From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Fri Apr 23 20:10:16 1999 Path: newscene.newscene.com!newscene!novia!newsfeed.nyu.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!nntp.primenet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news Date: 24 Apr 1999 03:10:16 -0000 Subject: FZ BIBLE 3/10 HCL TAPES PART 2 (1952) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: Secret Squirrel Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to . The message sender's identity is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable. Message-ID: <72a371407646129b03dfa140f371c3d9@anonymous.poster> Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 1198 Xref: newscene alt.religion.scientology:742313 FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST FZ BIBLE 3/10 HCL TAPES PART 2 (1952) We are posting separately to ARS & ACT, if a post is missing, please check the other newsgroup. ************************************************** These are the second 10 lectures in the HUBBARD COLLEGE LECTURES (HCL) Series of early 1952. This is based both on the transcripts in R&D volume 10 and an old reel-to-reel set of the tapes. The lectures cover Fac One and some discussion of Entites. We posted the first part of this lecture series last December as FZ BIBLE 1/10 HCL TAPES of 1952, FIRST SECTION. The Time Track of Theta tapes that we posted earlier last year are also from this lecture series. They fit right after the tapes in this current set of postings. We will do the final third of the HCL lectures later this year including the battle of the universes tape which has been labled confidential and is not in the R&D volumes. Note that this lecture series (mainly the final third) is the research line for NOTS. Coming Soon: The 5th ACC (The "Universes" cassettes). ************************************************** CONTENTS: 1. HCL-7 6 MAR 52 EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT 2. HCL-8 6 MAR 52 ATTACK ON THE PRECLEAR 3. HCL-9 7 MAR 52 FACSIMILES: HOW TO HANDLE RECORDINGS 4. HCL-10 7 MAR 52 INDOCTRINATION OF THE PRECLEAR 5. HCL-11 8 MAR 52 RESOLUTION OF EFFORT_AND COUNTER-EBFORT: OVERT ACTS 6. HCL-12 8 MAR 52 INDOCTRINATION IN THE USE OF THE EMETER 7. HCL-13 9 MAR 52 THOUGHT, EMOTION, & EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT 8. HCL-14 9 MAR 52 DEMO: EFFORT, COUNTER-EFFORT, STRAIGHTWIRE 9. HCL-15 10 MAR 52 TRAINING AUDITORS: THE ANATOMY OF FAC ONE 10. HCL-17 10 MAR 52 RUNNING EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT Note that the first set of 10 HCL lectures ended with HCL-6A of 5 MAR 52. Note that HCL-12 consists of HCL-12 and HCL-12A on the reels. Note that HCL-16 was not part of the reels nor is it in the R&D volumes. If anyone has a copy, please post it. Note that HCL-18 was combined with HCL-27 in the R&D volumes and we will post it in part 3 of this series. The Time Track of Theta tapes are HCL-19 and 20. In cases where the reels include material that is not in the R&D volumes, the text is marked with ">". ************************************************** 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 freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics. 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 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 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 ************************************************** HCL-9 FACSIMILES: HOW TO HANDLE RECORDINGS 5203C07 57 min. Rerecorded 1973 by Flag. A lecture given on 7 March 1952 > Oh yeah. Okay. Let's go into a few more particularities with regard to the way thought forms up in terms of recordings - how to handle recordings. Now, you wouldn't be a bit surprised if you were out in Hollywood, for instance, and you were applying for a job in the film department and I was supposed to indoctrinate you in films and I stood there and told you all the various ways to file film. How film is filed and what kind of film there was. How it's preserved, how it can be wrecked, what alphabetical orders it's filed under, what rooms it's put in, what kind of pictures the studio has normally made and who is authorized to touch these films, and who isn't authorized to touch them. You know? You wouldn't be surprised. You'd put all this down very industriously and probably memorize it. Well, actually that's all I'm talking to you about, is just how films are made and how they're stored and how they're wrecked and how you can fix and handle them. But there's a lot of mystery which has been put up around in the mind because mystery pays off. Give me a good mystery - a good mystery - any time, and I can show you a conquest of earth. One good mystery. No trouble at all. I mean that as fact. It's based solidly upon the past. Every great enslavement or every great release of man on earth has pursued from a hidden datum - a new phenomenon which nobody knew very much about except a select small group, who then held it to their bosoms and so holding it were able to use it to instill compulsion obedience upon the rest of man. That is very simple. That was done many times in the past, and it's routine the way it's done. You take this thing, you make a mystery out of it. It strikes people; it startles them. You embroider it up. You make it a bit supernatural in some way or other. You fix it up one way or the other, And then you tell some luckless fellow that this is really what's going to happen unless he drops a nickel on the drum - anything, I could be very crude about this, actually, because it is a formula which man has used and has had used on him for many, many thousands of years. Practically all of his existence on Earth has found him in this circumstance. You might not think of it in this way until it's mentioned, but do you know that there's a group of nuclear physicists in this country who hold certain phenomena in their hands and in their minds which cow nations? Now these people don't think of themselves as using a mystery, but they're using a mystery. They use quantum mechanics and atomic and molecular phenomena, and out of this mystic brew compose an atom bomb. As far as you're concerned, actually, that might have - been nothing but dynamite or a smoke screen or an erroneous news story that happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You don't really know whether an atom bomb exists or not. All you'd have to do is create the illusion that something like this existed and that a vast mystery was behind it, and you are likely to pay great attention to this vast mystery. Because the mind seeks to fix on things, so when it is confronted with an unknown it seeks to fix on some known factor in the unknown. And if the mind can't fix on some factors it will go into fear, and so can be influenced. Mystery! Hashshashin, the Old Man of the Mountain, took the mysticism of Mohammedanism, constructed himself a good, solid MEST garden full of milk and honey, took young men, filled them with hashish, brought them in, told them they were in Paradise. They woke up from a drugged state and were told they were in Paradise. And they were told also that they couldn't come back to Paradise until they had gone out and killed a certain person. Then they would drug him again and he would wake up in some far city yearning to do nothing but go back to Paradise. So some prince or potentate that the Hashshashins were angry with at the moment would find himself with a dirk in his heart. The fellow would merely walk up to the individual, run up to him anyplace he could be found, and stab him and kill him. Certainly the fellow's guards turned around and killed the assassin. That's where you get the word ussassin - from Hashshashin, the Mohammedan cult which lasted about three hundred years in the vicinity bf the twelfth and thirteenth, fourteenth centuries. Now, there's a mystery. The mystery in that case was the fact that Hashshashin figured out a way to prove to people that Paradise existed, and he used this credulity to enforce his demands upon Asia. He enforced his demands upon Asia so well that during the reign of these people there wasn't an Asian prince, king or ruler or governor anywhere that would have dreamed of disobeying a proclamation issued by the Old Man of the Mountain. That is the use of phenomena. That's something for you to remember about the mind: that it tends to fix and locate data. If it fixes too solidly on a datum it is said to be obsessed. If it cannot fix on any data but continues to try and yet finds no correlative data, it becomes afraid. That's fear, one of the manifestations that it picks up. Therefore, the mind of man and all of its phenomena has long been used for the control of man. Man has been enslaved by the fact that others did not know enough about their own minds to prevent the phenomena of their own minds from being used against them. This is the history of the race. Somebody learns something about the mind. He promptly makes a secret out of it, a mystery out of it, and used it against minds. That's what's very peculiar about Scientology and the work on which I've been engaged in the last twenty-two years. It's been in an effort to expose all phenomena of the mind so you couldn't do it anymore. Now, therefore, if I were talking to you about the filing of film and the making of film in Hollywood, you would be very relaxed and very pleased and very pleasant about the whole thing and you'd go through it by routine, and you would walk into those film-filing laboratories and you would do a good job. But as it is I am apparently talking to you about something that is mysterious. Well, the mind right now is about as mysterious as a roll of film. You see, you don't know all there is to know about a roll of film. And even if I told you all there was known in Hollywood about a roll of film, you still wouldn't know all there was to know about a roll of film. How do you make celluloid? Anyone here knows how you make celluloid? I mean know the process, so that with crude tools you could just go out and make celluloid? How do you make the emulsion that film takes and so on? There's a lot of data there, you see. There's still a lot of secret formulas in the making of film. Du Pont doesn't want Agfa to know, doesn't want Eastman to know how these formulas are put together. There's a lot of secrecy and a lot of mystery. Mystery is also paying off in the field of films but this doesn't worry you, does it? You say, "Well, this is routine and this is ordinary." Well, if you will accept the fact that the mind in its "mysteries" (unquote) is routine and ordinary, you will learn this very swiftly. What we're talking to you about, then, is the filing of film. These films are a little bit better than Hollywood films Some of them are worse. Some of them are very dull and some of them are very poorly plotted - like Republic Pictures' and so on. But they're just film. Actually, they're not even you - these films. You stand there as an intent at the beginning of time "to be," and this intent underlies every other facsimile, and it is not itself a facsimile. And then you have these recordings of the physical universe, And I admit that the film you're carrying around is very, very good and some of you can even look at it again sometimes, But it's a smellie, a feelie - completely aside from being a talkie. And it is very well stored; doesn't need a can to store it in. It doesn't have any bulk, no size. You don't have to strain your back shipping it anyplace, bringing it in. The filing system is very automatic. All I'm teaching you how to do is pull out the logjam in this film storage bank so that all the film can be filed properly. And this film even has the wonderful characteristic of filing itself automatically in its proper sequence the moment you straighten out the cans that won't let it be filed. Simple This is so routine that actually, if you were to take a five -, six year-old child who had no training at all, you would find that you had no difficulty at all telling him how to file his film. He would say, "Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup. That's very interesting." And he'd go around and you'd see him auditing kids in the neighborhood. I've trained a ten-year-old boy to audit. I've known six-year-old boys to audit. One little six-year-old boy one day walked out in the kitchen and found a visitor. This little kid had been around Dianetics quite a while, and he found this visitor with a terrible hangover. Little boy says, "What's the matter?" and the visitor said, "Aw, huhh? Just got a awful headache." "Ah," the little boy says, "you got a hangover. I heard you last night," And the fellow said, "Well, as a matter of fact I probably do have a hangover," The little boy says, "Well, let's see, what's the first drink you took?" And the fellow said, "What are you going to do?" The little boy says, "Go on, go on. Where's our first drink? Go on, pick it up." "All right, let's go all the way through, let's go all the way through to when you woke up this morning," The little kid sat there and forced this adult who was about forty-five or so through this incident from beginning to end, over and over and over, and the adult's headache was gone. This adult, by the way, didn't know much about Dianetics and he was very struck, stunned and surprised. I imagine that was worse than the headache he'd gotten rid of. Now in the process of education you have been told there are a lot of mysterious things. If I were telling you about these phenomena just straight, it would be very easy to acquaint you with these phenomena. But as it is, I'm telling it to you across dams of semantics, telling it to you across presuppositions absorbed from popular novels - even those. Across psychology, across philosophy, across the training and belief of parents, across the training and beliefs of a race for many thousands of years. And the only thing I can say about these barriers is that they were efforts in the past to make human conduct acceptable to the largest number of people under the existing circumstances, with attention to the little that was known about this phenomena. So every one of those is a stopgap. Somebody came along one day and he said, "You have a soul. You have a soul," About maybe four thousand years ago, something like that, somebody came along and he said, "You have a soul." And everybody said, "What's a soul?" They didn't know what they had. Up to that time, they didn't know they didn't know they had anything. Yeah, this was complex, you see. They were living in their primitive ignorance - and very happy in it too. And this fellow says, "You have a soul." And - "What's a soul?" "Well, you've got to take good care of your soul." Well, everybody has a facsimile saying he has to take care of something. And he has an overt-act facsimile saying he definitely has to take care of - that he has violated his command to take care of something, so right away he says, "My soul. I've got to take care of my soul," Didn't occur to anybody he was his own soul. It's something like walking down the street and seeing a fellow standing on the corner wearing a suit of clothes, and harassing him and haranguing him until he'll wear a suit of clothes. And then harassing him and haranguing him until he's finally convinced he couldn't possibly be wearing a suit of clothes. And so in his naked shame, fully clothed with a suit, he creeps off into an alley. It's just about the same operation. The phenomena surrounding the filing of facsimiles, so on, turns out to be very simple. Awfully simple. It's just like making and filing pictures. Simpler even! In pictures you have directors and you have that sort of thing. Well, you're just the whole film company and you just manufacture film endlessly, that's all! Good film, too! I'd like to put you in a condition so that you can even look at it again sometime and find out what kind of film you've made. You're making film, actually, without a board of censors to bother you or anything of the sort. Some of that film is probably very interesting film. But now you know that filing it and unfiling it only requires you to understand what it is and how it's labeled and what kinds there are. That isn't even a big order. After that you can find out what happens to film, but first you must understand what film is: It is a substance which has no existence in time and space on which is engraved the fifty perceptics of which you are capable of recording. Fifty some perceptics - there's a terrific list of them. And all these record simultaneously upon the same film and it goes on and you make it in short or long units but it's continuous. People speak of episodes in their lives. Actually, one life is an episode, a complete episode. It's a complete play, you might say. Your school days. The second you say, "Your school days," this is grand catalog of film, a series of pictures entitled: "School days, complete. John Doe, early part twentieth century," That's the way the label would read, actually. "School days," That's just a generalized category. Now you say, "Grammar school," "High school," "Prep school," "College." > Theres five films. Or four films. Four specific films. They begin: you say to the old man, "Well, I'11 try to get along on my allowance," and you go off to college. And you walk in the front door and the registrar's there and they say, "Well, you can't take that because you don't have the prerequisites." And that becomes a little short subject called "Prerequisites: my struggles with," "My career: why I couldn't follow it" - would be another short subject. Another one would be "Are professors human?" There'd be these little short subjects running all through the thing. Then you see, the college career is subdivided into episodes one, two, three and four. Or, in the case of a girl, "The Perils of Pauline." Freshman, sophomore, junior, senior - each one of those is an episode. And then there's - oh, this is very interesting. This is just all packages of film. People do this, for instance, when they write autobiographies. Somebody comes along and says, "My Life" and "by John Doe." And then he tries to put down in print the complete film. Well, actually he's putting down a very second-rate rendition of it, even if it's beautifully written, because it's all on his film. And to date nobody's ever been able to set any John Doe up on a projector and let it run off on a screen for everybody to take a look at. That would be a very good invention, But you see, it isn't done at this time. And as a result people don't think of their films as films, because other people don't go look at them and nobody pays a quarter. As a matter of fact, that's a fib. Over a long period of time people have been paying lots of quarters to look at my films. I find out that most of my stories have been completely autobiographical. My confidence in my own imagination has just gone by the boards. Now, if you were to file these, how would you file them? You would file them according to several things so you could find them again. The first thing you would file them in regard to is time. That would be the broad file classification. And every film or facsimile in your mind has a time tag on it, and each one of those is carried along. Everything is on record and all the film is there. That was another control mechanism telling you you didn't have all the film. They said, "Somebody else has it" or "You've lost it," or something of the sort. It isn't true. You have it all. So you have this time tag on each roll of film. You have it on each moment of each roll of film. This is much better than Hollywood. They do not have marked on the side of the square what frame it is, and you do. Every frame. You take, with the eyes, about twenty-five to seventy-five frames a second and you even got marked what frame and what second it is - very, very good in its index system. Fine index system, very poor file clerks. Well anyway, you get a person with nine-tenths, ten-tenths - not quite ten-tenths of his film thrown over in the corner apparently completely tangled up, with the cat's dish in the middle of it, and a couple of old pairs of overalls thrown over the top of it, and the wrench the plumber left sort of dropped on it, and that whole room lost somewhere. The remainder is what you now know as you, and what you're using-the remainder of the not quite ten-tenths. Actually all the other film is there. And what you're trying to do in this science is simply get ahold of the rest of the film and put it back in the vaults because it shouldn't be in there with the cat's dish and so on. It really is not good care of film. Fortunately, this film has many other advantages: it does not deteriorate. You can leave it out in the wind and weather for a long, long time and it doesn't corrode, shrink or stain. That's remarkable. It does not corrode or deteriorate. Once you have taken the picture, the picture is there. Now don't make any mistake about this fact. If you've taken a lot of pictures with a myopic astigmatic lens or a calcified binaural hearing system, the quality of that film is not good, but you will have on the film as much as you've perceived and been capable of perceiving, and that's a lot more than you think is there. It records all night long, by the way. Terrific waste of material. It records all night long and all day long and when you're drunk and when you're mad and when you think you're not there and when you're dead, and it records all the time. It doesn't know the word "stop." Of course, I realize it has this in connection with some of these long-winded pictures of Bette Davis. They don't know when to say, "The End." But it has been going on now for an awful long time, this film has. Now, it also records when you're unconscious. Somebody comes along and gives you a shot in the arm, knocks you out, hits you over the head, runs over you with a truck, something like that, the film keeps on recording with as many perceptions as you have turned on. If you're just drugged, the film keeps on recording. If you were theoretically drugged and laid down without touching anything, and you weren't even touching what you were lying on, you were just drugged, you have a full recording from beginning to end of the effect of a drug on the body, which is to say, just a numb feeling. But don't think for a moment that isn't a record. It's a record. If somebody came along halfway down the time between your going to sleep and waking up under the influence of the drug and hit you, thud! and said, "Boo!" - if an auditor were running along on this thing, he would eventually hit "thud!" and "Boo!" and you would pick this up out of the film. Many people have tried to prove this. What they do is take one installed drug engram which is lying on top of eight million to the eighth-millionth power of drug engrams or engrams of unconsciousness back through your many lives, and they try to take this as the last one and then say, "Well, that's very easy, We'll pick this up and knock it out." Oh, yeah? Because your late films are really harder to destroy than the earlier ones. They have greater durability. It's harder to plow through a moment of unconsciousness that's late than one that's early. Something you should recognize. This has considerable to do, by the way, with Facsimile One because the older one gets, the harder it's keyed in, and that's probably all that age is. Mixed up with this film you have several particular facsimiles that have glue on them. Now you take all this, films thrown over there in the corner, mixed up with the cat's dish. If you could imagine throwing in an iron wedge which was thoroughly covered with glue, and kind of stirring it up amongst this other unfiled film, you'd get some idea of what Facsimile One will do to the memory bank. Now fortunately nothing destroys this film. Just because it's laid in on top of Facsimile One is no great reason why it is going to be wrecked. You take Facsimile One out from underneath it again and you've got a recording. You can get the glue off, in other words. I'I1 tell you how you get the glue off, That is a process known as auditing. That's how to get the glue off. Now, under no circumstances should anyone be bewildered just because there's lots of film. The film vaults of Warner Brothers are best inspected on the back of a motorcycle. They are just vaults, vaults, vaults, vaults, vaults, vaults, vaults - lots of them. The card-catalog system pertaining to those films - files, files, files, files - there's lots of them. Any Home sapiens has lots of them. Home sapiens is a breed of man who has the remaining zero-tenths of his ten-tenths visible from his film files. Now, what you're trying to get is this fellow's films back for him - as an auditor - and he should not be particularly bemused or amazed because there's so much film. We've solved that to a large degree, knowing Facsimile One, knowing its existence and being able to run it. It separates the film so that it can be refiled with great ease. And so I want to impress upon you that there isn't anything mysterious about this film - it's just film! It's theta recording fifty perceptics or fifty viewpoints of the material universe of matter, energy, space and time, starring you. That's all there is. And it's got sequences that say, "Daydreams when I was five!" and you know they're daydreams. Afters while you pretend you don't or something, but you knew they were daydreams when you were five. And you take this film, straighten it out and put it into the proper file vaults, and the body, then, is able to function better because you are able to make your body more functional. Because you haven't got some of these old films, say, like "The Adventures of Stick Crazy, the Great Defective." "The time when he falls off a cliff and bunged up his head," or something of this sort. This one can get scrambled up so that you don't have this particular film available in an uncleared state. Well, clearing it up, you have all of these bumps in the head and that particular hair-raiser is all available and you can put it in the proper files too. And as long as a film is lost, oddly enough there's somebody giving you hell for it, so you mustn't lose film. And that is evidently the one proviso under which you operate as the manufacturers and takers of theta pictures. Each one of you is a tremendous production company. And all I'm trying to teach you how to do is not produce film at all, I'm just trying to teach you how to file it. [At this point there is a gap in the original recording.] All you have to know, actually, to audit is the behavior of a preclear running film. And you as an auditor become, then, to the degree, a projectionist. But you become a projectionist only to the degree that you want to unfile and file film. You're the kind of a projectionist who is not trying to amuse the audience, but the kind of a projectionist who is trying to help this other studio straighten out this awful mess it got into when the Chase National Bank foreclosed on it or something. Now that's very simple. You are making the other company run off some of its more important pictures to find out what it had. That's all. And as soon as it finds out what it really has, this other company is of course able to become affluent and straightened out in its affairs and capable of supporting itself. And as a projectionist - auditor - you even sometimes suffer from the competition spirit. You realize that putting this other studio into 100 percent operation may do something to your pictures. That this new angle you've got on taking pictures by clerking in a grocery store or something - that might not be so good if grocery stores started hiring for its clerks just Clears or something. So you have a tendency - nearly everyone has a tendency, whether he admits to it or not - to experience this little feeling of competition on the line. It's very interesting in the field of spiritual work to find out that somebody comes along and they say they're very humble and they're very this and they're very that, and they want you to be good and well, and help you out, and the next thing you know, you get into an awful argument about who is humblest. And they claim they're much holier than you are, so there. And they don't show any vanity and they're completely selfless, so there. I've seen this develop into a full-fledged slugging fight over who could pray the hardest. So you have to realize that you are possibly endangering your own business to some degree by helping this other company, which is always, no matter how much a friend, in the guise of a rival company as long as it's somewhat bankrupt. And by the way, as long as this other company is desperate, you really are in danger as an individual, but this other company rich, makes you richer. That's the way it really works out. Yes, because there's better pictures on the market, and your pictures are better too, and maybe you don't have to worry so much about showing pictures. Maybe you can go out and make more pictures. And that would be very nice not to have to sit at a desk from nine till five every day making pictures - I mean just showing pictures. Showing off reels one to four "College education," It gets boring. Maybe you'd rather go out and make - go out on location for a change. Go down in the desert and pick wild flowers. Well that might be possible if everybody in the world didn't require such an eagle eye to keep him from getting out of line. Think of the amount of restraint that is put on you as an individual because there are lots of criminals around. There's plenty of restraint put on you as an individual. You may be an honest, upstanding citizen but because criminals are in the environment you have to toe the mark to certain laws. And of course as an honest, upright, understanding citizen, you are the only one who toes the mark - which is the catch - but the criminal never does, That's the Sullivan Law: it inhibits the good citizen from defending his life and makes it possible for the criminal to be the only one urho can carry firearms. It's not very sensible. But it's just as sensible as somebody wanting somebody else insane or reduced in his activities. Now, in projecting this film you only want to project as much film as is necessary to process that film. Let's say this other company made some bad pictures - really bad pictures. You know, Monograml-type pictures. Or something by Rank. Rankl over from England. And they made these horrible pictures. They've never been able to recover since. And if they could just sort of get some more film to make some more pictures on, they might be able to cover. Now, what you do is permit this other company to scrape off some of its recordings, and therefore be able to say honestly and forthrightly, "I don't have those recordings anymore." Of course, the public around this person will keep saying, "But you made these pictures - we know. We know you made these pictures." This fellow can say with honesty now, "No, I have no such picture in the files," and he can recover therefore. You, by the way, you were to take a criminal and clear him and make him the most honest fellow in the town, the public would still insist that the police chief was more honest than he. The public would still insist, then, that this crooked police chief - I mean this average police chief - was far more honest than this cleared criminal. That, of course, would be contested violently by police chiefs if they knew I had said such a thing. By the way, I have nothing against police chiefs. I love cops. Lawyers, that's something else. Anyway... (laughter) When you process this film you're sort of getting - we're letting the fellow get his records straight. Let's say the whole studio, all this time, was doing nothing but sit around and worry about that picture he made about "Forth from Firth of Forth" or something which laid enough eggs to keep the area supplied in poultry products for a long while. And they keep worrying about this. And they say, "Gee, we made this picture 'Forth from Firth of Forth,' Gee! We made this picture and there it is" and so on, and they get to the point where they think that's the only picture they've got. That's how irrational they get. And they say, "This is all the picture we've got." So they keep running out and insisting on showing everybody "Forth from Firth of Forth." They will keep on not making money. They'll keep dramatizing this engram called "Forth from Firth of Forth," What you want to do is show them that "Forth of Firth of Forth" is not a permanent production. It is, after all, just another picture, and that they probably have hundreds of thousands or even millions of better pictures around, and they should show those. Well, unfortunately they will give you an argument quite often and say, "Well, we've got to go on showing this picture." And you say, "Well, no, you haven't." And they say, "Well, we have to." And so you pull an awful stunt on them, you say, "Well, show it to me. Run it off for me." Well, when you run it off with auditing, you start him in at the moment he made it. He thinks he's just projecting it, perhaps, but you start him in into the first moment of production on it and you run through the actual production of this picture - the intention of the company with regard to this prodyction and everything that was produced - and you run it through clear to the end. And then you tell him, "Well, I didn't quite understand this picture. Let's get that production sequence over again." By the time you've done this two or three times, the emulsion is getting kind of - well, the picture is getting kind of thin. Its density isn't so good and it's getting spots on it that look like halation spots - bad recording is going on there - and all of a sudden they got a blank piece of film in their hands. What you've done is play back this film and rub it out against the material universe, You've rubbed it out again. It might have had an awful influence upon the company at the time it was made, and have had ever since a bad influence upon this company, but after you have knocked out this piece of celluloid it isn't going to trouble anybody anymore. Then you sort of have to coax the person along - "Well, let's look in the files and see what else you've got." And he finds out all of a sudden that he doesn't have anything else in the files to worry about; that most of them were good pictures. So they go out and exhibit some pictures that are good pictures or they go out on a location and take some new pictures, and you don't have to worry about them anymore. And that's approximately what you're doing. I put it in these terms and it's more comprehensible, but you possibly think I am oversimplifying it. No. The manufacture of motion pictures is actually more complicated than the manufacture of theta recordings which - known to us as facsimiles. More complicated. In the first place, you had these processes natively, and they had to develop films. Films have weight and mass and they're hard to store and they put cricks in your back carrying them around, Well, running off a film, a projectionist in running off a film, is not likely to get any cricks in his back particularly. But if you were to make him go out on production and pack around all of the props that he had packed around once before, he'd get a crick in his back. You get the idea. By running the production of the film again, why, you will get all the pains and agonies of the film. The unfortunate part of it is that you're running just film. You're not running physical universe energy or effort really You're just running pictures of it and so the whole thing reduces or erases and goes. Doesn't trouble anybody anymore. The entire difficulty with the human mind is that it is in an unfiled state. Hardly anybody can get to any of his pictures. Hardly anybody can get to them. And there are various processes in this science by which an individual can get to these pictures. Now what happens, really, is that the top pictures get too heavy by being old hat, by being something that has been done a lot of times. And they get boring; they're not very interesting. They get all sorts of things wrong with them because of the precedent of prcxluction. One of the production managers or one of the directors or something of the stat might be said to have had a fixation on the time he made this picture when he was very young and the picture was a terrible failure, so he's been trying to justify this failure ever since by making pictures just like it. He's been trying to get people to accept this film that he made when he was young because this says that he was right then and that's actually what the mind is trying to do. It makes a very bad picture and then it keeps on insisting that it was a good picture. And it keeps on apologizing and demonstrating it to the body. It keeps on to the world at large saying, "This is a good picture, this is a good picture - there's nothing wrong with this. Now you've got to take a look at this! Nothing wrong with me, wrong with me, wrong with me, wrong with me. I'm not crazy, crazy, crazy. Look, perfectly logical and normal. And the reason why I keep running down the street on one foot and jumping into the curb on one foot and saying,'Squeeze me' is just - is just because - is just because - well, I had - I had - I read a hook once and it said that was the way to get rid of the pip," and you get some remarkable explanations. That's exaggerated, but not very much. You have somebody saying, "Well, the reason you have to punish these little kids is because you have to make them good." Whereas obviously if you keep on punishing children you're going to make them bad. Now people have been observing the fact that the more they punish children, the meaner they were to children, the worse the children got. They've been observing this now for a number of millennia - and they continue to punish children. Then they go over, once in a while, completely the opposite polarity and they say, "Well, there isn't any reason whatsoever to punish children. We're going to let the child express itself." So they don't train the kid at all. They don't ever show the kid what's in this material universe around him, they just let the kid sort of run off automatic. And the kid runs off on it, harassed here and there, and this and that, and rattles around and gets in trouble and falls down and isn't trained to do anything, and gets an exaggerated idea of the world around him and his role in this particular life, and has an awful time. That's the tendency of modern child psychology. Actually there's only a couple of things you have to do to a kid to bring him up along the line. Just when you give him something - make sure you gave it to them and that they own it afterwards. Don't keep on controlling it. And don't contradict a child and keep changing his mind when there's no need for it. Try to examine his demands as real or unreal and act accordingly. Because if you keep validating his unreal demands by punishing them or doing something else about it you're going to ruin his reality. You can see how that is. So here you have irrational practices going along madly. Well, when did this irrational practice of punishing children first come along? Well, the fellow made a production of being punished way back sometime or other, and he determined that he was going to get even with people for having punished him, so he started punishing people to demonstrate to them why you shouldn't punish people. And then the next thing you know, he was saying, "Well, you have to punish people" - because he's already punished somebody, he has to justify his action. This is the way it works. Now these films have the strange characteristic of puppetizing the human body. As long as an individual has his file in a bad condition, those files can react and act upon the human body, changing its form and structure. There's a great deal of argument, perhaps, in the world concerning whether or not structure monitors function or function monitors struclure. This is a large bone of contention. Any time you start to advance to an individual who is trained and believes the idea that structure changes the mind and that the mind does not change structure, you're going to have an argument on your hands because he's going to stick to his guns very solidly. You don't have to work very hard to prove this to him. I worked in the field of endocrinology until I was satisfied that function handles structure. Because you could shoot a person with hormones all over the place and get no results, but you could pick up a couple of aberrations and then shoot him with honrwnes, and the hormones now would take effect. Other words, the brain was inhibiting the absorption of hormones into the system. This was proof enough for me, but if you want a better proof, it lasts in this: Well, most of these new drugs just work because people think they work. And although nearly everyone considers this bad, it is a direct proof that function handles structure. And if you want to hoist the engineer with his own petard as it says in Shakespeare, just quote the opinion of people who believe that structure monitors function. They have been saying all the time the only reason this has any effect on people is because they just think it has. If a person can just think that it has an effect, and it has an effect, he's certainly using function to modify structure, and it is proven in that breath. A doctor actually can issue flour and water pills - lots of flour and water pills. And when he's issued the flour and water pills and has told the patient that these are the newest remedy and they've just come out of Blitz and Blatz Laboratories; and that they are okayed and thoroughly tested by the American Medical Association, Good Housekeeping magazine and other organizations; the patient goes home, takes them and gets well. That is a direct proof, as direct as you want, that function monitors structure. If you were to take a new drug and shoot eighty people without telling them it would do anything for them, your results, let us say, would be 10 percent effectiveness. Let's just say that's 10 percent effectiveness. But if ytw were to take eighty people and give them a tremendous sales talk on this wonderful new concoction and then shoot them with distilled water, forty of them would get well. This is a test, by the way, that was used to determine some cause for ulcers. And they decided that ulcers were therefore just attributable to the imagination, and therefore shouldn't be treated. What you should then use on them was surgery. I didn't follow this "logic" but it was the logic in the article which I read on the subject Because they shot a long series of patients with distilled water - telling them that it was a new drug that would cure ulcers - and 50 percent recovered from their ulcers. In other words you get very positive results handling this from the viewpoint function handles structure. And you get rather poor results trying to make structure handle function. Now, these films can definitely alter the studio. They definitely do. If a fellow gets enough bumps on the head and starts wearing these films, his forehead shape will modify. The best proof of this is to take some of the films and reduce or erase them and throw them away or put them back in their proper files or do something like that to them, and see that the shape of the forehead will alter. As a good auditor you should be able to see a change in the preclear's facial structure after every session. It should be that marked. It should be marked enough so that you can detect it. Now, I hope you have a little bit better understanding of what yoll're doing. As soon as you introduce the factor that you are handling a lot of unknowns - a lot of x's, a lot of Q factors - that you don't know about and you wish you did, but they aren't something or other, and "they might if," and all of that sort of thing, you're not going to do a good job. Because, you see, you're introducing factors into the machine that aren't there. You're trying to handle film by assuming that all film, let us say, is made on lead plates, and it's not. But if you keep on insisting that - the film is made on lead plates, you're going to try to handle lead plates and you won't be filing film. You'll be filing lead plates that aren't there. And this is difficult to do. So what you want to do is establish it very clearly in your mind - forcefully if necessary to yourself - this is film on which is recorded by fifty or more perceptic channels, images of the physical universe. And I'm handling images of the physical universe and the intention of the person about these images, and that's all you're processing. There's no other bugbears, You're not suddenly going to have a preclear divide in half or develop wings and fly away or something Like that. You're not going to learn later in this course that all of this, really, was very interesting, but what you should do to heal the mind is hit the preclear over che head with a rubber balloon. And this is not going to change. This has been standard for a long time now. Actually, this concept of film and its erasure and so forth in its basic understanding has been in existence now for over fourteen years and there are an awful lot of people well through this standpoint and viewpoint. You're not handling a lot of extras, you're not handling a lot of Q factors, you're not handling a lot of bric-a-brac. Take for instance language. Language is very interesting, but it's certainly not very important. Language is a code system. You, as a ship, are capable of hanging up certain flags which another person, as a ship, could then read and be informed about. Those flags are words. Your thought preceded the flags and his thought succeeds the reading of your flags, Now these thoughts, by the way, have long since come to a definite and positive agreement about what these flags mean. You're both operating out of the same signal book. He isn't operating out of MERSIGS while you're operating out of the US Code of the Weather Bureau. You're both speaking English. You both know what it means. Or you're both speaking Japanese or something of the sort. And if words are come into dispute, you have words by which you can define words to each other. "This is what I mean by ..." Language has been overstressed in its importance because it's something like - arguing about language would be something like two naval officers engaging in a terrific dispute about the plan of attack of the last battle they were in, solely and only by discussing the original and basic meanings of Able, Boy, Cast, Dog, Easy, FoX, as flags. In other words, they would never get down to talking about the battle at all, they would be talking about the signal flags. Of course, this is a great academic, scholastic mechanism to keep from talking about anything important. If you talk about the signal flags and only about the signal flags long enough, why, you can completely obviate, obfuscate and ruin anybody who is trying to talk sense. Did you ever, by the way, talk to anybody who would break down your conversation in the middle and define a word for you? You're going along very happily and you said, "yakety-yakety-yakety-yak" and you were telling them something or other. And yc,u're trying to tell them about this concept that you have concerning the driving of a car. You've just learned the idea that cars have to be sped up to go round a corner and you say, "So you accelerate..." And he says, "Now wait - wait - what - what did you say?" You say, "You accelerate." Now, you have a picture of accelerating. He could have a picture of it too if he were not down at 0.6 or below on the Tone Scale, because that's where he is. And he says, "Accelerate. Now, what do you mean by accelerate?" And you say, "Well, go faster." And he says, "Well, accelerate, you're talking about going round a curve. Accelerate, accelerate. Now, could you mean the - uh - um-uh - vernacular acceleration or something like that?" And you say, "No, no, just acceleration. You know, go faster." You're trying to give him another code signal. He doesn't want that code signal. He's all hung up on the fact that you flew the wrong flag for him, and that's all he can think of. It's like two ships going along. One ship says to the other one "William aueen George." In other words, "You're going aground," And the other ship conies back and says "'George' is a signal which is only used when you have a rear admiral or superior rank aboard. Now why have you used the signal 'George'?" And of course, he goes aground and actually so does any individual who would play this trick on you. He'll eventually go aground, very grandly aground. Not on your shoals, but he'll make himself so highly antipathetic to everybody around him that he'll eventually go out of contact and out of sustenance. His body's in bad shape anyway. He's pretty low Tone Scale when he does this. In other words, you'll find lots of people who will stand around and talk about signals to you. And you can sit down with those people and you can clarify the whole code of signals. You can say, "Now look, we're operating out of this. Basic English if you please. And you use that dictionary and I'll use the same dictionary and I'll look up the words before I use them. And you look up the words after I've used them and therefore we'll know exactly what we're talking about." And the fellow will say, "Well now, how do you mean 'accelerate'?" You say, "It means 'go faster.'" He says, "Well now, accelerate is ..." That is broken communication, and very, very low on the Tone Scale an individual will break communications. He will find an excuse not to read your flags. All right. Language: a word is no more and no less than a symbolic sound code of the physical universe in action or in static, and refers to nothing more than a condition or lack of condition of beingness for the physical universe. Words are all physical universe because they are designed to go on a physical universe system - sound system or eye system. Visual-sonic signaling should be the classification for language, because it's all it is. There are meanings and thoughts behind these and believe me, we have all lived in the physical universe and we all know, actually, what this physical universe is composed of. And so therefore there's no faintest chance of us describing the wrong universe when we're using the language, In other words, you'll find language as a barrier sometimes. For instance, the only reason why this science is not easily taught to old psychotherapists is because they have gotten up a code book which is a useless code book, and I say that quite bluntly without any intention of insult. By the way, I quote them about the uselessness of their code book. The professor of psychology at the University of Illinois wrote the most damning article on the subject of psychiatric and psychological classification I've ever read damning anything. Why, it was gorgeous. He said: "All we've done is label, label, label, label and we have not found out the meaning of anything!" So you come along with the meaning of something and you run into a barrage of labels. You say, "This preclear." And they say, "What do you mean 'preclear'?" And you say, "Well this - this person I'm trying to clear," "Uh, what do you mean 'clear'?" "Well, it's a state whereby a person's film is all filed in the right thing. He's got his marbles on the right rack." And he said, "Marbles, marbles. I used to play marbles when I was - what were you talking about?" And you say, "Well, now the best thing that I can do" you'd say, "in order to teach you to use this material is to show you that there's such a thing as a postulate or a lock. Now a postulate or a lock is a thought and so forth." "Oh," he says, "you're talking about the libido theory. The libido super-complex unrelated theory. Oh yes, Freud thought that up. Yes, we know all about this. Now, as we were saying, the only thing good for this patient is electric shock." And you say, "Just a minute, we're talking about a lock. A lock. The way you run a lock. An individual is home, he gets - has an unhappy experience; that is to say, he records something unhappy. He comes back to see you again and you're unable to work with him because he's thinking about this unhappy thing all the time. Now, what you do is send him back to the beginning of this thing and tell him to reexperience all the way through." "Oh," he says, "psychodrama. Yes, well we know all about psychedrama. We've done that for a long time, but the trouble is when they ask their mother to represent the devil or their father to represent the devil, they seldom cooperate so it doesn't work." You say, "No." Yes, I know I'm probably being very insulting, but I'm only talking out of slight exasperation. I feel like a fellow who is standing out there in a scout vessel and I've just said, "I have sighted the enemy. They are traveling at thirty-three knots north northwest and they are proceeding in a wing formation. Where are your bombers? Where are your bombers?" And they keep sending back and they say, "Where is your requisition for the twelve pairs of dungarees which you ordered?" It's an exasperating position to be in. Because actually it would take practically no time at all to retrain every psychotherapist in the business so that he could go into his office in the morning, sit down to his chair, patients come in - swamp, swamp, swack, swack, bang, bang - guys walk out the door, good shape, everything's fine. Instead of that he goes into his office in the morning and says, "I know what I know doesn't work. These people come in here - they're crazy, and they leave crazy. And after I work them for two, three, seven years, they're still crazy. I know I'm failing." They know this, and as human beings down deep they suffer from it. You can't keep failing like this without really suffering. And here we are, all we're saying is, "Hey look, you don't have to keep on flubbing the dUb." And they say, "Flubbing the dub. Yes, I know that word! You mean we're flubbing the dub?" In other words, I get to a point where I'm willing to use any code system. > There's actually thousands of people ... (Recording ends abruptly) ========================