understanding.

We have the Auditor's Code today, 1954, as a much more
meaningful thing than it was in 1950, much more important.

We have the Axioms today as much more meaningful than those
which were written in late 1951.

We have barrier as being a very specialized definition.
Most people consider a barrier a wall or something of the
sort. But a barrier would be space, energy, matter or time.
If you don't know that a barrier could be space, energy,
matter or time, you might get confused as to how a trap is
put together. A very good dissertation on this, as far as
I - as far as the written works on the subject are concerned,
the best dissertation is in Dianetics 1955! on barriers,
called "Entrapment."

Boil-off is very, very unimportant. But you better know
what it is. For instance, I was quite pleased to find the
boys in the auditor conference that takes place at 5:00
every day, all of them just chorused. The fellow said, "I
kept getting dopey, I kept getting dopey. I don't know what
is wrong."

This was a young auditor, he had just been trained. And
these other boys have been trained way on back, and they
looked at him. And I said, "Go on" I said, "Tell him what a
boil - what causes a boil-off." And they said, "It's just
too continuous a flow in one direction. It's just a one-way
flow." And so they were all very startled with him because
he didn't know this. And I just told him to reverse the
flow, right where he was sitting, and he only did it for a
moment or two and he became quite alert. That's all a
boil-off is, it's a flow flowing too long. Actually you
could talk yourself into, or I could talk myself into, an
unconsciousness if we never got an acknowledgment. It
wouldn't happen if we were completing cycles of
communication, even if we were completing one cycle of
communication it wouldn't happen, but with no
acknowledgment you generally will find yourself getting
groggier and groggier and groggier. You'll go down scale.

And you want to know why people aren't as alert in this
universe as they could be or what awareness is; it is
simply a lack of complete two-way communication, you see?
And this all by itself would cause boil-off on a gradient
scale which is a person has just boiled off just so far
that, he is Homo sapiens, see? He's only boiling off to
that point or he's boiling off until he's completely
unconscious.

The reactive mind could be said to be something that is
boiling off all the time in complete unconsciousness, you
see, but nevertheless articulate once in a while. See, it'd
get a reverse flow once in a while, it would wake it up a
tiny little bit.

If you look at this thing called boil-off, you'll
understand an awful lot about man.

Well, we could cover these Axioms and definitions in
tremendous detail, and I won't do so with you, but I may
possibly have shown you - in spite of the verbiage I was
giving you - I might have shown you a tiny little point or
two that might help clarify some of these things today.

Thank you very much.

(end of lecture)






