 This is December 2nd, first hour night class and we have tonight this
 first lecture on the axioms. 
 
 We have the axioms more or less accumulated in ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND
 AXIOMS, and in the HANDBOOK FOR PRECLEARS. ADVANCE PROCEDURES AND AXIOMS is
 the later issue. There's a whole rundown of axioms. There's about two hundred
 and ten axioms. 
 
 These axioms are divided into the logics and in axioms, now logics 
 and axioms. All right, why do we have this division? It's because the logics
 apply and seem to apply at the time to a behavior level of thought which was
 persistent and consistent and didn't necessarily apply to Homo sap .. 
 sapie.. sapiens. Excuse me, Homo sap uh.. it didn't necessarily apply to him.
 But the axioms themselves as listed in ADVANCE PROCEDURES AND AXIOMS and 
 HANDBOOK FOR PRECLEARS apply to Homo sapiens. That's why they're in that 
 group. For Homo sapiens every thought is preceded by a counter-effort. Now 
 that's one level of thinking. That's to some degree stimulus response 
 thinking. 
 
 That's not true of a thetan. And so the logics as listed in ADVANCE 
 PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS apply generally to thought, thought and its behavior in
 any activity. And the axioms, I say, apply peculiarly to Homo sapiens. So
 let's pay then attention on these logics and axioms, particularly to the 
 logics and then let me tell you that there is a thing above the logics. And
 that's what I'm going to talk to you first about. 
 
 There is a series, a whole series, numbering about five, something 
 like that, above the level of logic and above the level of axiom. Now just 
 for pure cussedness, I've been calling these things the Qs. Just.. just for
 orneriness.. uh.. just the letter Q, a mathematical symbol which maybe stands
 for quotient and maybe it stands for quatrain and maybe it stands for 
 quarantine. We're not interested in that. We'll just call them the Qs, just a
 mathematical designation to differentiate them from other things. 
 
 Actually, Q can be defined this way: it is the level from which we 
 are now viewing, which is a common denominator to all experience which we can
 now view. This is the level from which we're viewing all experience, and 
 which does, by the way, act as a common denominator to all this experience,
 and the Q is the highest level from which we're operating. This data then, 
 these Qs, would stand behind everything else that we do. 
 
 And.. the first one of these and its corrollaries would stand as 
 something.. you know LIBERTY MAGAZINE puts a good picture they used to put 
 four stars, give it importance.. and ah.. in books they very often underscore
 and put things in italics. Well, you want to put this first Q in italics 
 about.. in your auditing, is in your auditing. You want to put it in italics
 about 125 feet tall and then put 10 to the 21st power binary digits of 
 asterisks after it. It's took a long time to get th1s one.. but what you can
 do with it is phenomenal. It's nothing short of phenomenal. What you can do
 with this Q, and that of course would be the definition.. the noble level of
 definition now of theta. And we can say then that the highest activity which
 we now reach is self-determinism in these terms. Self-determinism of theta is
 the ability to locate in space and time, energy and matter, and to create 
 space and time with which to create and locate energy and matter. That's 
 number one. 
 
 We ought to have a very good idea what this means. Let's state it 
 another way. Let's take.. let's take self-determinism. We know that.. the 
 more self-determined we make a preclear why that's.. that's fine. Uh.. he..
 he gets better. His self-determinism keeps rising; he gets better and better
 
 -109- 
 

 and better. All right, that's fine. Then what is the limit which we can now 
 attain on something which probably has no limit? And what limit can we attain
 and define with accuracy? And then having attained it and defined it, how can
 we apply it and will it apply? 
 
 All right. Now that means then that here you have something which 
 has.. that's.. that's theta. See it.. it has no wave length, it has no 
 position in space, any space, it has no position in time. It hasn't any form,
 it hasn't any shape, but it has an individuality for the individual and it 
 has it's own ability to be its own beingness and it can locate things in 
 space and time. And when I say things, I mean energy and matter. It could not
 only do that, but it can create space, in time, in order to create.. energy 
 and matter. Now it can do all of those things, that's.. that's.. then 
 therefore our Q is a potential. You could call it a capability. 
 
 Now I won't say how many other capabilities theta has, hut in this 
 universe or in the universe which you create we KNOW it has those 
 capabilities. We're.. we're sure of this. This is a good anchor to windward; 
 this is a brick wall; this is a fortress. This is stuff. This is really good.
 
 Now a datum is really just as good to an individual as it's workable, 
 it's no better than that. Even though it were going to be addressed to the 
 aesthetic world, even though it were going to be addressed to aesthetics. 
 Does it produce an aesthetic effect? That means it's workable. So don't get 
 WORKABLE down there with digging ditches. 
 
 Will it do what we're supposed to be able to do with it? Now, will it 
 do these things or won't it do these things? When we make that statement 
 about theta, we follow that thing out, we say all right this is the theory, 
 let's now see if with it we can predict the existence of new phenomena which 
 when looked for will be found to exist. And sure enough.. sure enough. This 
 predicts data. It predicts phenomena and if you use it in auditing, it keeps 
 increasing the individual capability up, up, up, up, up with a very sure, 
 good, solid gain. So far, there've been no exceptions to this. It's not a 
 variable then, it's a constant. 
 
 Now this isn't everything that theta can do. This only says.. this 
 only says that we know for sure from the plane we're operating on that theta 
 could have or does create the space, and energy and matter which is the MEST 
 universe and can rove the energy and matter around in the MEST universe. And 
 that, at the same time, it can create space and energy to make another 
 universe. We know these two conditions exist. We can see those existing, 
 and.. uh.. we can experience them. And actually, for man, a datum is just as 
 good as he can experience it. And if he can experience a datum very broadly, 
 it could be said to be a good usable workable datum. And if he.. it.. it's 
 just as.. we.. we might have some thundering fundamental capital Truth here. 
 
 We.. we might have some terrific truth and it could be stated, it
 could be stated, by K + Y over the square root of the minus Zed equals cats
 tails. 
 
 And you say, "Cats tails? I don't have much to do with cats tails."
 And you would say, "Well, that's the truth behind cat tails. K + Y over the
 square root of minus Zed." "Humph." 
 
 You say, "Well, so what?" 
 
 But you say, "Look, man's search for this answer as far as cats tails 
 were concerned; this applies not only to Persian cats but to Siamese and not 
 only to Siamese but to alley cats." No workability. 
 
 -110- 

 It doesn't matter how true the datum is then. It.. It's how well can 
 you make it work and how such work will it do for you. Well, this datum.. 
 this datum is really a nice big draft horse. It's a big super.. ah.. ah.. 
 super engine sitting in the local power station. It's atomic power. This 
 thing.. this thing, you can make things like.. you can make things like, oh I 
 don't know. You can even make little things.. you can even make small 
 unimportant and nonpowerful things like H-bombs with it. Because compared to 
 it, they're not the same order of magnitude. 
 
 What are you talking about? You're talking about this phenomenal 
 thing this.. this.. this phenomenal thing which actually has an existence. 
 
 How do we know it has an existence? Because you get a preclear up the
 line and all of a sudden he says, "Hey!" He's been telling you all the time 
 he's retreated into space to such a degree that he's dispersed so he keeps 
 telling you, "I'm not in space anyplace." Well, you know where he is, he's.. 
 he's gotta be collected before he can find the space he's in in order to get 
 out of that and get into his own space so he can get out of that and not be 
 in any space. 
 
 Well, here he is.. here he is, then thoroughly collected and then he 
 controls space and then he all of a sudden he'll say, "Hey, isn't this 
 wonderful, there's no space around here." Otherwise he'll say, "Well, I don't 
 think I'm there at all. Really I'm probably.. probably out, I'm probably 
 outside this universe." No, you don't want that. The guy discovers this as a 
 wonderful datum - there's no motion, there's no space where he is. It's very 
 comfortably so. No motion, no space. You say, "Make some space." 
 
 He'll say, "Okay," zing, zing, "there's a space." 
 
 "Now unmake it." 
 
 "Why?" 
 
 "Well, go ahead, unmake it." "Why?" The guy says, "Why should I? I 
 just put something in it!" 
 
 Hey you know that's very interesting, you know. Skip it. I mean, 
 you.. you're not going to be able to audit this boy. 
 
 That's no kidding. Of course, of course that is so high above any 
 preclear you ever find and don't ever let one get away with it, because he's 
 w-a-a-y up there. He's way up there. He'd be so able that he could actually 
 nock something up that was brighter and shinier and had greater workability 
 than this stuff which is kinda old and messed around with and kinda stale and 
 mildewed and it's.. it's sad too. This stuff is sad. It says, "Here I have 
 been serving you and we were built for you and you can use this universe and 
 we have given our all to help you out, and eh so on. And we built all this 
 for you and you must be careful how you use it," and so on. That's a fact. 
 Ah.. that's.. ah.. you'll find preclears way down tone scale dramatizing this 
 as auditors. You just get them to have the beautiful sadness of being the 
 last auditor on Earth. They're way down tone scale, can't get out of their 
 bodies, they.. nothing is.. but they're auditing like mad, and you.. you.. 
 you, "Now get the beautiful sadness of being the last person on Earth, nobody 
 else here, you freed everybody. Now get the beautiful sadness of everybody 
 going away and the last couple of preclears looking at you and saying, "Well, 
 goodbye, I'm sorry we couldn't take you with us. Now get the beautiful 
 sadness of that and get that little statue, the small statue there that they 
 made of you and so on and you can sit there and look at that statue while the 
 others are all gone, see." 
 
 -111- 

 He'll say, "Yes. Hey, wait a minute!" He says, "This is the way I 
 feel." 
 
 Well, that's the way MEST feels.. if.. if you really start 
 penetrating and plopping around in it. It's interesting stuff. Well anyway..
 of course you can make it feel any way youi want to. But.. uh.. it does have a
 native feel. 
 
 All right, your Q, produces your universes along very definite lines,
 such as the MEST universe. Or it produces universes of completely ephemeral
 lines, or it doesn't produce a universe at all. Self- determinism. But in 
 order to produce a universe you first would have to be able to pretty will 
 handle a universe. And a universe can be patterned to have eight dynamics. 
 This one is. But you could have a universe with eighty-two dynamics, sixteen
 dynamics, and square root space. What's square root space? I don't know. I 
 never made any square root space. I've made cube root space, and logarithmic
 space, but logarithmic space is a lot of fun. Let me te11 you about 
 logarithmic sp.. 
 
 Gee, does a guy get fouled up traveling in logarithmic space. It's 
 wonderful. There's twisted space too. You can make twisted space. You can 
 make all these, anything you can draw a mathematical symbol for, you can make
 that kind of space. Furthermore, you can experience that kind of space, which
 is better than you can do with a mathematical formula. And it's quite 
 interesting to make some space and experience it and so forth. 
 
 Yeah, well, anyway, getting back to Earth again. We have.. we have,
 then, this as our highest level of attack. This is above the level of 
 survival; it is above the level of beingness. It is way above the level of 
 action. Oddly enough, it's above the level of identity, as such. But it is 
 way up at the top level of individuality. People have had the idea that when
 you got up there along top.. of course, you know you have to kind of get up
 there a little bit and take a look to see if there's anything much higher, 
 and.. uh.. people have had the idea that this.. this.. ah.. there was just a
 main body of theta and everybody became one when you got to the top of the 
 tone scale. Fortunately, that isn't true. 
 
 Yeah. But you go down tone scale and everybody becomes one and the 
 oneness is MEST. And there's no individuality whatsoever in MEST. This chair
 does not care who lifts it around. Doesn't matter who lifts it around, could
 be a member of the Fifth Invader Force or you or me or anybody. It doesn't 
 matter. Somebody could jump in here from anyplace under the sun and move the
 chair around. It doesn't say, "Excuse me," it doesn't say, "I hurt." It is 
 the true brotherhood of the MEST universe. It's a brotherhood. It's.. it's 
 gone to a point, though, where it doesn't even wear a badge. 
 
 But it has an ident1ty. This is a chair. And not only that, this is
 the chair that stands on this lecture platform and it is a black chair, and..
 I don't even think it would know if we named it.. if we named it.. uh.. 
 Mahidable. But we could call this the chair named Mahidable. There it is. 
 
 I notice after I let it sit there that 1t.. it just sits there. It 
 didn't get up. It didn't, say, it didn't adjust itself back to where it was
 before. It didn't do anything at all. I could came over here and kick this 
 chair a little bit. Did it say, "Ouch?" Maybe 1t felt ouch. I don't know.. 
 that but it didn't say, "Ouch." It's just an identity, with no individuality.
 
 Individuality depends upon being able to make identities. And what do
 you know about a little kid? He runs around. He's Buck Rogers, he's in.. in
 the old days, he was Jesse James. In the days before that, he was Dick Turpin
 
 -112- 

 or somebody else. I imagine once upon a time they were.. all little kids were
 running around being Richard the Lionhearted, then earlier than that they 
 were all rushing around being Merlin or earlier than that, why, God knows. I
 imagine in Rome the little Kids ran up and down with.. with, uh.. without 
 even wooden swords in their hands being Julius Caesar. But they'd be Julius
 Caesar this afternoon and Tiberius tomorrow and Caligula the next day. They
 didn't care how many identities. But if you asked this little kid, "Are you
 an individual?" Oh boy. He sure was. 
 
 The mostest individuality he ever has in Homo sapiens's lifespan is 
 when he's a little kid. His concept of dignity when he is a small child is 
 something that would completely ruin some of the elderly matrons who chuck it
 under the chin and say, "Itsy bitsy goochie woo." This kid looks at them, 
 looks could kill. 
 
 Now, here then.. here then we're talking about an ultimate 
 individuality that is attainable. And when I say ultimate I don't mean 
 absolute. There's probably a lot of individuality left as we go up from 
 there, probably a LOT of it. There's probably a lot of other things that can
 be done. 
 
 I know of three frames positively outside this universe. There's a 
 universe outside this universe and there's a universe outside that and its 
 set of universes, and there's a universe outside that universe. And I know 
 the one beyond that. And it's not necess.. they're not necesarily getting 
 thinner or more unsubstantial but they don't in according to the same laws.
 E equals MC squared won't work in 'em. That is not a native characteristic of
 energy. It just happens to he. 
 
 Now this universe might be called.. it could be that this MEST 
 universe is the inevitable average of agreement, the inevitable average of 
 illusion. If you.. if you had a bunch of people and.. and they kept mocking
 up illusions and necking imp illusions, and agreeing and agreeing, you might
 say that it would become the inevitable average of this agreement amongst 
 illusions. Now I wouldn't know that that holds good but it happens that it 
 night happen over such a long.. long phase of time. That's horrible. Ah.. it
 might happen over such a large mass as the MEST universe. The MEST universe
 is a large mass, not a long time. 
 
 Now there being a large mass this might have come into being because
 of that. I don't know that. But I do know.. I do know that I have already 
 seen enough of universes to know that they don't run on the same laws. That's
 very very astonishing. And I do know that every individual is perfectly 
 capable of making one. Well, don't say that it has to be just a little tiny
 one that you'd keep in a jewel box or anything of the sort. It could be 
 probably pretty big. 
 
 How many universes could you have in the available.. universes? Of 
 course the number is infinity. This MEST universe, being a postulated 
 dimension which you agree upon, could very easily.. if we're speaking of 
 dimension, you have a postulated dimension, all you've got to do is.. is 
 change its space coordinates just a little bit and it can sit right there. 
 You.. if you see.. space can't even be coincident. You get.. the truth of the
 natter is you can't even talk about one piece of space crossing another apiece
 of space in view of the fact that space is a postulated agreement and if.. if
 space is a postulated agreement, the only way you could get one piece of 
 space sitting across another piece of space would be a very simple thing. You
 could have a fellow say, let's see, "Up IS, front IS and width IS, but width
 is also up here 45 degrees and up is slightly down to the left and this is 
 width." And he's got those two sections of space simultaneously. 
 
 -113- 

 Now wouldn't he be in horrible shape. He's got two sections of space
 simultaneously and he's trying all the tine he's got these two sections, 
 these two pieces of dimension.. You see, the only reason they're scrambled is
 because he's on a.. on a maybe. And then maybe he has a space that he calls
 time and he keeps shoving this space he calls tine around. 'Course, if 
 doesn't go anyplace. But.. and he's all fouled up on the subject of time but
 he's got another space that kind of introduces itself on him all the time.
 
 What do you know, that's your preclear. He doesn't know.. he doesn't
 know any difference really between MEST universe space and his own universe
 space. He's never differentiated between the two. He's still holding on to
 the one and trying to view the other. People who have directional reversals,
 people who do the darndest things with regard to space, it's fascinating. 
 
 You.. you.. some person will go out and he'll look at the stars and
 he sees the heavens in three dimensions, just as nice as you please. Well,
 he's got a pretty good idea of space. And the thing about it is, is he will
 tell you which is the furthest star, which is the further star. You'd check
 it up on your maps. It isn't the brightness of the star that measures its 
 distance because some of the very bright stars are quite far away and some of
 the dim stars are quite close. And he'll say that, "Well, that star is quite
 a distance and then all those other stars are way behind that. I.. I can see
 that from where I am." You can say he couldn't possibly have that small a 
 parallax and still be able to measure it. Couldn't possibly. And yet you look
 it up on an astronomy chart what he's just told you and you get the same 
 dimensions. 
 
 Now.. this.. you get an approximation of what he was trying to tell
 you. Yeah, now that's.. those.. that bright star IS further than those two
 dim stars. They see depth in space. Well, they'd.. they'd have a pretty good
 concept of the dimensions of this universe if they were doing something like
 that. 
 
 The other fellow goes out and gee, some of those stars appear to be
 floating about a foot above his head. He just doesn't have any distance to
 those stars at all and they're all flat. And somebody else goes out and 
 they're all tipped some other way. He can see plainly that the heavens run
 off that way and he goes.. as you get further to the south, why they're just
 going up. Maybe you'd observe this closer if you'd just ask a few people how
 stars look to then. And if you ask them searchingly they will tell you that
 there is a difference in observation of space, which is the only point I'm
 making here. There's differences. 
 
 What's this got to do with auditing? Well, it has really everything
 to do with auditing. You will notice.. give you a practical example of this.
 I've consistently with mock-ups told people to move it to the right, to move
 it to the left, to put it above their heads, behind their backs and under 
 their feet. I've told them to put it a distance from them, bring it close to
 them. Told them to put it out in the street, up on the wall, here, there. 
 What am I doing? I'm changing the position of an object.. in space. And it is
 more important to change the position of the mock-up in space than it is to
 change its color or anything else. Location in space. And that starts up and
 becomes about the high.. the high-level function in processing then because,
 why? The effort.. the effort and thought of your preclear is to attain 
 self-determinism and self-determinism could be said to be an effort to attain
 the goals of theta. 
 
 And the goals of theta which we can observe - and it maybe has many
 more goals - is to locate energy and matter in space and time; and to locate,
 additionally - quite an addition - and create space that you can locate 
 
 -114- 

 energy and matter in. So when we start in with processing, why, we be very 
 sure that we're relocating all the time. What's the biggest trouble he has?
 That first little trouble you run into with a pc? He can't move it around. 
 This surprises him a great deal. He knows you need 10 ton trucks, winches, 
 chains, everything else to move something. 
 
 Well, now we'll have to take up time later on but time is a quite
 finite and very, very easily understandable thing so let's not stress time
 right at here, at this point. 
 
 Let's take that as a goal level of theta. This means then in 
 processing to restore self-determinism you make your strongest effort, and 
 actually your only effort, the attainment of the goals of theta, and the 
 goals of theta are its capabilities. Capability is theta. Q one: Theta is..
 no wave length in it, no position in time and space, has no mass, has no 
 duration, hasn't any one of these things, but it has the potential or 
 capability of locating in space and time, energy and matter and creating.. 
 creating space in which to create energy and matter. And that's.. it's all 
 there are to it. 
 
 Now, that.. that.. that's.. that's.. how'd.. how anyone get to any 
 such a.. any.. any such a conclusion? Then you'll.. you'll watch this work..
 you'll watch this work with a deadlines that you will begin to wonder, for 
 God's sakes what have I got re hands on here, every now and then. Because 
 actually it.. you're.. you're working all out. 
 
 Now, someday I'll find a higher Q or you will or somebody else will.
 They can do something out and beyond and broader than that. And when that is
 attained, why, we'll have another big surge forward in capabilities. 
 
 But this Q about which I am telling you now was a goal, I said that 
 there were several echelons and that we were going through the second echelon
 of knowledge with effort processing. And we're slightly into the fringes of a
 third echelon. Well, we just busted through the roof of the third echelon. 
 
 Now, what lies in the fourth echelon? I don't know. But I know that 
 visible and usable and for the first time really satisfactorily usable, on a
 broad level, is this Q-1 because with this, the second you start using this
 your preclear stops asking that inane guestion. 
 
 Uh.. this question is something. It becomes very hard to understand
 this question, that anybody would ask this question, but they say, "Why are
 we here? What is the reason for all this?" 
 
 You say, reason, that's point zero, about, fi.. point about fifteen
 zeros one five or something like that, wave length, capability, perception,
 reason.. "What are you talking about?" 
 
 And he'll say, "What is the reason? What do.. What do I.. What's the
 reason? I mean, why are we here?" 
 
 "Well, you mean," you say, "prior cause." "Oh, you mean there est be
 a prior cause in this universe?" 
 
 "No, no, no, why are we here?" 
 
 And you say, "What do you mean by 'Why are we here'?" 
 
 "Well just that. Why are we here?" 
 
 -115- 

 You say, "What do you mean by that?" 
 "Well I want the REASON why we're here." 
 
 "Well, look, look," you say, "Reason has to do with associative 
 processes." Now if you could associate anything you would eventually find the
 association coming back to the same point you left. You could keep going 
 around in this circle, or you could make a sp1ral out of it, anyway you want
 to. But when you say the REASON for something, you're asking for a gradient
 scale of data. So if you've got a gradient scale of data, it takes the space
 and the time in which to have a gradient scale of data. And this can go round
 and round this way. Don't ask about the gradient scale of data in a space and
 a time because it wall wind up with itself always. It can never do otherwise.
 
 Your reason applies to one universe at one time. You would apply 
 reason. Now you have to.. before you can have a reason you have to have a
 rationale. You have to have.. have to have a cause. 
 
 And when they say, "What is the reason I'm here?" They're talking 
 about.. Now look. There's.. you well know there is a cause prior to cause.
 Oh, the Greeks got around this. They did a beautiful job, did a beautiful job
 of this whole thing. They said, "Hell, now.." 
 
 Well, I could probably tell you about a much better one than the 
 Greeks. This Hindu, I've mentioned this occasionally in a lecture, the Hindus
 had an awful time. The priests were asked and asked and asked, "What's the
 world like?" 
 
 They finally said.. they finally said, "Well, the world is a.. is a 
 hemisphere," and.. and people were satisfied with that. 
 
 And they finally said, "What's the hemisphere sitting on?" 
 
 And they said, "Well, this hemisphere's sitting on.. humm.." And they
 went and did a big study and they came hack and they said, "The hemisphere is
 sitting on seven pillars." 
 
 That held them for a while and then some wiseacre, some revolutionary
 went in and busted the whole thing up and he says, "What are the pillars
 sitting on?" 
 
 And.. uh.. well, the fellow said, the priest said, "Sitting on 
 elephants, sitting on the backs of seven elephants." 
 
 Well.. well that stalled off the.. the mental, intellectual 
 revolution probably for many centuries until some wiseacre finally says, 
 "Hey, you know, I wonder what those elephants are standing on?" And he came
 back and he says to the priests, "What are the elephants standing on?" 
 
 And the priests had it all ready and they were already figured this 
 out, see, and they're just waiting for this, and they.. they had it all 
 answered. And they said, "The elephants are standing on a mud turtle and 
 it's.. and the mud turtle is sitting on mud and it's mud from there on down.
 
 That.. that finished off that one. 
 
 The early Greek tried to get around it: he kept talking about the 
 prime movers unmoved, prime mover unmoved. He had a very MESTy concept of a11
 this. He said, "If you have a universe, then you've got somebody who made the
 universe." Well, who made the fellow that made the universe? Never occurred
 
 -116- 

 to him that it might be that the fellow who made the universe didn't have to 
 be made. That.. that would be just as reasonable as the other, you see. 
 
 But, when people are asking for the reason and prior cause, they're 
 asking for something earlier on the time track. And of course, a time track 
 would always be a finite length so someplace this time track started. And if 
 you're going to explain to them the reason why, you've always got to have a 
 prior cause. And it doesn't matter how far back you go, you're going to go 
 around this way on prior causes and the only inevitable place you will wind 
 up is just where you started. And you can take any rationale, you can take 
 any subject and you can explain it circularly. You can always explain it 
 circularly and even though you are apparently taking off a big chunk of 
 knowledge and you are moving it forward for people to look at very nicely, 
 you've got a circle. Only you just haven't carried it all the way out here 
 and all the way out here and brought it all the way around here and locked it 
 up here again. 
 
 So we could do for our purposes here, for this universe you have a 
 circle and this circle is a very interesting circle of reason. And this 
 applies only to this universe. And that starts out here. 
 
 And let's say that we're going this way, and down this way you have
 inductive thinking. That goes that away. Now let's look around the other way
 and let's say we have deductive thinking. 
 
 Now you know what those are. One is.. one is you get a file of data 
 together. Deductive thinking is you get this big mass of data and you go out 
 and you hire a lot of pack rats and.. and you hire all kinds of people and 
 you just have them haul in data. And they haul in data the way we were having 
 heads hauled in there today. And they keep hauling in data and hauling in 
 data and they keep mounding it up in big piles and there's somebody sitting 
 there coordinating the data, coordinating the data, coordinating the data. 
 And trying to learn something from coordinating all this data. That is 
 deductive thought. 
 
 And they finally get enough of these data related, and so they've got
 the data related and they come to an inevitable conclusion through having
 observed all collected data. That's one way of doing it. 
 
 Here's the other way of doing it. These are both extremes. This is 
 the philosophic method. The philosophic method goes along this line. It says, 
 "You know, I guess.. so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so." And the fellow 
 looks around to see if there's any data to support this and finds there one 
 or two, says, "Well, that's all right." Otherwise no. 
 
 Inductive reasoning comes a cropper very easily because most of your 
 ancients.. You take somebody like oh.. uh.. lu.. let's take.. let's take 
 modern ones, let's take.. uh.. the repeal of Ohm's Law. Uh yeah.. Hegel was a 
 very interesting boy. Uh.. you.. you could.. The.. the Piazzi went out and 
 discovered by the way an eighth planet and the same day practically that he 
 announced the discovery of the eighth planet.. ah.. Hegel had written a book 
 proving that because seven was a perfect number, there could only be seven 
 planets. And so Piazzi's discovery of the eighth planet was like to get lost 
 in the intellectual world because they accepted Hegel. Seven was a perfect 
 number, they thought in that bracket. I mean that's uh-na-na-na, this is all, 
 uh-hum. And.. and you come along and you say to 'em, "Hey, why don't go out 
 and take a look at least at this universe." And.. and they wouldn't have 
 understood that. Science came into being on this other route: deductive. 
 
 They got so fed up with the repeal of Ohm's Law and the lack of 
 
 -117- 

 cooperation here. Practically every one of Newton's laws has been thrown into
 the ash can by so-cal1ed philosophers in the past. I mean, and people were
 more likely to accept it. They'd sit around and they'd say, "Well, now, let's
 see.. let's see, on the banks of the Nile there are crocodiles. Ah yes, there
 are crocodiles on the banks of the Nile. That's a lovely word, crocodile. 
 Here are all these jars on the banks of the Nile. The crocodile is therefore.
 is inanimate." 
  
 You say that's completely nonsequitur. Well, so it is. But they'd 
 take crocodile and they'd say a crocodile must have been named because of 
 crocks, so that proves that a crocodile is inanimate and therefore crocodiles
 don't move. 
 
 An explorer comes back in and he says, "I was down on the banks of 
 the Nile and there's.. there's this little child down on the banks of the 
 Nile and this great big crocodile jumped off the hank and was about to.." 
 
 "Wait minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. We know you're lying 
 because crocodiles can't move." 
 
 "Well, why can't they move?" 
 
 "Well, it's out there in that latest philosophic test and so forth 
 that crocodiles sit on the banks of the Nile motionlessly." And he proves it
 conclusively. 
 
 So inductive logic came into disgrace and science made a terrific 
 leap forward by insisting that it be real and when they said real they meant
 does it compare with this universe. And they went out and they compared all
 their data to this universe and then they come a cropper too. They come to an
 extreme. They gather data, and gather data, and gather data and they take 50
 million monkeys and set them down to 50 million typewriters or something of
 the sort and they.. they think if you wrote for 50 million years you would
 eventually come out with all this stuff. 
 
 No, I'm afraid that thinking takes about half of each. You.. you.. 
 you get an inductive idea. You.. you say, "You know that sort of looks like
 it's so" and you push that around a little bit and you find some data there.
 And you say, "You know, that oughta predict a whole lot of data." All right,
 it looks like data in thfs field, therefore let's sort through all the data
 in this field and see if it comes back to that same conclusion. Does it? 
 Okay, it does. That's a11 we want to know. 
 
 That's plenty. So here you could say that we're working from all data
 and over here one datum. You have a map of logic. You're.. you're working 
 over here from all data in this universe and you got yourself a whole.. ah..
 circle, so it goes from one datum and it keeps on winding right straight back
 to this datum here. 
 
 Now, the useability of one of these circles is as good as it 
 encompasses. And you've actually got to step out of this time circle, because
 that's.. that's a time circle, in order to get anyplace and look at anything
 very broadly. 
 
 You've., you've got to get off of this WHY. Why means, what is the 
 cause of it. And you say, "What is the cause of it? Well, the cause of it 
 is" oh, you mean what made it? Hell, all right." 
 
 And this guy says, "Well, what made get made it? And then what made
 what.. what made what made it?" And you just back up and you get all the 
 
 -118- 

 whole world, everything in the universe, all this pile of data, everything 
 that's in the universe, is right next door to one datum. 
 
 Now, if you get that one datum, and if that one datum would evaluate
 everything over here, you have an expanded circle about as big as one 
 universe can take. And now supposing we're embracing a lot of universes. 
 They're disrelated in times, they're disrelated in location, characteristics,
 and everything else. How in the name of common sense would you relate them?
 Well, here you would get something that would look.. look like this. There..
 there's.. there's circles, there's.. there's circles. And each one of those
 is one of these circles. See, that one and that one. 
 
 Well, you want to get these things adjusted around until they all 
 coincide here. What's there? Now, you have three or four, three or four 
 disrelated piles of data with which to evaluate a datum. Now you say this one
 datum explains all of these, and here from this one datum you've got to be 
 able to make all this data, and for each one of these circles of logic 
 there's got to be an all-data circle. 
 
 And then you can evaluate this one by this one by this one by this 
 one. Your minimum number of this is two. You have two. That'd be the minimum
 number. But it's just like you can't take a navigational position on which 
 you can count even vaguely unless you have three lines. It takes a third line
 to check two lines, so let's put this in terms of navigation and we'll take
 three and we'll have.. there's its wheel and its wheel and its wheel. What's
 there? Is that still there? Yeah, that's Q-l. 
 
 Q-1 evaluates the data of any universe. You don't have to have
 specialized data. And you see we fortunately have a large number of universes
 available. Have a very large number of universes available. 
 
 Available to you right now, you have the MEST universe and your own 
 universe. You also have somebody else's universe available. Some.. somebody's
 universe as far as logic is concerned and so forth. So you've got three 
 universes. You've got the data I'm giving you. That's a universe. You've got
 the MEST universe. Not in that order of magnitude; what I'm giving you is far
 more important. Uh.. and you've got your own universe. And of these three the
 most important one is your own, because you can be certain of it. Mostly 
 because you can he a hundred percent in control of it. And if you just start
 working up to a hundred percent in control of this universe, these two other
 universes fall into line as a category. 
 
 And what's standing there at the center of the three universes is 
 that datum, the capability of theta. 
 
 That's a theoretical capability, it's not something on which you can
 chew. It's not something on which you can feed the dog or advertise, or 
 anything of this sort. It isn't something which traditionally they say, 
 "Sense, measure, or exper1ence.' That's very great - sense, measure, or 
 experience. It's a good thing that experience is sitting there, because you
 can experience it. You can experience it with your own universe and as you go
 on up the line.. as you go well on up the line, you start to experience it 
 very broadly. You would experience 1t more and more broadly and all of a 
 sudden you'd say, "Well, I don't know what capability I eight be able to 
 obtain but I certainly have this low level capability of being able, this 
 kindergarten stuff, of.. of being able to manufacture in any space.. uh.. 
 energy, matter, objects.. uh.. and.. uh.. manufacture space in which to have
 energy and objects. I.. I can do that, that's very simple, nothing much to 
 that. I wonder what's above that level?" 
 
 -119- 

 Well, as long as a fellow is sitting using energy in a MEST object in
 the MEST universe, where everything is very nicely interdependent, in such a
 degree that he has to talk in terms and can only talk in terms of action and
 symbols for objects, now to try and go up and explain a nothingness.. You 
 see? Because it isn't a nothingness. 
 
 Theta is not a nothingness. It just happens to be an exterior thing 
 to this universe so you couldn't talk about it in this universe's terms, 
 that's all. But as far as this universe's terms are concerned, we can define
 it. And that is just a little bit of a triumph, to tell you the truth. 
 
 How did this thing get located? Well, once upon a time, sitting down
 in Phoenix and I was monkeying around and I.. I.. I knew there was something
 there, I kept bumping into it. 
 
 You know the two-dimensional.. story of the two-dimensional worms? 
 There's a two-dimensional plane and these two-dimensional worms go running 
 around and living on this two-dimensional plane and having a perfectly 
 wonderful time and they're running around, and one day one of them runs into
 a pole. Crunch. And he says, "No pole there." 
 
 So I went off and sat down for a while and I said, "You know, there 
 isn't any pole there, couldn't be any pole there, no." But of course, I'm a 
 professional pole-looker-forer. I have a.. uh.. a mania. When I get bruised 
 or something or other on some pole it's a personal affront - it isn't just a
 matter of calm orderly discovery - that a pole could be there without getting
 my permission for it. That's the way most anybody feels, by the way. That a 
 pole could be there without getting your permission - that's an insult. 
 There's only one thing you can do about it and that's go back over and look 
 at the thing. And I passed right over the ground again. And there was no pole
 there. 
 
 Well, I turned around and I came back and I ran square on into it and
 took a good look at it. 
 
 Now, here was the funny thing, here was the funny thing. I started to
 examine, I started to examine facsimiles and I found out that electronic 
 flows were generated by facsimiles. Now, I was waving a few meters and 
 cathode-ray-tubes around in the air and I was doing a very Einsteinesque, who
 has.. only.. the observer has the right to look at a meter and no other 
 right. He can observe, he preferably would stand with a blank everything in 
 front of him except a hole, and that hole would be on the needle of the 
 meter. And the only thing he's got a.. any.. any right.. right to say or see
 or do anything else is just that meter, and the number of it that.. that he 
 reads. Now that's the way you have to do this stuff. You have to limit it 
 down with terrific severity. 
 
 Well, I was a very good boy, I sat there, I read ohmmeters and 
 cathode-ray tubes, and E-meters and so on and it was just becoming more and 
 more obvious. So I.. one day I said, "I wonder if.. h.. hey, that's a funny 
 thing, I wonder if.. ah.. you know you should be able to get a DC flow. Ah. 
 All right, let's get a DC flow. Hmm. What do you know." And I said, "Well you
 can take an old facsimile here, an old facsimile there and you can put these
 two things in proximity and if you put them in close enough proximities you 
 can get a trickle of electricity going across the terminals, that's nice, 
 real nice and it measures on a cathode-ray tube, now isn't that fascinating?
 Hah!" 
 
 Well, that's fine. That's what fascimiles are for and that's one of 
 the reasons why we have experience. All right, now let's go on a little bit 
 
 -120- 

 further than that. Now, can you take this current and start reversing it? 
 ling, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, yup, yup. 
 And all of a sudden it starts to speed up and what do you know. It reads on 
 an AC meter. And you say, "That's wonderful! Look, man is basically an AC 
 generator." 
 
 Well, now let's just go just a little bit further than this aad let's
 look this over real good and let's see if we can't get a condenser action. 
 Now if we can get a condenser action, we're smack, Mac. And so I set it up to
 get a condenser action by holding and getting the preclear to hold one 
 facsimile there and to hold another facsimile there and not let them 
 discharge in any way or shape or form. Just hold them there, I don't care if
 it requires two hours, I don't care if it requires six hours, if it requires
 twelve hours, let's hold those two in place and not let them vary even 
 vaguely. 
 
 And of course, you do it for a very short time and those facsimiles
 go BOOM! It's.. it's just inevitable. You could set those things up just as
 nice as you please. 
 
 What you're getting there, you're getting.. you've got one facsimile 
 here and one facsimile here and you insist on them not going together and of
 course there's a flow already established which is trying to drive then 
 together, so you just insist on that staying there. And sometimes you have to
 hold it there for a couple of hours, but if you.. you hold it there long 
 enough, you will eventually get it going FLASH! right in your face. It's a 
 very fascinating experiment. Leave it to somebody else to make future 
 experiments. It gives you a cold. It blows your nose up and explodes a ridge
 or two into your face. 
 
 Well, I already knew from running incidents on the track that 
 facsimiles could explode. This was fairly simple. Now another datum wandered
 in. You could put a mock-up up there, you could put a.. imagine an aesthetic
 scene of sane sort and it would get dark. And you could put another aesthetic
 scene up and it'd get dark and you could put another aesthetic scene up and 
 it would get.. 
 
 You say, "Hey, wait a minute. You mean the guy's discharging himself 
 onto these aesthetic scenes." It's just as nice as you please. Isn't that 
 fascinating? 
 
 Discharge, discharge, and.. and he keeps wiping the scenes off and he
 puts another scene there and he wipes that off and he puts.. Well, what do 
 you know. Now wait a minute. If you took that scene? All right. Let's.. is 
 that scene really an electronic scene, let's find out if it really is. 
 
 Uh.. we're looking at a meter, you understand. 
 
 When we get an explosion, it isn't what the preclear feels with his
 intuition. It.. it knocks the E-meter pins off, or it burns the coils out or
 it does something like that. I mean there's noth.. nothing mild or hard to
 read.. uh.. if there's any meter left after one of these explosions 
 
 One of the boys out in California, by the way knocked the hole, not 
 only knocked a hole through the electrode of an E-meter - that is, knocked 
 yne hole right straight through the tin of the can -- but also through the 
 hand of the preclear. 
 
 Well, anyway, we took this thing, aesthetic facsimile, and took
 another mean ornery no-good facsimile, see, and took the two things and said,
 "Allright, now one, two, three BOOM!" 
 
 -121- 

 Sure enough, you move the aesthetic fascimile onto any old kind of a
 facsimile you've got from yesterday or something of the sort and you put the
 two things together with relative suddenness and you get an explosion and it
 registers on a meter. Good, good. Man creates energy, obvious. 
 
 Now let's try and take and move a couple of other old facsimiles 
 together, we can get energy there. But.. "Now wait a minute," I said. "He, 
 look.. look he created that aesthetic facsimile. That wasn't MEST universe 
 experience. The old MEST universe had left the latchstring out on that one."
 And there it was right there. 
 
 There's a.. there's a.. there's a factor that quite.. wouldn't quite
 figure. You've done a mock-up and here's this mock-up and obviously it's just
 your imagination. Now that obviously doesn't have any energy in it, and if it
 did have any energy in it.. it must have gotten it someplace else. But here's
 an instantaneous mock-up appearing. You.. you look up there, there's no 
 ridges, there's nothing. You just make this mock-up. And you take that 
 mock-up and you slap it into another facsimile and it goes pam! and zing! 
 goes the meter on the machine. 
 
 Hey, hey, hey. Is it possible that man is actually creating 
 electricity? If so, then what would take place? 
 
 So I started figuring.. already knew a lot of wavelengths come down 
 this way and that way and it would be from zero to an aesthetic band. 
 Aesthetic band's evidently along in that band someplace and then that comes
 right on down the line and gets into heavier and heavier material and links
 and forms and energy contents and masses and efforts, and what do you know.
 He can evidently create this. And what's this stuff we're looking at? This 
 stuff we're looking at is evidently some manifestation of thought. 
 
 It.. thought makes something else, makes something else, makes 
 something else and that finally winds up something else. Now you know if 
 you've ever listened to Technique 88 tapes, that we're right down the groove
 on the Technique 88 tapes saying that this universe is evidently a 
 composition of thought energy of some wave or another which has become 
 timeless. There's quite a bit of talk in there about the timelessness of 
 something. 
 
 If you've ever tried to run an apathy somatic out of anybody, you'll
 understand what I mean about timeless. MEST universe and apathy are very 
 closely related. You start to get an apathy incident, the preclear feeling 
 apathetic, you start running this out and boy that's just slow freight. You
 just grind that thing out, and you grind it out and you might as well be 
 rubbing his head against a rock. Then all of a sudden it one day occurred to
 me that, sure, timelessness. The timelessness of MEST was a sort of an 
 apathy. All right, we were already on that track, so we could say there's a
 gradient scale of thought that leads down to this. 
 
 And it wasn't this: thought is no good because it is just the same as
 electricity. I mean that would be a materialist standpoint. 
 
 Uh.. the.. uh.. a lot of people like Pasteur, or some field of 
 phrenology.. I don't know what they call themselves, phrenologists? Uh.. 
 something around that order. Uh.. philatelists. No, no it's not.. that's' 
 not.. that's not right. I'll.. I'll think of it in a minute. 
 
 Anyway, we got.. we got all this whole field was saying, "Thought is
 something else and the energy of thought isn't existing and it is something
 else than electric lights and that's a kind of electricity.." You'll find out
 
 -122- 

 everywhere you see that written up. They'll say.. be very careful to say, 
 "Well, it's something else." 
 
 It never occurred to anybody.. never occurred to anybody that thought
 was good enough and high enough and powerful enough to create something like 
 that. That this would be the result of a heck of a lot of.. of energy piled 
 up which was actually a generated energy which would eventually get into 
 masses, and which therefore could act and react and so forth as masses. 
 
 Well, we got this energy mass and when you get an energy mass next an
 energy mass you get all sorts of.. Wait a minute.. wait a minute.. wait a
 minute.. wait a minute. There's something about that. Let me think, there's
 something about that. Oh, I know what the name of those people are - 
 psychologists. 
 
 Well, anyhow, the.. the.. the.. uh.. it.. it suddenly occurred - this 
 is just the line of approach; I just mention 1t to you perhaps for 
 clarification of what we're do1ng - we have.. astonishingly enough they left 
 a hole in electricity. 
 
 So therefore if we knew this much more about electricity, we should 
 be able to look over electricity and find out if there wasn't something left 
 out of electricity. And so I just started thinking over very hard and 
 so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and all of a sudden I was looking at 
 the alternating current formula. And the alternating current formula won't 
 furnish alternating current if you evaluate it very sharply, because.. 
 because the.. there's one ingredient they don't talk about. And.. uh.. 
 there's this ingredient. And you've got a terminal there, you see, you've got 
 a terminal - they can be in the term of two magnets or coils or whatever you 
 want - two terminal: positive and negative. And they.. they sit there.. they 
 sit there and something revolves between the two things and then.. then.. 
 that it goes this way and that way and you get alternating c.. It won't do 
 it! 
 
 If you just had that formula and you didn't have an alternating 
 current generator, and if you'd never seen one, something of this sort, it's 
 very doubtful if you could build one. Unless by intuition or something of 
 this sort, it suddenly struck you that there was another part to the machine 
 they never mention. And that's the base. 
 
 I know, that's too simple. That's much too simple, but it happens to 
 be horribly true. You've got to have a base. 
 
 Now somebody says, "Is that the logarithmic base you're talking 
 about? And.. or is that.. that.. that the base.. of conclusions? Or.. uh.. 
 something of that sort?" There's even something nore than that which I won't 
 bother to go into about, OAC. 
 
 But there has to be a plus-minus for the minus side and there has to 
 be a minus-plus for the plus side in order to get an interchange between 
 these two. But more important than that.. that - the dickens with that - is 
 the base. And we're talking just about the base of a generator, or the base 
 of a motor. We're just talking about the platform on which it stands which is 
 made out of iron or wood or steel or something of the sort and which supports 
 and keeps apart the terminals. That's all we're talking about. Just that 
 horrible little simple thing. That base is sitting there keeping those 
 terminals apart. 
 
 What's keeping the terminals apart? That base of course. 
  
 -123- 

 Oh no, it's not! That base has to be.. that base is bolted down to 
 the table. And we have this base and we have a positive terminal and a 
 negative terminal and there's a wheel goes round and round and round. And the
 wheel, the generator spinner.. when nothing could happen there at all if 
 those things weren't held rigidly apart, because it depends on their being 
 held apart that they be permitted to have tension put on them. 
 
 If you just took two terminals and just set them up according to the 
 formula and so on, every time you tried to turn anything over or furnish any
 effort in the thing, why the two terminals would simply go bang! And there'd
 be no current. And you'd it'd.. you'd separate them very carefully and you'd
 turn the thing over again and they'd just go together. Their magnetism in 
 other words would keep pulling them together. And you wouldn't get a current
 through that line at all. They've got to be held rigidly apart. 
 
 Well, to need something to hold them rigidly apart, you'd have to 
 have a base. And.. and the base is bolted down to the top of a table. And the
 table is on the concrete floor of a.. well.. hey, wait a minute! Where are we
 going here? The concrete floor of a building and the building is on Earth and
 Earth is by centrifugal force and gravity riveted to the sun out here and the
 sun is in an equilibrium according to some other star.. wait a minute.. and 
 those other stars are in equilibrium with accordance to a galaxy which is 
 held in equilibrium, what do you know, by another galaxy which is by an 
 island acr. Where are we going? Well, brother, we's on the way to God. 
 
 And you extrapolate all this back again and you'll find out, what do 
 you know, that it's absolutely essential to locate something in space and 
 time in order to produce an electrical flow. And the highest order of action
 then that you could figure out, for an electrical flow would be something that
 located in a space some somethings which could discharge from one to the 
 other and then, and only then, would you have an electrical flow. 
 
 Okay, let's take a break. 
 
 (END OF TAPE) 
 
 -124- 
 

