From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Wed Mar 17 17:00:07 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 18 Mar 1999 00:00:07 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 29/35 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: <0948590ac810c2032726f762f42fe027@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1103
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690372 alt.clearing.technology:76251

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 29/35

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 29/35

9th ACC 23 (25) - DEFINITIONS: GLOSSARY OF TERMS - PART II

Transcript of Lecture by L, Ron Hubbard 9ACC 23    -   
5501C13 Renumbered 25 for "The Solution To Entrapment"
cassettes

DEFINITIONS: GLOSSARY OF TERMS - PART II

A lecture given on l3 January 1955


I am going to go through with you, as we go from day to day
here, with fair rapidity now after the little introductory
talk on the first few of these, these definitions. You know
a definition can be for its own sake and it can be for the
instructor's sake and it can be for the auditor's sake.
And we hope to a marked degree that these are for the
auditor's sake.

We went right on up to ARC and now here on January 13th,
1955, we are going to cover from the ARC line of
this particular glossary on through. 

An auditor: This is a compound word taken from listening. 
The one thing auditors don't do is listen in practice. If 
they did they would acknowledge what the preclear said. 
The biggest failure in auditing is failure on the part 
of the auditor to listen. That's a fact; that's a horrible 
fact. It is the biggest failure.

Of the failed cases, momentary stops on a track and so
forth that I have checked of last fall, of all of those
cases, I found no single exception to this. The auditor had
not taken a moment to listen to what the preclear was
trying to tell him and the preclear trying to originate
this communication was then thrown into apathy. Some of
these people had actually exteriorized. Some of them had
suddenly put a beam against the front of their foreheads
and pushed themselves out. Some of them had actually had
enormously glaring balls of fire suddenly start to move in
on them. Some of them had had enormous squadrons, you might
say, ranks of bodies appear all beautifully stacked up in
front of them. Startling phenomena, real enough in several
cases to require that the preclear get a quick grip on
reality because they were realer to him than the room. And
yet the auditor had not acknowledged.

So here we have the word auditor. It doesn't merely mean to
listen, it also means to think.

The word auditor has been taken from the English language,
not from an accountant. I am not quite sure why an
accountant is called an auditor. But an auditor earlier was
a legal term. It was one who listened to the complaints.
They have a similar grade to this in Arabian countries - a
kadi. He listens; he's a court - he's a street court, you
might say. He is out in the street and he listens to
complaints and so on.

Well, this auditor was that evidently, very thin derivation
on this, and then finally was somebody who kept accounts
and that strayed a long way from the word. But auditor is
getting better and better known as a word. It is getting
well enough known now so that people are not completely
associating it with Dianetics and Scientology. An auditor
is somebody who does psychotherapy. And I have had it
said - heard it said actually that auditors should use
Dianetics; they should find it and use it. Actually, by
people who weren't being sarcastic at all, they had the
word auditor much closer to them than psychotherapist. So,
to change this word at this time is an impossibility, and
it's gotten solid. It's an agreement.

Now, a Scientologist is the definition given here, but the
basic definition of auditor is one who listens and computes.

This definition here, by the way, a Scientologist: one
whose technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the
problems of life, is the proper definition for a
Scientologist, not necessarily the proper definition for an
auditor. An auditor is one who listens and computes.

Now, we have the Auditor's Code, the Auditor's Code of 1954
is what is meant here. The early Auditor's Code was taken
out of chivalry, lock, stock and barrel. And those parts of
it which were discovered to be practical were practiced
very hard, but a great deal of modus operandi was
accumulated in four years on all the reasons cases fail and
we found the common denominators to that and I sat down
one day and wrote the Auditor's Code from these accumulated
notes. And the Auditor's Code of 1954 will keep both
auditor and preclear very definitely out of trouble.

I understand the other day Burke said that there wasn't any
real reason whatsoever for an individual to know the
Auditor's Code, no, no real reason to know the Auditor's
Code, as long as - yeah - as long as one knew just one factor
of it. There is line sixteen now is coming out in The
Creation of Human Ability which is "Maintain two-way
communication with the preclear." And he says, as long as
he maintained two-way communication with the preclear - see,
there is no reason to know the Auditor's Code as long as
the auditor did maintain two-way communication with the
preclear. But the Auditor's Code was how you maintained
two-way communication with the preclear. So if you want to
really maintain two-way communication with a preclear, you
follow the Auditor's Code.

Let's take such a thing as "Don't process the preclear when
he's hungry," the line that approximates that. And we find
out that an individual whose attention is very badly
abstracted because of hunger, whose burning rate inside the
body is very poor, is in an interesting condition of
inattention and we don't then find him conversing well.
Just like a preclear sitting on a tack, it's very hard to
audit. Same thing. All of these various points are the
tacks the preclear is sitting on.

Now, nearly every bog that we have run into, occurred
sometime after 10:00 P.M. This is an oddity. Now, I have
found, by the way - though, I have occasionally disobeyed
this by auditing somebody up to 10:30, just trying to wind
the case up. But that's why it's 10:00 P.M. The actual hour
is 11:00. But if you decide to stop the session at 10:00
you can certainly get rid of it by 10:30. You got the idea?

But if you were ever - under any circumstances - if you were
ever to process somebody up to 11:00, you would discover
this interesting thing occurring.

Let's say you have pulled a boo-boo or the preclear has or
something or the other has happened and we discover that we
have in our preclear less and less present time. He's sort
of skidding; he's sort of dragging back into the muck and
the mire and we don't quite know what's going on here but
we decide we'll patch this up. If the clock says 10:00, pat
him on the head, no matter what comm lag he's in. You'll
find out he's skidding-skidding-skidding and you're going
to patch him up and it's 10 o'clock. No, you won't. No, you
won't.

I have had this experience several times myself of trying
to patch somebody up late in the evening so that they
could go home! And the next thing you know it was 2:00 and
the preclear was worse and worse and worse and worse and
worse. And I finally had to quit at 2:00 with the preclear
in much worse condition than he had been in when I had
originally tried to stop the session about 11:00.

Now, one night an auditor sent a preclear over to me that
was in the most screaming fit I ever saw in my life. Every
once in a while this will happen. An auditor will call me
up and say, "Oh, my God!" Do you know that I noticed one
day that the hour at which I was being called was about
11:00, 11:30, right in that area. Hence, 10 o'clock. Very
curious. But the ability to recover deteriorates almost by
the cube from 10 o'clock on. What's the reason for this?

The body is built of cells which were once plankton or
something like it. When the sun went down their source of
power as they floated upon the sea was diminished to such a
point that they just lay there and suffered and waited for
the dawn. And the most dismal hours of the night are those
when the stretch has been carried on to the very horrible
degree; they've drained their last tiny bit of resource,
maybe 4:00 or 5:00 and the sun comes up maybe at 5:30 or
something like that. And then "Ahaaa." 

I don't know if you've ever stood a night watch or not, but
a body reacts just as regular as can be right through that
cycle. More people die at 2 o'clock. You see, it's too many
hours till dawn. If they can only get until 3 o'clock or
3:30 they would realize that they only had to hang on
another hour or two, and the god-giving, life-giving,
breath-giving sunlight would hit them again. This is
dependency upon the flow of photons. The body gets
conditioned into this pattern, it believes in this, it's
convinced of this and so it starts to get more and more
despairing the further away you get from sunset. We get
first a frantic activity. You know, "Well, we won't care
anyhow. You know, we'll go on somehow." That's fairly early
in the evening. And that frantic activity will calm down
at about l0:00 - gone. Have you ever noticed the terrific
tumult that a kid goes into just before he gets ready for
bed? Well, that's standard. Tearing around to all the night
clubs - same deal when he's little less a kid, little more
of a kid and a little older.

Now, there is that curve and so it is with each - you know,
the individual is just less and less recovery as you
advance later and later into the night. And if you start
fighting this factor, you're not fighting his case, you're
not fighting anything, you're not fighting anything but one
of these confounded old curves that has been produced by
the rising and setting of the sun over the many eons. And
there is no sense to fight that curve, just let it go to
another day.

An awful lot of technology sits in back of the Auditor's
Code to such a degree that I have often wondered if the
Auditor's Code wouldn't produce line by line a process,
see? And then if you resolved each one of these frailties
in the preclear, demonstrated by that, if you wouldn't have
a real clear Clear. It would be a neat experiment, we will
try it someday. Not by auditing him at 2 o'clock, however.
We will put him in a dark room and audit him.

Axiom here is a self-evident truth. And it becomes
self-evident after you know it. There's some real, real
queasy mathematical terms like "axiom." An "axiom," a
"maxim," several items and words in that category of
vocabulary, all of which are unsatisfactory to describe
what you are doing.

I invented the word logic. There is no such thing as "a
logic." But I invented the word logic trying to throw a
word somewhere into this morass that would mean something.
There is no adequate English to describe one of these
little laws unless you simply say it is a law.

Barrier. Of course, the barriers are matter, energy, space
and time. Barriers are consideration or idea that limits
other considerations or ideas. This of course includes
emotional and physical universe barriers. A barrier is a
limiting idea. If the idea happens to be as solid as a
wall, it's no less limiting.

All right. We get this old word charge. It's the energy
being held in present time in relation to an incident or
chain of incidents. And that's a precise definition for
charge. An incident has charge in it. Well, you know it'll
have charge in it. Did you ever run a screamer? Well, this
fellow is sitting in almost total charge.

Also, we call - we use the word charge to indicate the
amount of grief the fellow would spill if he ran a
secondary, also the amount of anger which he would release.
In other words, it's an outburst withheld or outbursting.
He released a lot of charge. It's a word taken straight out
of a terminology from batteries. It actually is too. Some
fellow will have some old-time facsimile that's got an
awful lot of energy in it, actually balls of fire and every
other darned thing, you know, and if you don't think those
things are charged, the preclear practically crackles and
pops. And when you release them, you are releasing charge.
Chronic somatic is one of the oldest words we have, next to
aberration. It is a substitute word from psychosomatic.
Psychosomatic is rather overdone in many degrees and we
desired to dodge this word psychosomatic so we had this
thing called chronic somatic. Of course, a somatic means a
physical feeling; it doesn't mean physical pain. A somatic
is a physical feeling. So a chronic physical feeling
however may be objected to by the individual. And so just
feeling alive might be called a chronic somatic by some
stretch of the imagination, if it's a chronic feeling with
the fellow. I've often wondered if a fellow didn't go to
sleep simply because he was tired of feeling so alive.

Here it's defined as a suboptimum physical condition or a
pain which resists change and remains over a long period of
time or recurs frequently; which of course is a very
precise statement of it.

Any statement of that, though, that it is a feeling
existing across a period of time, a person objects to, any
such sense as that defines definitely and adequately
chronic somatic. Circuit. Spelled s-u-r-c-u-i-t. No, it's
spelled here as c-u-r-c-u-i-t, c-i-r-u-i-t. Circuit. Best
explanation of circuits - or pardon me, the best description
of circuits to date is still in Book One that we have on
this - circuits, demon circuits. A circuit is a very
interesting thing. It means just what it says in the mind.
And if we try to get too technical about it we lose it. It
means just what it says.

Do you know that most thetans are putting out fitter to
pull it back on themselves? Do you know that? All right.
Now, you put out an impulse over to the right and then it
travels over to the left and it travels back and hits you
and that's a circuit. Got that plainly? And it is just what
it says. It's an impulse that goes in one direction and
then goes in another direction and then comes back and hits
you. And that's a very adequate, direct definition of a
circuit - or hits the preclear. It makes a circle, an
irregular circle I would say, but it's like an old circuit
rider, it goes over here. You say, "Hello" and then through
various machines in the mind, computers and so forth, this
"Hello" is relayed until you've forgotten that you emanated
"Hello" and enough time lag is put on the thing so that it
finally comes back and you are quite startled to have
something say, "Boo!" And that is exactly how a circuit
operates. It doesn't operate any other way. It behaves as
though it has a life of its own. See, that's an accurate
statement. "It behaves as though it has a life of its own."
Actually, it is a circuit.

Why is it a circuit? It's the guy who puts out the impulse
that makes it go live and that is the most fabulous thing.
You got that? And he has to actually put out the original
impulse that livens it up. He is furnishing it every piece
of energy which it has.

The one thing a machine cannot do is produce space and
energy. A fellow has to produce it himself So this is a
curious and wonderful thing, isn't it? This fellow is being
driven crazy by Mama, by Papa, by Joe, Bill, Agnes - it is
only one guy. They might have given him the pattern that he
could follow but if somebody is being hit in the stomach by
an impulse of some kind or another, you know. By the way,
we had a girl, one of the Advanced Clinical Course students
scrounged her up around town and processed her. She was the
most curious case. She burned the backs of her dresses.
That's right, she burned them.

There was a short circuit would occur which would singe the
fabric. And this clinical course student came around and we
had a little conference about this thing and obviously this
person was simply directing a beam of energy which would go
around and hit her in the back. So we had some kind of
drill or another that alleviated this and it stopped right
away. But this was a circuit. This individual was being hit
in the back with a beam of energy sufficient to burn her
dress. And she ruined more dresses that way. This was the
awfulest thing that was happening to her.

Now, a thetan actually keys up his machinery in this weird
fashion. This is a weird fashion. He fixes it so that every
bit of energy which he puts out is nicely and neatly used
and conserved somewhere in his machinery. It's the cutest
arrangement you ever saw.

If you look at somebody sometime while you're well
exteriorized, just turn your perceptions around and upside
down, you'll see this ring of machinery around somebody
sometime with its little lights and relays. And these
lights and relays are the most curious thing because he
thinks "dog." Now, that's an energy expenditure you see and
so he's got "dog" keyed up, you see, so it will go through
these various relays and it will activate something over on
this side such as "Wanting to paint." See, he has got it so
it will stage itself and disassociate itself so that he can
have a synthetic playmate. He's got all of these darned
machines. He can do every one of these things himself and
the only energy a machine ever hits him with is the energy
which he himself is producing at that moment.

Now, this is also true of facsimiles. Facsimiles don't
stand around in huge charges. The individual has so split
up his forces, has so split up and directed his abilities,
is so remote from himself, you might say, that he is
actually charging up pictures and the facsimiles are really
made by some process of duplication, obsessive duplication
of a thought or an idea.

When you figure the ability of a thetan, always include in
it the ability to make these confoundedly complex circuits.
The most gorgeous stuff you ever saw in your life, utterly
incomprehensible. And he would be the most baffled person
in the world to realize he was doing all this, which is
what the circuit is based on - surprise. The basic game of a
thetan is to mock up a little box, pretend he doesn't know
what is in it, open it up, look, get surprised.

All right. Here we have the Theta Clear. Clear, Theta, it
says. I don't know why we just don't have Clear here. What
is a Clear? A Clear is a person who is not being influenced
by his reactive mind, that's the first definition, earliest
definition of Clear, still valid. Simplest, earliest
definition. He is an individual who is not being influenced
by his reactive mind. Well, then if you simply push
somebody out so that he wasn't being influenced by his
reactive mind - remember the reactive mind belongs to the
body and you simply push somebody out so he wasn't close to
it anymore - he'd be Clear, wouldn't he? That's that. Now, we
assayed to make Clears at first by reducing the reactive
mind. And then we decided all we had to do was detach the
fellow from the mind, from this reactive mind, and increase
his ability to handle it and control it and we would have a
much better process of clearing.

Scientology signalized this reversal. Dianetics was erasure
of the reactive mind so as no further influence and
Scientology was separating the individual from his
reactive mind and placing him in a state that he could
control it. And that is the difference between - the most
basic and fundamental, but too technical a difference for
the public at large - the difference between Dianetics and
Scientology. It's the real reason behind why I changed the
word in the first place.

I was thinking, the second I started to get a sniff of this
type of phenomena, I said, "Oh-oh! I will never under
God's green Earth convince anybody," and I guess I have
convinced a lot of people, but I very long - "that Dianetics
has now done a complete flipperoo and no longer has to
reduce the reactive mind but just get somebody out."

I didn't know at that time that people had a very great
difficulty viewing nothingness. They would get sick
viewing nothingness and so I thought, well, it might be a
good time or another to introduce this word. Then the word
was introduced at a time when Dianetics was kicking back.
It had become a sort of a circuit and it was kicking back
sort of hard and so I changed the word to Scientology in
order to carry on and concentrate the attention of those
people immediately in my vicinity upon the fact that we
were doing something quite different. We had moved up into
an upper echelon that had to do with origin and formation
of existence. And this was not Dianetics. Dianetics was
a - had a different echelon.

But there's no difference between a Dianetic Clear and a
Scientological Clear today. There is no difference
whatsoever. It is a person uninfluenced by his reactive
mind, period.

And if you wanted to go ahead - you want to go ahead and make
a Dianetic Clear? Fine. It'll take you a long time.

I really think that what happened in the past was the
individual simply ran - enough engrams until he suddenly
realized that he could control these damned things and he
exerted pan-determinism over these things and simply
separated himself from them and we just didn't find any
more engrams that had to be erased and we had a Clear. And
as long as we were doing it in this fashion and as long as
the ARC was good with the preclear, as long as - an
unfortunate little lost factor in there - that two-way
communication was being maintained with this preclear, we
made Clears. And when we didn't do these things, we made
him the prey of his engrams. So Dianetic processing in Book
One, had the liability of bad auditing or the bank suddenly
caving in on the individual and making him the prey of it.

All right. A Theta Clear, Dianetic Clear, what's the
difference? You don't have to have any difference in there
at all. It is just a person who is not influenced by his
reactive mind.

By the way, this tells you that a thetan can still be
influenced by his machinery and still be a Clear. Let's
understand that nicely. Now, a machine is something set up
by a thetan to amuse himself one way or the other. And the
most unhappy thetan you ever want to meet is some thetan
whose total machinery has been wrecked. You just ruined all
of his machinery. One of the things that happens with
somebody who is - liable to be the reduction of his
havingness in terms of machines. And if you don't
rehabilitate, when you are making an Operating Thetan, the
ability to make machines and hide them and forget about 
them - .

It's very simple. You have him make a postulate that such
and so is going to happen, "Now hide it, now forget about
it. Okay. Now do so and so," which is the trigger. "What
happened?"

The fellow says, "Nothing. Nothing happened."

You say, "Now, listen, this is between us. We want you to
make this postulate, to hide it, now forget about it. Now,
got that, now? All right. Now do so and so." And that's 
the trigger to the postulate. Such as "Get the idea
that every time you think of the word cat you'll get sent
to Paris. You got that idea now? All right. Now, let's hide
it. Let's forget about it. You do that? Okay. Think of the
word cat. Now, what happened?" The fellow says, "Nothing."
He didn't make the machine, you see? You actually got to
get a machine that works. And you work with him until he's
finally willing to do this, and all of a sudden he says - 
you say, "Cat." You say, "What happened?"

"I'm in-I haven't got the remotest idea why, but I'm in
Paris." Big game he plays with himself

The Code of Honor is the ethical code of Scientology. It's
a luxury. It has nothing to do with enforcement. Anybody
who ever tries to enforce the Code of Honor on anyone has
immediately pushed it downhill from a code of ethics to a
code of morals and it's unworkable as a code of morals.
That's about all you can say about it.

A code of ethics is something which is not enforced. The
difference between ethics and morals is enforcement. A code
of morals is something which is enforced. This is a very
distinct difference.

We had to reach back, by the way, to Greek and Roman
philosophy. This world is in an interesting state today
philosophically. It defines morals as ethics and ethics as
morals and I don't know but, you know, people don't even
think this is funny, but I can laugh like hell about this.
This is the wildest thing you ever heard of. That an
individual will take the Ten Commandments and confuse this
with an ethical code. The Ten Commandments had nothing to
do with an ethical code. The Ten Commandments are there
because you'd better do them! Not for the good of anybody
particularly. But they're there and this is the agreed-upon
behavior pattern which we're supposed to have and things
work better and so you had better do it and we have
enforcement. And we don't have an ethical code, we have a
moral code.

All right. And here we have a beautiful word,
communication. It's the consideration and action of
impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a
distance to receipt-point with the intention of bringing
into being at the receipt-point a duplication of that which
emanated from the source-point. That's communication.

Now, a two-way communication: You see, there is a
communication and that's it. Then there is a cycle of
communication and that contains this plus an answer and an
acknowledgment which is a reverse flow. That makes a cycle
of communication.

Now, the next one is a two-way cycle of communication. And
you've spread it out just about as far as you want to go to
be codified. So you've got first a communication. Now,
therefore, soldier A shooting at soldier B with a bullet is
effecting a communication. See that clearly?

A cycle of communication would require that soldier B now
shoot at soldier A with a bullet. See, that would be a cycle.

Now, a two-way cycle of communication would require that
soldier B now fire a bullet at soldier A and soldier A
would fire a bullet back at soldier B. In other words,
soldier B now has to emanate, originate a communication.

All right. We have this covered here. Live form is part of
communication. If you think that a letter being shot out of
a letter machine in a post office and down a chute to
another machine is a communication, you are looking at an
interesting thing. You are looking at a live point sometime
or another going through a tremendous number of vias,
going to a live point somewhere else. But boy, the vias on
that line! The communication is not between machine and
machine, it's between live form and a live form.

This helps us a lot when we try to understand aberration
because a person who consistently and continually (quote)
"communicates" (unquote) with live forms is not likely to
get very aberrated. But an individual who consistently
communicates (quote) (unquote) "communicates" - very much
(quote) (unquote) there and not (quote) (unquote) in the
first instance - with machinery, with a minimum of live
forms, can get very aberrated as a couple of us have
discovered in processing. Right?

Sitting there punching a linotype machine is gorgeous. I
mean, you obviously are communicating, aren't you? There
is the words, there is the sense and so forth. And yet if
you didn't recognize and if you lost sight of the fact that
the product of this linotype machine was going to be read
someplace by a live form or if somebody convinced you that
these forms were never going to go anyplace or be read,
why, you would then be communicating, (quote) (unquote)
"communicating," with no live form and the aberrative
consequences would be considerable. It wouldn't be, of
course, if you knew this.

Communication lag is the length of time between the moment
the auditor poses the question or statement (which is
missing here) and the moment when the exact question posed
is answered positively by the preclear; no matter whether
silence or talk or incorrect answers occur during the
interim. This is covered here later. It is also the length
of time between the giving of a command and the moment when
a preclear carries out the exact command correctly. And
that is absolutely right. It's the interval of time between
the statement and the answer.

Now, we look at a two-way cycle of communication we could
find out there'd be a second lag. There is a second
communication lag. It's the interval of time between the
answer and the acknowledgment which completes the thing and
that would - what would be called a second communication lag.
That's the second communication lag. He had a bad second
lag, you could say rather clumsily. In other words, you
would give him an answer and then he wouldn't acknowledge.

You'll find a lot of people around who have pretty good
first lag, it's not bad, and their second lag is atrocious.
You give them the answer and you might as well have been
talking to the air.

Consideration is the highest capability of life, taking
rank over the mechanics of space, energy and time.

That's a wide definition.

See, a consideration actually includes such things as
postulates; consideration. The word consideration includes
such things as postulates, commands, thoughts, worries,
anything. This is a blanket word and it means that quality
of considering. And you can consider something with a
postulate and you can consider it with a command and so
forth. By the way, let's see. What unit was it where we
considered considerations at such length?

Fourth unit? Fifth? No, it wasn't the fifth. Sixth?

Audience: Sixth.

Sixth unit. Sixth unit. A tremendous number of lectures
there on the subject of consideration. A rather
interesting - it's an interesting subject. If you think that
consideration is an interesting subject, of course you're
just saying life is an interesting subject.

The quality to consider is that which establishes life. A
person is as alive as he can consider. It's a very
valuable thing this consideration. A person who has lost
his ability to consider is just that dead. So you have a
gradient scale of the ability to consider which parallels
the gradient scale of life and this becomes a very
interesting thing to work with. So that - it gives you a
great understanding, by the way, of your preclear - a great
understanding. This individual is taking secondhand all
kinds of artistic considerations and so forth. Boy, if you
ever get anybody who has a habit of taking artistic
considerations secondhand, you've got a boy, you've got a
boy. Man, when they will do that they're dead. They smell
dead, too, quite often.

When this fellow will give you the - a predigested
yackity-yack straight out of the guidebook about the
cathedral. This is gorgeous. You are looking at somebody
there who is practically an automaton. Because when an
individual's ability to consider art form on his own is
gone, practically the last thing that he has any reason to
live for is gone. There is hardly anything else. So when
they tell you - when they give you at long length a
dissertation on Sibelius and you find out that this is
inaccurately duplicated from a textbook on Sibelius. Heh!
And they will do it.

Now, here we have a new word: copy. It's a technical word.
It means another one just like the first one, occupying a
different space. And it would be a perfectly correct
definition for copy. It says here a duplicate distinguished
from a perfect duplicate in that it does not necessarily
occupy the same space, same time or use the same energies
as the original.

But if we drew another package alongside of this one or if
we mocked up another package alongside of this one, the
second one is a copy. And what do you know, we have almost
the same word as facsimile, don't we? But in view of the
fact that a facsimile is made of the real universe as part
of its definition, we have to have this special word,
copy, which is a broader word than facsimile, much broader
word. Because you can have a copy of a facsimile but the
facsimile has to be a copy of the real universe.

All right. Creative Processing is a nice old-time process
which had as its keynote having the preclear make out of
energy of his own creation various forms, objects,
distances, spaces and the basis of its modus operandi has
to be very clearly understood before it is workable and
that is gradient scale. Creative Processing has to be done
by gradient scale. All right. Let's take somebody and we'll
say, "All right, mock up something." And this individual is
liable to fumble for a long time. "You mean by 'mock up'
make this copy? All right - of something." And he'll fumble
and fumble and he will finally make a copy of something or
he'll make something and he'll make something else and
something else and something else.		   

Now, if you were to search around and find the things he
couldn't make, you would clear him up in many points of
thinking.
		  
Let's take a nurse. Here was an - here is an actual case. A
girl had had a nurse during a period of illness and this
nurse had been rather brutal to her. And she could make
copies of Mama, she could mock up Mama, she could mock up
Papa, she could mock up George and Bill. She could mock up
London and Paris and Rome and New York. Mock up anything
apparently, but couldn't mock up this nurse. And this was
an intensely aberrative situation. Here was a facsimile, a
series of facsimiles sitting there which were - could be
resolved by the mock-up the moment the preclear found out
he could create this form. All right.
		   
The solution to this - this actually worked, just schoolbook,
strictly - one: had the preclear mock up a footprint of the
nurse. That was an unsuccessful attempt. Just to give you
an idea how far she was from this nurse - couldn't mock up a
footprint of the nurse. So, we had her mock up a numberof
footprints of women until she could mock up a footprint of
the nurse. And having mocked up a footprint of the nurse we
got finally a discarded shoe of the nurse and from a
discarded shoe, we got a current shoe of the nurse at some
distance from the nurse, of course. And then finally got
two shoes of the nurse and then got a whole pile of the
nurse's clothes. And having gotten a pile of the nurse's
clothes we were then able to get one lock of the nurse's
hair - total mock-up. And gradually we built this nurse on 
a gradient scale and the next thing you know, this nurse was
there, was operating under perfect control of the
preclear, had the preclear move the nurse around a few
times and copy the nurse many, many times, and remedy
havingness with the nurse and so forth.
		   
And the very next time this nurse, who had produced
actually a terror syndrome on the preclear thereafter - 
this was why I'd been yanked in on the case. There was one
person in the world who was producing a terror syndrome
and just nobody could solve this; just the idea of nurses,
you see how it spanned out and associated. And the next
time this nurse showed up, this girl put her to work very,
very forcefully and chased her tail all over the place. It
was the most remarkable thing, her family said, they had
ever witnessed. They could not credit that anything had
happened there, you see, which actually would cause this
reaction toward the nurse. Actually, plenty had happened.

You get how the gradient scale is used in Creative
Processing? Now, if you know this, that I have told you
just now, you know actually anything you want to know about
Creative Processing and it's a very workable process even
if it's a very old one. Gradient scale, make them mock it up.
		   
Now, we get a preclear who can't mock up a damned thing;
solid black in all directions and this you say is not a
subject for Creative Processing. Let me assure you that
this preclear can mock up something. He can mock up
something and if you'll just stay with him for a little
while till he can finally mock up something you will return
visio to him. If you can get him to mock up sounds on a
gradient scale long enough you will return sonic to him.
And actually gradient scale applied there in Creative
Processing will return sonic and visio. But it requires a
very, very smart, cagey auditor. But all he has to do is
just what I've told you. He has to bear with it. And this
is a curious thing that we would have passed on along the
line past Creative Processing. Because it looks like a real
stopper. You know, it looks like a wonderful place to stop.
But auditors couldn't learn how to do this. Isn't this strange?

There is a phenomenon that comes up in Creative Processing.
If you ask the individual to mock up a body, he would
probably discharge against this body and lower his
havingness. So the one bug that comes up is havingness. So
if you did Creative Processing and remedied people's
havingness with the mock-ups and had them, you know, get
them to throw them away and pull them in and so forth, and
ran Remedy of Havingness and Creative Processing you would
have an awful terrific process, very, very good process.

By the way, we talk a lot about throwing away or not doing
anything about old - we are not doing anything much about
matched terminals and double terminals. But you know that's
a very effective technique if you remedy havingness. This
is one of the fastest ways to deaberrate some individual.
Gradient Scale by Creative Processing may be a slower
method of doing it. That'd be the extreme. 

Let's say he can get a mock-up of Joe and Joe has recently
just beaten the tar out of him, but he can get a mock-up of
Joe. Let's put two mock-ups up of Joe, huh, facing each
other and then two more mock-ups of Joe facing each other
and two more mock-ups of Joe facing each other and all of a
sudden Joe is no longer aberrative. Fabulous the speed
with which this works. That's a fast one. That's really fast.

One particular instance: a wife I processed who's violently
jealous of her husband's secretary without any cause by the
way. This secretary was strictly dragged in from Dr. Ross'
canned food factory. Honest, it was the darnedest thing but
evidently there was something on the whole track and some
girl like this that really upset things. And I had this
girl mock up two of these secretaries facing each other and
then replace the mock-up several times and every single bit
of jealousy and irrationality with regard to that
particular secretary ceased, bang! Five minutes worth of
processing.

But this discharges the living daylights out of somebody's
havingness. It just knocks havingness to pieces. So matched
terminals becomes immediately workable if you remedy
havingness immediately afterwards.

Male voice: It spoils the game.

Hm, it spoils a game all right. You got to give him some
more mass to play with.

Dianetics. The definition of Dianetics means dia nous. It
means "through mind." Another reason why Dianetics became
an unworkable word the moment that we were no longer going
through such a thing as the analytical mind, the word
itself did not mean that much as it had before.

We find here dichotomy, next word. Somebody might throw
this one at you sometime or another. Dichotomy is a pair of
opposites. Where the hell did this word come from? Actually
it comes out of flower growing. It is really a grab at the
moon for a word but it means positive-negative. It is an
effort to express in the field of language and human
behavior the positive and negative quality of poles, and
that's what a dichotomy means. It's a positive and negative
quality of poles that you would find in electricity
expressed in human nature. So we have such a dichotomy as
"I can - I cannot," "hate - love," so on. "I can hate - I cannot
hate." "I can control - I cannot control." That's a
dichotomy. It means the opposite polar sense of the livingness.

That was really a reach for the moon, dichotomy. But I
don't know what the hell you would put in there. I spent, I
remember, a couple of days fooling around with words of all
kinds or another but they always meant something else.

By the way, with definitions, this is the most terrific
contest you ever got into in your life on the subject of
life itself is defining. The second that you use some word
out of some older science, it already has so much mud
hanging to its roots that you can never clean it up. And
when you try to teach somebody this way: "Well, we have
now conditioning. Conditioning meant to psychology so and
so, and so and so, and so and so. But to us conditioning
means the repetitive impact." That's a definition? No, it
isn't because it's got a via in it. We have to explain what
it doesn't mean anymore every time we use it. And so
everybody would go crazy trying to learn such a vocabulary
because it tells you first what it doesn't mean and now
what it does mean. So we find that a system has been
employed throughout here. We've gone into far flung fields
for a word or we've taken and made a noun out of an
adjective, just to get a clean word, and then said exactly
what that word meant and so we had a vocabulary. Tried not
to have too many of these.

But a dichotomy is an example of taking a word from flower
growing. Di, sort of kind of means two, choto my, it sort
of has a run to it. The positive and negative poles
expressed in livingness.

Dramatization: May I invite your attention to the chapter
called "Dramatization" in The Original Thesis. It's the
only dissertation so far that I have written on the subject
of dramatization that is really a knockdown, drag out, this
is what happens and how it happens. The Original Thesis,
not even Book One, I mean, it was before Book One.

Dramatization: The guy has a picture, you know, and the
picture says "Wiggle your ear" so he wiggles his ear;
that's a dramatization.

Now, if you could figure some raving, duplicating
obsessively psychotic who was surrounded by nothing but
sane and well-controlled people, you could actually get a
dramatization of sanity. Did you ever think of that? I've
seen it. It's the damnedest thing you ever want to see in
your life: somebody dramatizing sanity. They're not even
vaguely sane, they're wild. You have to track them very
carefully to see that what they're saying doesn't fit the
real universe, it doesn't fit the environment. It would be
what a sane person would have done in another environment.

So, we get the second meaning of dramatization which would
be that it is not a present time situation. The individual
is enacting or making a drama out of some past occurrence
by rote, you understand? He's following it by rote,
strictly push-button. So therefore he's doing something in
1955 that is copied from exactly 1780. See that? So you've
got an out-of-time.

The best example of dramatization is a player piano roll.
The roll goes through the piano and the piano plays and
there's no player sitting there. Well, that's a
dramatization. Only in this case the dramatization is a
mock-up or a facsimile of some kind or another and that's
the player piano roll and the preclear just goes on and
plays the piece. He could no more stop himself or start
himself in this piece than anything. What he is doing
there, and he is the effect of drama. Curious business.

You will see an awful lot of that. There's the dramatizing
psychotic as opposed to the computing psychotic. The
computing psychotic is a nutty circuit, he's an insane
circuit. It figure-figure-figure-figures and all of its
computations are offbeat. Figure-figure-figure-figure-figure.

Now, you will understand something a little more in just a
second now. The dramatizing psychotic is running off a
player piano roll of a facsimile. In other words, one is
running off a facsimile and one is running off of a
machine. So you have the nutty body with the dramatizing
psychotic and the crazy thetan with the computing
psychotic. We spotted the difference between these two
things back in the fall, early fall of 1950. There are
obviously these two types of psychotics and there are no
other types of psychotics.

All right. So there's the reactive psychotic and the
machine psychotic and you'll see these two. Now, the
machine psychotic thinks; he figure-figures. He'll give you
wild, different computations all the time.

The dramatizing psychotic doesn't. They simply play. Well,
when I see a dramatizing psychotic I have a problem. Oh, I
see - when I see a computing psychotic I know very well a
thetan is present. When I see a dramatizing psychotic I am
very doubtful because it tells you immediately that the
thetan in this case must have at least succumbed to the
reactive bank to dramatize this thoroughly. Both of them
have no criteria, no consideration, as we were talking
about a little while ago, see? The keynote is absent
consideration, consideration absent. And so we have the
dramatizing psychotic and the computing psychotic.
	   
We have a dramatizing psychotic out here and that's a
goofball one. We also have a computing psychotic out here.
We are running a type of Communication Processing on the
two of them.
	   
And just to complete this particular one, the perfect
duplicate has a definition but it also has quite a study.
	   
The perfect duplicate is one which is made in the same
time, same place with the same energies as the original;
matter, energy, space, time. Not necessarily the same
consideration, but as far as the mechanics of the thing are
concerned, you have identical. And when you make a perfect
duplicate it disappears.
	   
This was what told us what an ultimate truth was. An
ultimate truth is nothing. The ultimate truth is the
static. It is not any masses, energies, spaces or times.
	   
Well, a perfect duplicate then, if you told a preclear to
make a duplicate and he made a perfect duplicate, whatever
he was looking at would have disappeared. If you told a
preclear to make a perfect duplicate and he had something
left of what he was looking at, he didn't make a perfect
duplicate. Do you get the difference between these two
things? There's not only a difference of what he does but a
difference of result. If he makes a duplicate he has
another one, he has two. If he makes a perfect duplicate he
has none. A different result.
	   
Okay. Well, so much we have slogged along that far. It'll
take us forever at this rate, won't it?
	   
Did you learn anything from these definitions?
	   
Audience: Yes.
	   
Language is to some slight degree a via, but unfortunately
you are dealing with people whose main communication line
is language. You are liable to get into the belief that all
language is in the band of symbols. No, it isn't. Language
is only in the band of symbols when it no longer has a
consideration connected with it. As long as language has a
consideration connected to it and with it and as long as
those people using language are still considering, why,
it's not in the band of symbols.

But when a language is only at last in the band of symbols
and there's no further consideration connected with it at
all, it's no longer anything but MEST; it is not
communicating. When anything gets into - really gets into
the band of symbols, which is to say there is the symbol
and the consideration is absent, we just have a symbol and
that's that. When an individual gets into that state he's a
gone dog.

When we talk about the Know to Sex Scale and say somebody
is stuck in symbols, we simply mean he's using language
without further consideration and this is a pretty hard
thing to do. Do you know that he couldn't understand
anything you said? It wouldn't matter if you used the
plainest language in the world, he couldn't understand a
thing you are saying. He could utter sounds, you got a
parrot. He could write words, you got a philosopher. But
there would be no consideration connected with these
things. Consideration, the degree of; determines the amount
of life present. When you can change a consideration it
must mean that you have considerations to spare.

You're liable to get a little bit into the symbol band
slightly when you're studying definitions because you are
actually having enforced upon you to some slight degree a
set of meanings. But as I have been trying to demonstrate
to you in these last two lectures, these are just relays of
communication which have an understanding of life wrapped
up in them and they too are very subject to consideration.

(end of lecture)










