Subject: FZ Bible STATE OF MAN TAPES 8/9 [x2]
Date: 4 Dec 1999 08:24:38 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

STATE OF MAN (SMC) CONGRESS TAPES (1960) 8/9

**************************************************

Contents

SMC-1  1 Jan 60 Opening Lecture
SMC-2  1 Jan 60 Responsibility
SMC-3  1 Jan 60 Overts and Withholds
SMC-4  2 Jan 60 Why People Don't Like You
SMC-5  2 Jan 60 Marriage
SMC-6  2 Jan 60 Group Auditing Session
SMC-7  3 Jan 60 Zones of Control and Responsibility of Governments
SMC-8  3 Jan 60 Create and Confront
SMC-9  3 Jan 60 Your Case

We were able to check 4 of these against the old reels.

**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

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.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism 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 even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them 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

**************************************************

SMC-8  3 Jan 60 Create and Confront

Transcript og lecture by L. Ron Hubbard SMC-8   "State of
Man Congress"

CREATE AND CONFRONT

A lecture given on 3 January 1960

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

Thank you.

Well now, I was going to do something else but there
somebody just found my notes. And somebody left them on
the rostrum in the Athenian senate or something. All done
in Greek!

Want to talk to you about create and confront, before it's
too late. It's darker than you think.

Now, it takes something like a course to cover the material
which I'm going to give you right now, and it will be
covered in a course. But I want to give you enough of this
so that you'll have a bit of a gen of it; a bit of the gen
in handling cases and so forth, so that you can understand
a little bit of what's wrong with these cases.

It's fairly important that we have some clue of this
because it's a minor subject. Has to do with the formation
and creation of this particular universe. And something
like this does - does rate at least a few minutes of one
lecture at one congress. We mustn't overrate the importance
of some of these things. And to a lot of people, the
existence and continued existence of this universe is -
well, they just can't see - they just don't recognize, you
see, that it's there. It's gone.

There was one whole religious activity, they - to which
we're indebted, by the way, for some of the clarification
of legal codes in the United States. An activity, however,
which - Christian Science - which didn't believe the
universe was here. Now, that's all right, but it's not a
workable philosophy because when you run a car into a
lamppost, the car dents, the lamppost bends. And you can
think all the right thoughts you want to, but neither the
car nor the lamppost do anything but stay there not-ised.

And there's been a bit of controversy concerning the
creation of this universe, and I thought that you might
like to know about it. There's been some argument
concerning who created it or something of the sort. And
various credit lines have been given. I think the last one
was Sam Goldwyn. But it's only fair that your part in this
should be recognized.

I'm afraid this was a mutually creative activity.
Apparently, you had something to do with it. Now, I'm not
going to tell on you. Nor am I going to see that you get
full credit, so on, because after that Sam Goldwyn affair,
why - neon signs on the moon and all that sort of thing,
you know, that didn't set well. Didn't set well. Because,
I confidentially tell you, he didn't, you know, not all by
himself. He did have a part of it, and so did you.

The universe got created, because the dynamic pnnciple of
existence in Scientology, is create. And youse never seem
to know when to stop! You just get going, and there's just
no stopping you. You just go on making things and making
things and making things. And when you get criticized for
it, why, then you pretend you don't even know you're making
them and you hide them behind your back and go on making
them and making them and making them. And the basic
principle of existence is create.

The cycle of action that was first discovered here - that I
discovered, was create-survive-destroy. That's the first
described cycle of action: create-survive-destroy. This
breaks down further into create, continuous creation and,
actually, counter-creation.

Now, counter-creation is what normally people call a
destruction. You've got something sitting there, call it
a house, somebody drops a bomb on it, and you say it's
destroyed. Well, boy, that is the happiest piece of
nonsense I ever heard of. That house was destroyed? No, the
house was spattered; it was not destroyed. The mortar,
bricks, threshold and the ruddy lot just got scattcred over
the landscape. That was what happened to the house. But it
actually could have been reassembled into a house. So
obviously the house was still being created even though it
was blown all over the landscape.

Now, these bits and pieces scattered around actually
continue to be created because they continue to exist. And
you eventually wind up with a universe of rubble. And
everybody has forgotten what he started out to create and
is being doggedly persistent in continuing to create it,
and you get lots of matter.

Well, it's a good idea. It's a good idea if you're in the
matter business. But then you come along and you take this
debris - you see, the house scattered all over the landscape,
you see - and you take that debris and you press it together
into new bricks and build another house out of it.

Well, this new house, of course, is part of the old house,
only it's a continued creation, but there's an
alter-isness someplace in the middle of it called
destruction, which is counter-creation (a creation against
the creation).

So now, you have creations following creations following
creations. And after a while everybody loses track, and
nobody could possibly not-is the thing, and you continue
with a universe. And the solidity of the universe stays
there. Now, that's evidently what occurs in a universe.

The cyclic aspect of matter, apparently, has something to
do with - one creates, not as a mmmmmmm, but as a eh! eh!
eh! eh! eh! You know? Thme is entered into the creation.
There's a - a pulse of creation. There's a create, create,
create, create, you see, instead of "cre-e-e-e-eate," you
know, see?

And you get things like, oh, the periodic chart and nuclear
physics and all kinds of things, you know? All of which are
studying what they should know all about.

Then somebody comes along and says he's going to blow it
all up. What a happy thought, you see? Now, the only way...
We're actually the only people in the universe capable of
destroying the ruddy thing. All we'd have to do is persuade
every life in the whole universe, every thetan in the
universe, to just stop creating it in some fashion or
another, and it would cease to exist. But unless we did
that, it'll go right on, and no - no amount of atom bombs
or counter-creations will ever bring about anything but
chaos. They're just spreading chaos into the creation.

Now, this gets dramatized in political philosophies.
Communist, for instance, is actually doing a fantastic
amount of chaos. He creates chaos out of the chaos, you
know, that sort of thing You'll find his whole tactics in a
plant or something like that, or trying to bring about a
political order - this is not heing critical - I mean, this
is an actual study of the thing - is devoted to a philosophy
of chaos. If you can just make enough trouble and disrupt
enough things, then something will fail, and you can put
something else in its place. Sort of a gradual
disintegration sort of an idea.

And if you look it over, you'll flnd out that's how nearly
all low-order revolutionary activities have operated, Just
bring ahout enough chaos and destruction and that sort of
thing and chip away at the edges enough, and it'll all fall
apart somehow.

Well, we have no intention of stopping the universe from
going on heiing created, because there wouldn't be anyplace
to walk. And it's comfortable to be able to walk, and it's
nice to have something to walk in, like a body, you know,
and there's space, and so forth.

And if you haven't done too many overt acts against it,
it's a very comfortable place to be. But if you've
committed too many overt acts against this sort of thing,
of course, you keep on getting burned, incarcerated, fed to
the Spanish Inquisition, tossed into the revolution, ground
up in the hamburger machine - you know, that sort of thing.
And the responsibility taken of the general area monitors
the amount of punishment which that area is able to hand
out to you.

The universe is a perfectly capable place to live in. It's
just - it's baffling to some people that they get chewed up
in it so much, because of course they can't confront their
own overts.

But the formation of the universe can be demonstrated
factually, and it's interesting enough to mention in
passing. But it is simply the combined, continuous
creation of the first objects created all along the line,
which are still being created. They're still being created.
In other words, you must have some tiny portion of your
attention on creating something somewhere that goes on. Got
the idea? It's ...

Now, every time you try to run create or every time you are
forced to create, every time you take a workman and chain
him to the machine and do an Augustus - FDR Augustus: I
think he was one of the early-things. Anyway, he chained
everything into the machine and said that everybody must
stay on the same job and create the same things from there
on out.

Well, he was just operating with an inadequate knowledge of
how things are, because a man can't continue to create the
same thing without getting very upset. He's at least got to
create it covertly. He's at least got to take his attention
off of it someplace or another because if he fixatedly goes
on doing nothing but create the same thing, he will
eventually wind up with all of the debris. Well, the debris
comes about that his creations run into counter-creations,
and the resultant debris keeps stacking up. And after a
while he doesn't know what to do about the debris, so
although he's still creating that thing, he takes his
attention off of it and goes on and creates something else
that doesn't have a lot of debris, and it's a brave new
world as far as he's concerned, you see?

He can go on. He can - he was a painter, and he painted
until he just got so painter debrised that, you know, the
bank was just totally stacked with counter-create.

See, all the critics, the people that sat for portraits and
didn't pay their bills, the comment that the - the milkmaid
used to make every time she'd walk by, you know, when he
was painting a cow. And this nonsense, bits and pieces, so
forth, got him stacked up to a point where he was just
nothing but solid debris.

Well, he's not out as far as the arts are concerned. He
thinks he'll take a crack at sculpting. So he goes on,
takes a crack at sculpting next time and abandons this
debris-strewn area, you see?

Well, there's an answer to this. There's an answer to this.
Obsessive or continuous creation results in debris. And the
debris exists and the creation continues to exist, because
one never confronts what he creates. One seldom really
confronts what he creates.

A fellow creates something and expects you to confront it.
See? And you create something, you expect somebody else to
confront it. It's like somebody taking pictures of his
kids, you know?

Now, where - where this - this sort of thing goes on too
long... As a matter of fact, the best customer, by the way,
for pictures of kids is the kid. Nobody ever realizes that,
you know. I'm always handing my kids out pictures of
themselves. And they're their most cherished possessions.
They're very good customers. It's just - they're trying to
confront their own creativeness by looking at pictures of
themselves.

But confrontingness is the panacea of creatingness.

Now, destruction is a limited button. It takes a case
that's pretty well off to run anything like destruction,
because destruction is not factual. It isn't true that
things get destroyed. It's true that they get
counter-created against.

Now, if you ask a case to run very much create, you'll find
the case will make a tremendous gain for a moment or two
and then go into a state of collapse. Because you've run
into the debris factor You've asked him to consciously
create what he's already creating, and by putting his
attention on the thing, he has to take the consequences of
what he's creating, and he can't do that. It's just like
throwing him into the bank head first and then toughening
the bank up enormously. This creation factor is because
he's not taking responsibility for what he's already
creating.

Now, he can do this fantastic thing: He can go along and
create something behind his back and not take responsibility
for it. Now, people can create things they're not taking
responsibility for. And people are right this moment
creating things they're not taking responsibility for.

The fellow who can be run over by a car is unknowingly
creating a situation, morning, noon and night, week after
week, whereby he has overts against cars, and he has this
situation continuously mocked up, but he has no
responsibility for the situation, so he can be run over
by a car. You got that?

Now, this oddity exists, that people can create things
they're not taking responsibility for. You notice some
parents. See, they can create kids and not take any
responsibility at all. Funny part of it is there's some
families in some parts of the world, all they do is go into
kid production, you know? They take no responsibility for
anything they create. Like the story I heard one time...
Well, that's neither here nor there. Oh, the traveler was
down in southern part of the United States and he's walking
down along the bayou and he sees an alligator eating a
child. So he runs up to the nearest house and he says to
them, he said, "Say," he says, "there's an alligator down
there eating a child. Is it your child?" and so forth. And
this old fellow was sitting on the porch steps, and he
uncoiled himself and leaned inside the house and he says,
"Mammy," he said, "I tole you something was gettin' those
chilluns."

Yes, a person can create and not take any responsibility
for the creation. That's what gets most anybody in trouble.
Any - and if any trouble is going to be gotten into it's;
right from that factor there, you see? The creation is not
hooked up with responsibility.

So creation can exist almost independent of knowledge,
control and responsibility, This is another factor in
another zone, It sits over here. Creation can be done in a
total state of irresponsibility.

You never saw a pc admit any responsibility for his service
facsimile. You never did. Yet he's creating it all the time.

Well, this triangle that we've run into of knowledge,
control and responsibility handles this obsessive creation.

But when creation itself is engaged upon as a process...
Datum here: a process - not to be used, not recommended, not
unless you've been real grooved and trained and know all
the ramiflcations of this darn thing, because it's dynamite
- "What part of a, oh, mother (any terminal) would you be
willing to create?" And that run all by itself, of course,
just turns on the irresponsibility like mad. It doesn't
particularly influence the knowledge, control and
responsibility triangle.

And the bank just gets bigger and bigger and beefier and
beefier and stronger and stronger, because you're not
handling the control, all you're doing is turning on
creation. And creation is already on an automaticity, and
this phenomenon of a bank getting tougher is simply the
runaway phenomenon of the automaticity of create which
makes this universe.

If you were going to run that at all, it'd have to be on
the order, I think, of about one to ten. If you ran it for
one minute or ran it for one hour, you'd have to run ten
hours of the counter-process.

Now, the counter-process to this is Confront, Alternate
Confront. So it should be run. If you're going to run any
Create at all, you'd have to run it about ten to one on
Confront.

So if you said, "What part of a mother would you be willing
to create?" and if you said that for ten minutes, well
then, certainly for a hundred minutes you'd have to run
"What part of a mother would you be willing to confront?"
or "can you confront?" or "could you confront? as an
alternate question with, "What part of a mother would you
rather not confront?" which gives you the plus-minus
confront and takes away the debris and takes the maybes and
mysteries out of the line.

Now, it is in our power to restimulate any terminal in the
bank we want to. The terminal is totally flat, is not
giving the pc any trouble whatsoever, he's acting like he's
Clear, and then we start clearing him on things he might
run into someday.

And just by running Create, we can restimulate and
artificially key in any terminal we want to get our hands
on in the bank and clean up.

We know this fellow once had epileptics - fits, and he
doesn't no long - any longer have epileptic fits, and they
dropped out somewhere along the line, you see? Well, we
want to get real thorough about it and we determine this,
we locate the terminal it dropped out on, and it's flat.
Well, all we've got to do is run What part of that terminal
can you create?" or something of that sort, and itil bang
back into view again, you see? And then we run it - Confront
or Responsibility, and we knock it back out. Only this
time, of course, it'd go back out with much less tendency
to pop up. Got the idea?

Scientologist now has in his hands the ability to
restimulate at will any engram, facsimile, terminal or
anything else. It isn't that those things that are
flattened can always be restimulated. That isn't true.

The two processes: The weakest one of the two, which is one
of the strongest processes there are, is Confront. It's
the weakest of the two. The process which is strongest of
this is Responsibility. That is the strongest process, run
in some version that's an intelligible version.

So that you get as a very fine process - a very, very, very
fine process for use on anything and everywhere... Don't
expect this thing to do tremendous, miraculous things in
three seconds, you know? It's no trick process. But just
for the long haul, it does a wonderful job in the hands of
almost anybody. If you were being audited by a very
inexperienced auditor and were audited on this process, you
would get someplace regardless of whether he held the
E-Meter with his toes or kept yelling at Bill out the
window or something of the sort, see? You'd get someplace.

And that process would be Alternate Confront: "What can you
confront? What would you rather not confront?" And that,
just as a general process, tends to knock off the debris
incident to having created. In other words, by getting
Confront run, you knock out the debris kicked in by all of
this irresponsible or responsible creatingness.

Now, what's this tell you? This tells you that artistic
rehabilitation is in your hands. I'm going to write a book
on this subject one of these days if I can get a couple of
moments to breathe. Necessary to breathe, you know, to
write a book. You have to be able to breathe at the same
time; I'm developing it as a skill. You can write a book
and handle despatches and audit a case all at the same
time, but I found out that the absolute necessity is while
you're doing this and you're in a body, that you also
breathe. It's a discovery I made.

Of course, I haven't told you what I mean by breathing.
Breathing has to do with going out and looking at the
weather, you know? Breathing has a lot to do with wondering
how fast motorcycles go and other irresponsible things, you
know? You take a breather.

Now, creatingness requires a certain amount of
confrontingness, and any artist who has ever been artistic
has practically destroyed himself by out-creating himself.

You want to know what happened to your ability to write?
You want to know what happened to your ability to paint,
your ability to sculpt or your ability to mock up as far as
that's concerned? You want to know what happened to your
ability to dance? Why, one day you're being run on
something, you find yourself looking at a grand piano and
realize that someplace or another you've been a concert
pianist, and you sit down to the local apartment-sized
piano in a friend's place and you can't even pick out
"Yankee Doodle" with one finger.

And you say, "Well, I couldn't have been that person." No,
I'm afraid you've run into the best guarantee that you were
that person.

In other words, your creatingness has gone beyond your
confrontingness. See, you've created further than you've
confronted, and created further than you've actually taken
responsibility for. Boy, I tell you, the fellow who starts
handling responsibility for his "grand pianisingness" - boy,
that's a tough word, you know?

I remember when I was a concert pianist. Boy, we didn't
have any trouble with that. You hand it over to the box
office: The reason you play is because the people want to
pay money to hear you play Ha, ha.

You're creating and they're confronting, aren't you, huh?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, heh, heh, heh! You're not creating and
confronting, see? You're creating; they're doing the
confronting.

You put confronting on automatic while you're creating, and
you've had it any day.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't play grand pianos in
front of Carnegie Halls or whole track halls or something
of the sort, you see? But it does mean that if you're going
to create, you've got to learn how to breathe.

About the dirtiest trick I think I ever had be played on
myself as a writer comes very much to view. I used to want
to go out and research what I was writing about. Everybody
that was connected with me at that time thought this was a
horrible thing for me to do.

Of course, you must realize that when I did this sort of
thing, I would turn up three, four, six weeks later with
nothing left of my wardrobe but a pair of gumboots and some
old corduroy pants, you know? Stubble of beard. I'd gone
out and lived the part, you know? I'd be in a remarkably
secondhand condition - broken fingernails and all that sort
of thing, you know?

If you're going to write a story about logging, well, you'd
better get in and log, man, you better get in and log. You
go down and sign up on the logging crew. You know? And you
decide you know all about being a sawyer now; you'd better
be a feller. Something of that sort. So you'd fell some
tall tales.

You have to be awfully slippery, you know, to be able to do
this, because it means you've got to acquire professional
skill while walking up to the manager and then exhibit it
after being hired. Makes for a quick study.

They didn't like to see me do this. I'd just disappear out
of ken. Of course they'd worry about me and all that sort
of thing. I'd come back with engine oil all over me, having
been a stunt pilot for seven weeks, you know? Write a story
about it or something. It worried them, as one could see,
but it was a dirty tnck. Because I used to have a system of
not writing about things I didn't know about. And I think
it's a fairly good maxim. I would advise it to almost
anybody, particularly science-fiction writers.

If they'll just get somebody - some auditor to cooperate
with them a little bit and give them a session now and then
and so forth, they can go off and have all the space opera
they want. They can get firsthand knowledge of the
situation. Of course, they might never get back here, but
that's beside the point.

But firsthand knowledge is - is the thing a person should
have, because it gives you a chance to confront. Get the
idea? And you just never get tired of writing, that's all,
you see? You don't get tired of writing. You go out and you
do a lot of confronting and get your hands dirty and get in
brawls and mixed up one way or the other.

The next thing you know, why, you just feel fine. You just
feel fine as silk, you know? Just "Ah, pooh!" And you get
back in there and do some more creating. I don't care
whether you're painting or playing a piano or anything
else, you got to be able to breathe, too.

And if you don't learn how to breathe, you're not going to
last long as an artist, let me tell you. And I say the
overt act that's played against me is people were arguing
at every side, trying to keep me from breathing. They still
do. Every now and then, people object to my handling hot
machines or something like this.

They say, "Well, Ron, you're valuable." Well, I know I'm
valuable. Nobody has to kid me about that. I know exactly
how valuable I am, how - how small my value is and how large
my value is. I don't make a mistake in this particular
direction. It's a total estimate of the situation.
Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.

They don't have to tell me I'm valuable. In the first
place, there's nothing can happen to me. I know. Better
people than this planet have tried. See? I mean, there's
nothing can happen to me, and actually there's nothing can
happen to you. But there's something can happen to your
identity and presence. See, and they want to preserve your
identity and presence. And they don't think you'd look nice
all poured in between the wheels and motor of a racing car,
see? Well, your body and identity don't look nice that way,
and it's not something that people like to confront. And of
course, there's nothing can happen to you beyond the loss
of an identity.

And of course, you re so knuckleheaded and have gone down
so far on create that you can't mock up another body at
this particular moment and you need processing. (This, by
the way, I keep picking up here is just a list of my crimes.)

Now, wherever we have a - an over-create, too much create
and too little confront, we've got difficulty in the field
of artistry. That's what happened to your pinaner playing,
and that is why you as an auditor can take a former pinaner
player, you know, like Chopin or so forth, and get him to
run Reach and Withdraw on the piano. Next thing you know,
he can play the piano.

Did you ever stop and think of what a mystery that was that
that thing happens, you know, that the guy goes out and he
feels an automobile, you know? Feels an automobile and he
can drive an automobile. Some of you probably don't realize
you can do that in Scientology.

Fellow's unable to drive a car or paint a picture,
something like that, well, you just make him reach and
withdraw from the tools of the trade. Make him withdraw
from the objects he's trying to handle. Make him reach and
withdraw from the areas, familiarize himself with this sort
of thing. It's just ordinary contact. Just as simple as
that. Hardly any auditing commands to it at all. And the
next darn thing you know, you run out of - a lot of his
create - obsessive create.

Well, factually, you run out his counter-create. And what
do you think an overt act is but a counter-create?
Something is being created, so you counter-create against
the thing. Well, that's a create, too. And your
counter-creates get all mixed up with creates, and you
don't know whether you're creating or counter-creating, so
one fine day, why, you're stopping yourself from writing a
book. Instead of creating a book, you counter-create a book
every time you write a book, you know, like James Joyce.
Ah, it's an overt act against James Joyce; he's got a right
to be unintelligible, just like I have.

Now, Reach and Withdraw then is a specimen of this
confront, that's all. And you get a fellow to reach and
withdraw from a piano, and he'll recover all of his
abilities to play piano. But the funny part of it is, it
takes about ten to one.

Now, if he spent a lifetime playing a piano, at first
glimpse, to recover his concert accuracy, you'd have to
spend ten lifetimes of confront to recover that thing
totally. Fortunately, he didn't spend the whole lifetime
doing it. Actually, the number of hours he spent at a
piano was relatively minor. And the number of hours he was
playing found only a few amongst them where he was really
creating. See?

So at first, creatingness seems to spread itself all over
the place and then it comes down to actually what he is
creating. The rest of it he's simply repeating.

So you could have this sort of thing happen rather rapidly.
But if somebody's interested in painting, doesn't seem to
be able to paint, well, the thing to do is to go and paw
pallets and daub paint and pull reach and withdraw from
brushes and canvases and so forth and make him get paint on
his nose and so forth, and not let him do a doggone thing
creative about it.

Now, these therapies - these hobby therapies have a certaln
workability in this direction, but they lose their target
the moment that they ask the fellow to create anything.

You mustn't let the guy create anything. All you want him
to do is handle the materials. I don't care what he uses
them for, but don't let him create with them, and hobby
therapy works.

You're trying to recover basket weaving: well, just let him
handle miles and miles and miles of raffia or something,
see? Don't let him do a lousy thing with it, you know, just
handle it. The second he looks like he's going to tie up
anything that looks like a basket and so forth kick him in
the pants. Just let him handle the raffia, you know?
"Raffia!" Next doggone thing you know, he can make
beautiful baskets.

Thetans do this, you know? They make things for other
people to use. The cobbler's children, you know, never have
shoes.

Now, it's pretty hard for a writer to handle enough stuff
to make up fur the amount of writing he's doing, because
he's writing about the universe. And he's creating in and
out and about and this and that and characters and the
universe, and so forth, and he actually would have to do a
lot more breathing.

Similarly, a painter. He's reducing to two dimensions a
tremendous amount of three-dimensional, heavy-mass
material. So he's apparently dramatizing a "make nothing
out of it."

And similarly, a writer is "a make nothing out of it."
Actually, he's doing a create job, but he's taking big,
solid, massive things, and he's putting them down to the
thinness of thought.

And the painter is taking these big, massive scenes and
that sort of thing and reducing them down to the thinness
of canvas, the thinness of a two-dimensional picture. You
see? And his creativeness gets mixed up with a not-isness,
in his own head. It's perfectly all right to make a smaller
duplicate of anything, but he never thinks of doing that.
He thinks of creating.

I remember when I was a young writer, I used to be able to
write anybody's style. I was tremendously pleased to be
able to do so. I've been able to do it for generations. Just
pick up - just pick up anything, you know, and say fine. You
know, write it. I wrote a - a western one time in total - I
was never Shakespeare - wrote it in total Shakespearian
verse. And neither the editor nor any reader ever noticed
it. They merely thought it was a very fine story, and I
think it was just a year or so ago that it was filmed -
dragged out of the archives and filmed as one of the
prominent TV plays. The thing is written in Shakespearian
prose; it scans, every single bit of it. I've even pointed
it out to two or three people, and they say, "By golly,
you're right, you know? Well, why didn't I notice that?"

Well, you escape creating by copying very often.

A very good craftsman doesn't care who he copies. He just
couldn't care less. He'll just duplicate anything. Anything
comes into his mind, he'll duplicate it.

It's only some guy that's practically spinning who has to
be totally, personally, individually, separately original!
He's not long for this world when he has to do that.

It's a big joke on my part now and then to float into an
existence an extra work of some writer. Sometime before
this century is out, I'm going to float into existence
another story by Edgar Allan Poe. Just because it'd be an
amusing thing to do. It was one that he missed that he
should have written. I happened to think of it, so I'll
write it, see? Don't know how it'll get discovered but
somehow it'll get discovered somewhere. Probably in the
rare manuscript collection at the Library of Congress.

But who cares about something of this particular character
because that's not serious You'll find that I am ordinarily
only serious about those things that are relatively
important on the dynamics. The rest of the time, I play
hooky. That's a fact. I play an awful lot of hooky.

But when you create, create, create - "Got to create! Box
office! Public! They expect it!" you know? Create, create,
create. Never look at anything, you know? After a while you
can't write. Mter a while you just can't do it anymore, you
know? After a while you can't paint.

And somebody shows you a pallet and so forth and, holy
cats, you might have been Rembrandt. He was a pretty good
boy. He's a pretty good boy, Rembrandt. But he isn't
painting now. Otherwise, there'd be some Rembrandts lying
around. And there aren't. So, you just create, create and
don't confront, and after a while you say, "Well, I just
can't do it anymore," which means you can't take
responsibility for it anymore, which means you better not
know about it, which means you lose all control of it.

And somebody shows you a Rembrandt a couple of generations
later, a pallet and a brush and says, "Daddy, paint me a
picture."

"No, I just don't have anything to do with that, son. Huh,
huh. I just never was able to do anything like that."
That's a fact. He couldn't even do it for his own kid. You
know, he couldn't even make a picture of a cat with the two
ears, you know?

And if he was stupid enough to do so in kindergarten, a
tremendous weariness would settle over him, you know? He'd
say, "I don't know what's wrong, but I don't feel well."

Well, of course, it couldn't be the creativeness of drawing
a picture of a cat because he's Rembrandt. You get the idea?

Well, a man doesn't have to be a stellar name. A stellar
name presents us an interesting problem all by itself. Any
time you grab off a stellar name and really put yourself up
in lights and so forth, you've ordinarily had it for a
while anyhow.

But an individual just gets to a point where he just can't
bear the thought of taking any more responsibility for
creativeness.

Now, this is all mixed up with overt acts, all mixed up
with counter-efforts, all mixed up with this and that. And
it's all resolvable in various ways but the simplest and
easiest way to resolve it, if the longest, is just to get
the person to confront or run any kind of a confront, like
"What part" or "What about a painting" or "What about a
painter could you confront? What about a painter would you
rather not confront?" you know? And eventually the guy will
start sorting it out, and he'll go through phases of "Got to
paint, can't paint. It's all right to paint. No, it isn't."
And the moral problems associated in painting... It's - all
that's happening is you're rehabilitating his ability to
create by running out his obsession on the subject, which
in itself has taught him that he runs into total apathy
about it.

This business of running into the repeating identity is,
of course, one of the more amusing phenomena. It's a
phenomenon of - that's broke more hearts.

You keep trying to beat your own record, you know? I was
mentioning this racetrack. It was about nineteen thousand
years ago, twenty thousand, thirty thousand, forty
thousand, In the Marcab Confederacy they had a race-track.
And you were probably there. And you either have attended
its races or had something to do with it, because you find
it on most cases.

There's one 1216 B.C, that shows up on any case - the
Brotherhood of the Snake. 1216 B.C. It shows up on any
case. Well, evidently, this other one is the same breed of
cat. Almost anybody going through Marcab Confederacy sooner
or later got mixed up with the racetracks.

They had turbine-generated cars that went about 275 miles
an hour. They ran with a high whine. I notice they've just
now invented the motor again. And they had tracks that were
booby-trapped with atom bombs, and they had side bypasses.
The tracks were mined, and the grandstands were leaded-paned.
And the audience - it got to be kind of a "no audience." You
never could see the audience.

And oh, they had loose-sand sections and they had slick-oil
asphalt and they had ice sections and loose gravel. Any
kind of hazards you could think of. A mountain that you
went up to the top of and fell off; you know?

And just - there were just more drivers killed. There was
more blood pouring on that track, you see, all the time. I
mean it was always goofed up. Ten, twelve thousand years,
this was the favorite sport of the Marcab Confederacy,
apparently.

If I'm restimulating you, okay. It's not done intentionally.
You'll run into this sooner or later. You'll wonder...
You've probably often wondered what that needle-like pinging
was in the back of your neck. Well, you probably wound up
on the track some time or another as a driver or something
of the sort.

Because nearly everybody, when he wanted to go to the
devil, went to this track and became some part of its
operating personnel, because it was the fastest ticket out
in a society which absolutely insisted that you live!

The Marcab Confederacy's medicine was so excellent that an
individual just couldn't die out of it. That was all. They
would drag you back and fit an arm on, fit a leg on, fit a
nose on, fit an eye in. They could give you artificial
voices and artificial vision and artificial digestion and
artificial everything else. The next thing you know, there
wasn't even an original part left including you, you see?

But there was always a road out, you know. You could... If
there was too much peace, and you couldn't go to war and
get yourself killed, you could always get involved with
something like the racetrack, you see? That was a sure
ticket out.

Well, one of these things of a repeating identity - this
happened to me over a course of quite a while: I'd be doing
something constructive, and so forth, and I'd go play
hooky. Or I'd get tired of that particular body setup. I'd
go play hooky, wind up down at the racetrack driving a car,
you know? Just hooky, you know? This is a rough thing to do
on people because it was awful hard on their equipment.

And just go in there and be the Silver Streak, you know?
The Silver Streak. You know, so many laps in so many
seconds, you know? Track record! Track record. I'd get
bored with it and do what I went down there to do anyhow.
Work it out in such a way that it really wasn't my fault
for knocking myself off, you see? And take one of these
cars and wham it into the grandstand or some such place,
see, and that'd be the end of that body. And nobody could
argue with it, see? Medical science could do nothing after
that. Go pick up another body or a doll or something like
that and go on about my business and carry out the mission.

But after a while this got rather bad because - come down
the track and I'd be the Red Comet, see, driving around.
Get to walking in and out of the lobby, and I'd see this
picture here of the Silver Streak. And I'd look at this,
"Track record so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so. Aaah, who's
this guy," you know?

And so before I used the track for the purpose it was
intended, which was knocking off a mock-up, why, I'd get in
there and, urrrr-rrooorn! you know, and managed to take a
minute off of that time, you see? Manage to take this many
laps off as the total endurance record, and.. Oh, they had
races there that'd go for two weeks. You'd be driving f6r
two weeks. They'd just keep doping you up. Needles hitting
you in the back of your neck, you know, giving you new
jolts. This is space opera. This is what this planet is in
for. I mean, boy. And knock it off, you know?

I remember I got tired one time. Did have one overt act on
the track - it was real bad - is I got tired of wondering
whether or not there really was an audience back of those
leaded panes. Took one of those tracks - cars, turned it at
right angles, and threw it through one of the windows.
There was an audience there.

So anyhow, a few lifetimes later, why, things would be
going along pretty good, and the mock-up would be all
patched up, and I'd think I was due for a new issue or
something like that, and I'd wind up down at the racetrack.
Total nom de plume identity - my own identity totally
masked, you know, and go in there as the - the Green Rocket!

And as the Green Rocket, you know, be going errrr-vrooom!
you know, that sort of thing. And one day walking through
the lobby, "The Red Comet. The Silver Streak. Nyah, who are
these bums? Track record so-and-so and so-and-so and leaped
six cars. Six cars."

And the Green Rocket, of course, would get a picture,
posthumously: "One of the great drivers of all time who had
leaped seven cars and had taken eight minutes off the track
record," you see?

I think in the course of about twenty-five hundred years
there were an awful lot of pictures in there, but I had
about sixteen of them.

I'd just keep going back and beating my own record, see?
And I finally would just be exhausted, you know? You know,
the Green Rocket. The Red Comet. The Silver Streak. You
know? The Gold Bomb, you know? Oh! Whoo! How in the
name - 'cause, you see, the equipment for eleven-twelve
thousand years never changed one iota. Nothing was ever
bettered. It was just ability, you see? It'd be pure, raw
ability. As a matter of fact, the equipment was getting a
little bit worse. And always beating your own record. You
get down to a point finally where it isn't possible. You
just have to give up. Well, who defeated you?

Ah, the only reason I'm telling you this rather humorous
anecdote is just to pound it home to you a little bit that
you're basically in competition with you.

You are - have most in common with you. You, in this life,
have most in common with you in another life. Unless you
keep in fairly clear view... In all of those lives, there
was no question in my mind about who I was as long as I was
going about my business and not playing hooky. See, I knew
who I was, I knew what I was supposed to be doing. I knew
what I was... But I'd go play hooky, bury the identity,
counterfeit it and take no responsibility for it. and knock
off the mock-up, which of course I couldn't take
responsibility for.

Naturally, I'd get these doggone identities stacked up, and
after a while just couldn't face the idea of driving any
more racing cars because those guys were too good! I knew
I couldn't be that good.

Now, writers, pianists, all the rest of the artistic world,
to some slight degree, are running into their own
identity - to some slight degree, whether great or small.

If a man is on the track doing painting, I can assure you
that some scrap of his work has survived somewhere. Now, he
doesn't have to be the great name. You would be amazed how
many people there have been who were great in their times.
An awful lot of great right now.

But a writer just gets to a point where he can't compete
with himself anymore. You get the idea? When he runs into
that sort of thing, he's more or less had it. And a fellow
who has just gotten through being a famous writer in the
last generation is practically sunk in his next lifetime,
He's liable to be taught his own books in his own
literature classes. It's horrible! I'm not in that position
right now. I just happen to speak from a pc.

But for the last twenty-five hundred years I have been
taught my own speeches. I've still got extant pieces of
writing up and down the track. There's quite a little bit.
Amazingly constant. And I have not necessarily taken an
irresponsibility for the thing. I - one of these days, I
thought I might get together a little book of extant
writings of one character or another. Thought you might
find it amusing.

But where you're - where you're in constant competition on
creation with yourself why, you've more or less had it, you
see?

What you're looking for when you try to solve a case is the
points of greatest creativeness which haven't been
confronted, because that lifetime will be in total
restimulation, with total irresponsibility for it.

The one person you're not willing to be is the person you
were. Isn't that funny? The one person you're not willing
to be is the person you were.

It's no good even sitting down and asking a pc, "Who would
you most be - most unwilling to be?" because he'll always
miss it. It's a total not-is-total not-is. And when you're
auditing on it, he's most of the time, "No, I wasn't it.
No, I wasn't it. No, I wasn't it."

Sometimes he picks out a famous identity of one character
or another which is an offbeat or a repetitive identity on
another civilization millennia. You know, this civilization
thing is - repeats itself like a baby's development.

You know, you have these various circumstances. There's
been seventeenth-century France time after time after time
on the time track, you know? And there's been - there's been
a Renaissance time after time after time. There are Greek
civilizations time after time after time. You get the idea.

About the only thing there hasn't been enough of according
to the American public, has been cowboy civilizations.

But you'll find the point of greatest creativeness of an
individual or what he is creating or what he's most, in
this lifetime, been involved in creating is most what's
wrong with his case as a computation. And you've got to get
that confronted. You've got to get him to take some
responsibility for it; you've got to get him to confront
it. The easiest way to do is just to get him to confront
it; the fastest way to do is to get him to take some
responsibility for it. The rest of the case will fall out
in the soup.

But of course, in order to audit a case at all, you have to
establish two-way communication. To establish two-way
communication, you've got to get off the overts and withholds.

Similarly, you'll find that most writers when they fail,
fail because, Lord knows how long ago, they killed a writer.

And when they've killed a writer and then they afterwards
try to write - they're actually not trying to do a life
continuum on him - they accidentally started to write and
then got that other one restimulated and so failed.

All kinds of crossplays occur in this field of creation,
but creation is so much the button, that it's practically
everything wrong with a case. And creation without
responsibility is the downfall of any case anywhere.

The rehabilitation of artistry is rather easy, and to you
would probably pay off greater dividends than any other
single activity because you could put every stage and
screen star you could lay your hands on, every painter and
everybody else in the field o the arts and communication
right back into the run. All you'd have to do is get him to
take some responsibility for what he's doing, get the
overts off on what he's doing and you would have him back
there doing a stellar job instead of limping and not being
tired when he'd finished with a performance.

It's a broad field of Scientology. It's a field of
Scientology which exists of course in our own technology -
just rehabilitating cases - but it exists as artistic
rehabilitation and would be well worth doing for the sake
of dissemination of Scientology, as well as for the arts
and culture of our times, if anybody undertook this as a
project.

We have the answers to this now. It's been a long time in
coming. What I actually should do is write a book about it,
something like that, and scatter it around. And you'd find
an awful lot would result from it because people are very
interested in create, because create is the dynamic
principle of existence in Scientology.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


