 And this is the Saturday night lecture, December the 6th. Take up
 here in the first hour a few more of these axioms and logics. See what we can
 get out of these things.
 
 I've already covered gradient scales and found out that gradient 
 scales had a considerable importance in auditing. The whole background of
 creative processing could be said to be the proper understanding and handling
 of gradient scales. 
 
 And, really, a gradient scale would be a little more of what was. And
 then a little more of what was a little more of and then a little more of
 what was a little more of a little more of. And so we could reach out then
 from the tiniest point into the widest possible sphere.
 
 Now, talking here in these logics about very shifty words, things
 like truth. You start talking about truth, uh.. well, you start talking about
 truth. And you start talking about anything in this stratosphere of knowledge
 and it's susceptible to many opinions and so on. A lot of people have been
 going around saying this was truth, and that was truth, and so forth.
 
 We had two truths we were working with. The possibility of their 
 being an infinite truth, but which to us at this time is not definable and so
 is itself a possibility. And the other is a workable truth, another kind of
 truth, just a workable truth. Therefore anything is true which is workable.
 And what is workable? Workable is.. workability is the capability of starting
 changing and stopping. And the degree of capability of starting changing and
 stopping would demonstrate for this universe workability. And when you say,
 "Starting changing and stopping what?" you have immediately gone too far and
 uh.. you should just drop that and sort of back off rather abashed, because
 it's.. really applies to anything in this universe. This universe is built
 almost wholly upon the principle of start change and stop.
 
 Well now, I don't know what the workability of a truth would be 
 outside of a cycle of action, unless it would be the workability of a
 postulate. So you say, "Let there be light" and uh.. there's light. Well,
 that was a workable postulate, wasn't it? And uh.. you say uh.. "Let there be
 uh.. camels with spin-horned hectacles on them" and uh.. there are camels
 with horn-spanned rectacles on them and uh.. you say, "That was a workable
 truth then, wasn't it?" Now we're moving into some other little sphere here,
 aren't we?
 
 And so uh.. you say, uh.. "Let there be darkness. Let there be a god.
 Let there be a devil. Uh.. let there be a General Motors and Westinghouse."
 Anything you care to say, and if that was immediately demonstrable as a 
 workability, then by our definition, it is a truth. Quite simple, isn't it?
 
 If you were operating then in a vacuum of no space, uh.. that's a
 pretty trick thing, a no space vacuum operating in a no space area, uh.. 
 where there is no space, but only the capability and potentiality of space.
 If you had all these things then and you didn't have anything there, and you
 had a true static, no motion, no wave length, nothing, why one could 
 theoretically postulate anything and have it become a truth. Well, now it
 gets out a little bit further and it says a truth for whom? Well, for him.
 Now he's operating from a uh.. no space, no wave length, no mass, no 
 velocity, no geographical location and he makes a postulate and it comes 
 true. And who is it true for? It's true for the individual that makes the
 postulate. Well now, oddly enough a fellow has to be in pretty good condition
 in order to make a postulate and have it be true for him. In creative
 processing uh.. he'll be found to have a little difficulty there then. You'll
 make this postulate or you've made this postulate and it is either too true,
 or you can't make it come true. 
 
-31- 

 Now there's uh.. there's several squirrels - squirrel is a technical
 term, uh.. a squirrel is somebody who in.. who invents something that he 
 knows won't work in order to.. to uh.. uh.. uh.. get some nut to audit. Uh..
 and uh.. that's a squirrel and uh.. there are some squirrels who go around
 and they pick up a fragment of the subject and they go around and they sell
 this thing like mad. And they'll just overplay it. Well, one of these
 squirrels uh.. not too long ago listened to the first half of a lecture tape.
 And this lecture was concerned with self-determinism and it tried to treat
 this whole subject of postulates and said there is no.. really no reason why
 a person couldn't simply say, "I am now a self-determined individual" and
 it'd come true because that's a postulate. There isn't any reason why he 
 couldn't do that.
 
 And the first hour of this two-hour lecture was devoted to why you
 couldn't simply say you were self-determined, be self-determined, speed up
 your governor and knock everything together the way you want it to and have
 tremendous effectiveness thereafter. And the second hour is devoted to why
 that can't happen. Well, they threw away the second hour and uh.. Machiavelli
 wrote a book once called THE PRINCE and THE PRINCE has as its first uh.. 
 part, How to become a Great Ruler, and the second part, it says How to Stay
 There. And Napoleon, Napoleon and Hitler and.. and all sorts of people down
 through the lines have.. have been saying.. uh.. well, they've been reading
 Machiavelli's PRINCE and they've been putting 1t into action like mad, and..
 and they take the first half and then they never read the second half. They
 never have and they don't stay there. 
 
 Well, the second half of this lecture is.. was devoted to and
 contains some of this data. Devoted to why that postulate couldn't suddenly
 stick. Ever since that time we've been having people spin like mad around the
 various locales. Uh.. they.. they say, "I'm a self-determined individual.
 Rrrrrr. You say I'm not? mmmomm rrrrrr." That's what's known as circuit 
 determinism. A little bit different than self-determinism.
 
 What they do is set themselves up. You get this fellow and he drags
 himself out of this river and he's just got through swimming steadily and
 solidly for eighteen hours and he's all worn out, and he's just about to..
 to.. to uh.. hand in his chips and so forth, and then just as he comes out of
 the river, you.. you get ahold of him. You take him by the scruff of the neck
 and you say, "All right. Now tell yourself that you're well, that you feel
 good, that you're not cold, that you're perfectly rested, and uh.. come on
 out here; we've got a quarter horse for you to race." And in this he.. he'll
 say, "All right. I'm all rested," and he's liable to agree with you and he's
 even liable to do it out of agreement, but there isn't very much going to
 happen. And that's because he's making a postulate while still holding on to
 the composite of postulates which bring him into the reality in which he 
 insists on existing. 
 
 Now if you make a postulate out of no motion, no space, no
 geographical location, or any other influence, why sure, you can make any
 postulate you please. But after you've made a hundred thousand million 
 postulates and you've got yourself nicely stacked around with cycles of 
 action and MEST and agreements and responsibilities and subject to forces and
 you own this and something else has you, why uh.. then you suddenly say when
 you're in that state, "Now I change my mind about this whole thing, and while
 still sitting right here and being very insistent on holding on to all that I
 have which I acquired solely by the process of making postulates, I'm now
 going to hold on to all that and I'm just going to sort of sneak over here
 covertly and I'm going to say - well, I'm holding on to that, but I'm going
 to say uh.. "I am now self-determined as an individual. And then I'm going to
 make that stick." As long as the fellow held on to his havingness and the
 
-32- 

 substance of the MEST universe, the identity which has been assigned to him
 and all these other things, he of course is holding on to a large mass of
 postulates. He's holding on to an enormous number of them and insisting then
 by holding on to them that these other postulates have complete validity and
 while he insists on this complete validity he goes out and says sincerely, "I
 am now a self-determined individual and just by making a postulate I can snake
 it come true." And he's saying, "You better not invalidate me." Well, he's
 invalidating himself. He's insisting on going along and remaining in the 
 unchanged status quo of being where he is, what he is, owning what he does
 own and responsible for what he has.
 
 Well, these boys found this out immediately, really, uh.. only they
 didn't observe what they found out. They found out immediately that all you
 had to do was postulate you were self-determined. And in the process of 
 trying to make it stick you had to kick all your friends in their teeth; you
 had to leave the family; you had to change over any possible method of life
 in which you were operating. They did the same trick however in spite of all
 of these changes that would take place; they took place chaotically, 
 catastrophically. The changes occurred because they couldn't regulate the 
 thing. They.. they didn't know what was occurring to them. And here suddenly
 they wind up in terrible condition. 
 
 Well, this is the magician here, he makes a.. he goes out and he 
 says, "Well, let's throw a.. a little bit of spiders' brains in here and a
 few threads of dawn and let's mix them up with a frog's cough and expose them
 out very nicely to this Diogean core of blackness. Say three chants over them
 and now uh.. let's see, what was I doing here? Oh yeah, well, let's pour some
 of this on the ground. Well, look at that, imagine that, a tree starts
 growing. And uh.. uh.. we11, well, it just keeps eating everything up and so
 forth. Well, isn't that interesting?" And uh.. all of a sudden he says uh..
 "Gee, it's getting dark around here, uh.. wonder what's taking place?" and he
 looks up and he says, "Well, this tree is sort of swamping everything and 
 it's cutting out the sunlight in all directions. And I'd better find my cave,
 if I can find my cave. But no, it's now too dark and there is no cave and --
 gee whiz, that tree so and so." And he goes on. And then he starts cursing
 the tree, and he says, "Look what that tree did to me. look how mean and 
 ornery that tree was. Look.. look.. look at all these horrible things this
 tree is doing." And another magician sees him one day as he's ruined, 
 hobbling down along the road and this fellow complains to him bitterly about
 what the tree did to him.
 
 He did several things wrong. The first thing he did wrong was to mix
 up a lot of things without postulating why he was doing it. He didn't say 
 what the end product would be. The second he failed to say what the end 
 product - what his goal was and how.. why he was trying to achieve that goal
 - he immediately abandoned the plateau of cause and stepped down to the 
 valley of effect. The moment that he was there in effect, then what he had
 already caused grew up, shut out the light, and he said, "Well, I have no 
 responsibility for it and.. and it's.. I'm.. I'm being affected by it badly."
 He goes downhill further.
 
 Now all.. all his fellow has to do.. he hears one day.. he says, "Now
 all I've got to do is just postulate that I'm self-determined." Of course, he
 doesn't know what self-determinism is - he has no definition of that, or 
 anything of the sort. He merely says, he postulates, "It is a state in which
 I can do what I please without incurring any penalty. Therefore, if I say I'm
 self-determined, then I don't have to take any responsibility whatsoever for
 anything bad that I do. Because it's on my self-determinism. And that well
 worked out; that equates perfectly." Uh.. he says, "That's a wonderful state
 of affairs," and of course people keep hitting him with axes, and throwing
 
-33- 

 him into gutters and throwing him this way and that way, and it's all 
 backwards. 
 
 You get the difference then between a clear-cut series of postulates
 which could become truths and a clear-cut chunk of chaos which uh.. most men
 consider their lives should be - not could be, but should be. There's a big
 difference there so when you're talking about truth, we're just talking about
 another level of truth when we say postulates. 
 
 All right, let's take another level of truth now. Let's take the 
 truth called MEST universe. This truth is composited out of a series of 
 agreements. After this fellow's made a few postulates he gets ahold of a few
 friends and for the sake of randomity they all agree that such and such is
 going to take place and that when so and so makes a postulate and when they
 all agree upon this postulate, then this postulate is there and then going to
 become common to all of them. And they think that's grand, and that's a good
 game and we can play this game with impunity.
 
 Well they can play it just so long, and then the randomity starts to
 set up. 
 
 The postulate then is losing its value as single truth and becomes
 relative to those agreements which have been made amongst them. Now this 
 fellow one day says, "I'm now going to postulate.. postulate that I'm going
 to have a new palace."
 
 And the others say, "That's out of agreement. You know very well that
 we invented a labor union and the labor union gets us so much money an hour
 and all that sort of thing and they have to go over it and we've got to have
 a quarry. And you'll have to own the land to the quarry and you'll have to
 get a permit in order to quarry stone. And you'll have to get an interstate
 trucking license in order to haul that stone over here and we'll have to hire
 masons. And there's unemployment tax and there's social security and 
 everybody knows that you can't pay anything like that for anything of the 
 sort. And you don't have any chips."
 
 And the fellow says, "Well, I'll.. I got here, not too long ago I 
 used to say - well, I make a stack of money and so forth I could pay all 
 these things with." 
 
 "No," they say, "on this agreement - why we've agreed that the only
 currency is that currency on which we've agreed." And he'll say, "Well, I 
 di.. I didn't agree to that currency; I wasn't there." And they said, "You
 agreed to an army to protect our property, didn't you?" 
 
 And the fellow says, "Well, yes, I did." And they say, "Well, they
 protect the currency now. Let's.. let's have no more of that." 
 
 And so you've got a cycle going in which the postulate.. the
 postulate is actually as valid as it is related to the agreed subject. And
 after a while his postulate gets very weak indeed. 
 
 He says, "I think I will have a glass of water providing nobody 
 objects and to have a glass of water the best thing to do.. you walk over to
 a tap and you turn the tap on and you have a glass there, imagine it, you 
 have a glass there to catch the water in, and you have to have a stomach and
 a mouth to drink it with and so forth, and you're all set then." 
 
 And this big agreement becomes what? Natural law or truth. That's 
 truth. What is truth for this land? They have a standing army and trade 
 unions and all the rest of this. That's truth. 
 
-34-

 Now, an engineer comes along and he decides in this land to build a
 bridge. And there are so darn many agreements that he's lost all track of,
 that the first time he puts up this flimsy structure and so on, why the first
 passenger as he starts to go across, the thing goes boom! 
 
 So the engineer says, "There are other natural laws which I now have
 to follow. And these laws must be this way and this way." And so he's doing a
 blind job of tracking agreements about gravity, about wave length, about uh..
 strength of structure, about the growth of trees. A11 of these things - he's
 tracking back agreements, and he's working it out to find out what agrees
 with this chunk of whatever it is - alabaster, mud, whatever he's trying to
 build uh.. the bridge across uh.. or out of - he's got to find out what this
 score is straight through in order to build something which sufficiently 
 agrees with the environment to permit its continuance in the environment.
 
 And his study becomes a study of, then, what has been agreed,
 although most of that has been lost. And so he does it by test. He puts the
 bridge there, and if it stands, it doesn't stand, he.. he's investigating the
 environment continually; he'll make little mock-up bridges and he'll hit 
 little mock-up bridges as nice as you please uh.. to.. to find out if they
 break, and then he.. then he does a calculation to find out how much stronger
 he's got to build the main bridge that goes across this stream. And uh.. he
 finally works it out and how strong are the girders? What's the uniformity of
 construction? What are the metals; what are the refining processes? Uh.. how
 skilled do the workmen have to be, and what are all these things? And finally
 there he is. Then he falls into a delusion. He starts thinking, "Well, now
 look, I was agreeing with reality. This was really real because working out
 that bridge was a real tough job. And the funny darn part of it is, is every
 time I build a bridge, it doesn't build according to different laws; it 
 builds according to these same laws. There is the coefficient of expansion,
 there's friction, there's all these weights and stress analysis of structure,
 and.. and there's torsion and tension, and all these things. And there's..
 there's the vibration of foot traffic and the vibration of vehicles. And 
 these things don't vary and I built this bridge and that bridge, and another
 bridge. And gee!" he says, "You know, we're right here in the midst of a 
 method of building bridges and we have agreed with natural law thoroughly and
 completely, and we can keep on building beautiful bridges so long as ice keep
 on agreeing."
 
 It's a funny thing about his bridges. The only thing that happens -
 that's a wonderful thing that he can do that - he then has.. he then has a
 hatful of the most beautiful worked-out technology. And he has in his
 possession the only thoroughly tested technology which agrees with natural
 law. Because he's working with the most basic natural law there is, and that
 is structure, gravity, materiel. And that's as close as he can get to natural
 law and that's about as close as you can get to the natural law of any 
 universe, is with the very woof and warp of that universe itself. 
 
 He should never, however, make the mistake of thinking that that is
 reality. That is agreement with the agreement which is the reality of that
 universe. It would be with a horrible shock that he would suddenly find 
 himself in another universe starting to build a bridge which used the
 coefficient of expansion, which used this, which.. and find out that bridge
 went down. Brrroom! 
 
 And somebody'd come along, some old man'd be coming along there and
 he'd say, "What you trying to do, bud?"
 
The engineer would say, "I'm trying to build a bridge." 
 
 -35- 

 "You're trying to build a what?"
 "I'm trying to build a bridge." 
 "Well, what for?" 
 "Trying to get across the chasm." 
 
 And uh.. the old man would say, "Well, what do you need a bridge to 
 get across the chasm for?" 
 
 And the engineer would say, "Well, obviously it's empty space."
 
 And.. and the old man would suddenly say, "It is? For heaven's
 sakes, I'll have to go tell my father about that," and would walk across the
 empty space, uh.. very neatly and very nicely and the engineer would be very
 puzzled until he found out that in that area.. in that area, uh.. the shoes 
 of everybody concerned with everything was adjusted to core-gravity distance. 
 That is to say, the distance to the core of any planet on which they were
 operating had an adjustment in their shoes. And the way this was put in was 
 by baking up something that looked like a mass of taffy. And he says, "Oh
 f1 0  
 
 Rut that's actually about the way it would be. Now it.. it's an
 incomprehensible thing perhaps to look at these things. And if.. if you've 
 ever run a car into a brick wall, or seen a train go off a girder, uh.. off 
 girders into a river, or seen any of these horrendous things happen, it's
 sort of difficult to say it happened because of an agreement. 
 
 It's.. that's.. look, makes a flimsy look, but uh.. very funny thing 
 about the whole deal is, is that the engineer cannot obtain an absolute 
 anywhere. And the harder he works, he just can't obtain an absolute. He's
 almost there, on any one of his natural laws, but not quite. 
 
 Fortunately, there is never a hundred percent agreement. There's 
 always a hole in the natural law. There's always a hole in the atom, always a 
 hole in the structure. Uh.. he starts into the actual complexity of this 
 matter, and does he become complexed. He is complicated beyond measure 
 because its consistency and so forth keeps shifting under his hands as he
 examines it. Now he.. he becomes very puzzled after a while. 
 
 You know, it's a strange thing that the search after truth, then, 
 could lead some men to disaster and some to glory. 
 
 It could lead uh.. Newton into great renown. It could lead Hegel into
 disrepute. It could lead uh.. Lenin into an early tomb. They're all going
 after what? Different kinds of a datum.
 
 A truth is something which would exist without much contest, 
 something which is triumphant. A champion who stands up after a battle with 
 bloodied shield and sword and yet has won is himself truth in the force 
 universe. A datum which itself sweeps all data before it, in another 
 universe, is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly 
 to that which it is applied.
 
 Don't have pity upon some of your preclears who are still scrambling 
 in some direction and haven't ever classified the field of truth in which
 they're searching for the truth. Some are searching for it in the MEST 
 universe, and some are searching for it out in the stars, and some are 
 searching for it in their own hearts, and others are searching for it in the
 
-36- 

 lives of great men. And sure enough, they will, every one of them, find a
 truth. And all they need to do to find the ultimate truth, is simply find the
 winning truth by which all other truths proceed in that field. 

 And if you ever built yourself a universe, go park the truth on which
 it is built on the first piece of structure that you may build, and engrave
 it well, and don't make it mysterious. Because the only way to make your 
 universe survive forever and last forever, and be there and be at last in 
 command of you, is to invent the truth that started it and then hide that 
 truth. And if you were to do that, then neither you nor any inhabitant in the
 universe would be able to undo the universe or alter it in any way. But it 
 would simply go out on an inevitable average proceeding from that truth. And
 that first truth would simply be a postulate made out of the zero of no
 motion, no space, no geographical location and without time. And it's made 
 there; it is not associated to any other times, places or agreements. Now 
 it's the first agreement on that sequence on which you would then compound 
 all other logic. Oddly enough it can be any first statement.

 You can go out here and construct a whole mathematics, a beautiful 
 mathematics, a gorgeous mathematics, on the whole system that anytime Y and Y
 appear they are pluses and minuses. And that anytime they are used or equatecl
 in equations they will always be pluses and minuses. And if the action of 
 pluses and minuses is, that they come together but repe11 them.. from 
 themselves.. each one of themselves. Interesting mathematics. 

 Uh.. the.. another one. That every ten when divided by two equal 
 fifteen. Anything.. anything idiotic. It doesn't matter what it is. Suddenly
 carved out of the nowhere of a beginning, you'd see there is no beginning 
 before a beginning. Ps any one of you can assume in any field of ideas,
 instantly assume, that without recourse to any prior idea, we are now going
 to postulate that so and so is goinq to regulate and regiment a core of
 proceeding fact. And unless you forced it into agreement with some other body
 of information, you could have a tremendous body of data.

 You say, it'd be idle - oh no, it wouldn't be idle. It could keep on
 going to a point where it became relative to itself, and becoming relative to
 itself, could itself be a universe. It is symbolical, that line in the Bible;
 it says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the 
 Word was God." 

 The day when you state a postulate to begin a universe, you are
 creating a God as well. And it is the God of that universe. 

 Now relative truths would have then to do with a relative workability
 and what could be true in any field could be true for that field. But it's 
 not necessarily true for another field. What's +rue for one universe is not
 true for another universe. What we have scouted in Scientology, what we've 
 looked over, is the MEST universe parade of agreement stemming from the first
 capability, the first Q that we can discover which describes the capabilities
 of theta, as we can view them from this point.

We see that from that all other capabilities could have proceeded
 which brought about the MEST universe. And we understand by that immediately
 that the capability of theta at the level of Q1 could consist of the ability
 to create space and energy and time or to locate energy and matter in time 
 and space. We could.. we could take this level of workability, then - we can
 cite that here - and we find out it applies through all of these various 
 mechanisms in which anyone is engaged in this universe and so we have a
 senior truth. That truth is probably a little bit senior to any necessary for
 this universe. It's probably just a little bit because this universe has 

-37-

 immediately amitted creation of space as a capability of theta. It's omitted
 that. And it is an enforced problem.
 
 Theta does not recognize.. the thetan in this universe doesn't
 recognize his capability of creating space. And yet he has a lot of trouble
 with space. You start to ask most thetans, "Now let's create space. Let's put
 out a couple of anchor points. Now, let's swap them around." 
 
 He says, "Oh no, no you don't." 
 
 You say, "Come on, let's put out these two anchor points, and let's
 swap them."
 "Oh, no, no, I got them out there." 
 And you say, "Well, all right. Swap them." 
 "No, no." 
 
 I just had a rather amusing.. amusing session a short time ago where
 we put out two anchor points which of course would be the first two points
 from which you would create the dimensions of space. You just postulate these
 two points.
 
 And I said, "All right, let's turn those two points into black cats."
 And after a great deal of persuasion, we got those two points turned into 
 cats. And when we got those two points turned into cats, we tried to turn the
 tail of one of the cats, just the tip of the tail, just one hair on the tip
 of the tail of the cat, a different color than the other cat's tail. Noooo,
 siree. Uh-uh. And yet the preclear on whom this was being worked had a
 capability in mock-ups that most of you would envy. Isn't that remarkable?
 
 The second that we started to put out the first two requisites of 
 space, there was such an insecurity an that whole thing that the preclear 
 couldn't hardly bring himself to go forward in any way. And it took an awful
 lot of practice, it took an enormous amount of time, in order to get anything
 done about those two anchor points. 
 
 And the funny part of it is, is the GE is still operating on his 
 anchor points. Any one of you have two points and the GE is working on these
 two points. If you want to locate them sometime just look out that-a-way from
 your head and look out that-a-way from your head and you will find a ball out
 there and one out there. 
 
 You start to shift those around and you can just feel the whole 
 beingness of the fellow just start to go to pieces. "You leave those alone,"
 it says. "That.. that.. that's space; that is how the space gets created so
 that we can have energy."
 
 But actually, they're just anchor points. That's all they are - there
 isn't any reason why you couldn't have fifty or a hundred or one. And yet the
 preclear doesn't want any of these. He has the self-imposed two in order to
 get an electronic flow. 
 
 Well, now, therefore, we're dealing just slightly above the MEST 
 universe and we know the capability of theta is a little bit wider than that
 which we see encompassed here in the HEST universe. And knowing this then 
 about truth and the primary postulate, we can also know that so long as an
 individual is willing to abandon havingness he can change a postulate with
 ease. But when he is unwilling to abandon havingness, unwilling to abandon
 
-38- 

 the possession which accrues to him solely because of his agreement, then he 
 is going at the same time to maintain and hold on to his postulates. 
 
 And the trick in processing would be to keep your preclear there in 
 this universe and yet let him slide sideways into the creation of his own. 
 That's quite a trick because he's insisting on a continued havingness in the 
 MEST universe and you're.. you're trying to knock out postulates which are 
 contrary to the MEST universe. And you can do that with mock-up processing, 
 but you're not likely to do it with much else. 
 
 All right, all of these data have been covered before. You're quite
 familiar with them... Logic nine is "A datum is as valuable as it has been
 evaluated." 
 
 Poor old.. poor old homo sap. Where he was the sap beyond saps was 
 believing that data as itself was worth anything, and data is worth 
 absolutely nothing. Data is worth nothing until it has been evaluated.
 
 People keep coming around to you and they keep saying, "You know in 
 Scientology there is a so on and so on and so on." And you say the so and so 
 and so and so and so. "Mell, do you know that there was a fellow by the name 
 of Pittsquealer in 1726 said, and oh, how clearly, he said, "Yap, yap, golla
 walla walla," and he said the same thing that you're saying today." And you 
 say "What's the save thing he said?" And they give you some vague 
 approximation. They say, "Truth is that for which every man thinks, uh.. 
 worthwhile," or "Truth is that toward which every man attains." Or.. or he.. 
 he says something about this line, you see. I mean it will be.. or it will be
 uh, "Self-determinism is the right of any man." And you say, "Well, gee whiz,
 he did, didn't he?" Uh.. be very careful of one thing. The more you look at 
 that line in that book be careful not to read the line above it or the line 
 below it. Remember to read just that line. 
 
 There sits the datum, but it has not been evaluated, and evaluation 
 is relation to other datum.. other data. And evaluation in our frame of 
 reference would be how well in this universe it assisted survival. So your 
 evaluation would be its comparison to other data and the magnitude of its
 ability to clarify, codify or.. or permit the persistence in surviving. So we
 have evaluation. 
 
 Now, it's very true that you can dive headlong into almost any text 
 on any subject under the sun and look through it. Read a few billion words if
 you want to, but you will find practically everything that is worth knowing 
 said by some man at some time somewhere. 
 
 Everything that has been said in Scientology, I am sure, has in sortie
 fragment or another been stated in the past. If you put that together, you 
 would have a library there which would be a very big library. 
 
 Now, don't make this mistake after you've got the library formulated.
 You know very well where those books are. You would have a slip in each book,
 you would have that perfectly underscored, you would know exactly where that 
 line was. Now don't.. don't let anybody come by and take those slips out.
 Because what would happen is, you would pass down the library stacks and you 
 would pick out a book and it would be a book called Phronology, The Rise and 
 Fall of the Human Coco. And uh.. it would say in there.. it would.. you'd
 say, "I know there's one of the data of Scientology in this book." And you 
 open that book up and you look through it, "Well, I know it was in here 
 someplace." Well, you put that book back and you go and you pick up another 
 one of these books that you know very well had been marked and it would be 
 Cerman Imperial uh.. Frantics: The uh.. Phoneticism of Emmanual Kant, and 
 
 39 

 written by his housekeeper. And uh.. you.. you would get in.. you'd say, 
 "Well.. I.. I.. there was one in there too, but I'm sure we'll be able to 
 patch this thing up." 

 That's not the way to research, and you could walk through that
 library endlessly and endlessly and you'd never get Scientology back. And the
 reason why you'd never get it back is because the data was not evaluated. 
 They weren't related one datum to another datum, to an organization. The 
 evaluation of a datum is, if anything, more important than the datum itself,
 because you can always get a datum. 

 We could sit here and make a postulate and then try to evaluate the
 postulate. We could say, "Why is it that blackberries are red when they are
 green?" Or we could simply make a statement that "Hereinafter blackberries 
 will be purple when they are green." And then try to evaluate that datum in
 the berry industry and get people interested in the culture of berries to 
 finally force this into being. Uh.. you're just zzaaw Wrong Way Corrigan. 
 What are we going to do then in order to construct a science for anything? 
 The same thing you're going to do in processing a preclear. You know I'm not
 just airing my teeth and talking about philosophy for the sake of philosophy.
 I'm talking about it very specifically with regard to auditing and in regard
 to learning material and data.

 And that's this: you're going to take the highest truth which you can
 state understandably and with accuracy and which you can relate to the 
 remainder of the body of data which confronts you, and you're going to try to
 evaluate with that datum. 

 And if it has limitations and doesn't expand the scope of what you're
 trying to do, you're going to have to find a higher level truth. You're
 exploring a preclear. You want to take this preclear apart. You would find 
 the highest level of certainty which you could then attain. The highest level
 truth which he could attain. And you would evaluate that preclear to a marked
 degree with that. If you wanted to put him together again, you could do that.

 And let's go look in the opposite direction; we find out we're going
 to make him capable. What makes him incapable is an inability. So let's just
 look him over and let's find out the specific inabilities. If we remove
 those, his native ability should restore itself. So we've got the opposite 
 way of looking at it. 

 Let's look for the lowest level of falsehood we can find in the case.
 and that would be the falsest datum. And let's turn it into a little bit 
 truer datum, and a little bit truer, and a little bit truer until you had 
 something sitting before you which much more closely resembled truth for 
 himself. 

 We don't want him much as truth for the MEST universe because that's
 MEST and we've got plenty of MEST. Any time you want to go out here and dig a
 hole, you can get lots of MEST. So we want him for himself, not for the MEST
 universe, and he is himself a universe. 

 So the seeking for the highest level of workability would be seeking
 for the highest level of evaluation. What's the greatest certainty in this 
 case? Well, that greatest certainty will tell you the highest datum that the
 preclear can reach at that time. And if you can find that certainty for him
 you would be amazed. He'd probably turn on and glow like a Christmas tree and
 walk out of the place. And you'd say, "Now wait a minute, we haven't done any
 more processing.. we haven't done enough processing. I mean he's.. he's
 supposed to be.. we're supposed to go through this ritual and that ritual and
 some other ritual and do something else. And you haven't done that."

 -40- 

 All you did was reach in somewhere in the vicinity of his beingness
 and found out that he know one thing above all other things. He just knew 
 that and you just all of a sudden showed it to him, and uh.. he.. he.. he 
 didn't know that he knew this. And you say, "You know that you knew that?" 
 
And the fellow looks at it and says, "My god!" A guy can get pretty 
 excited.
 
Now you get a lesser reaction when you demonstrate to him, "Do you 
 know that you believe that uh.. all coconut trees uh.. all coconut trees have
 the Empire State Building in them?" Uh.. you could.. some ridiculous datum 
 that's as silly as that and he takes a look at that and he finds out he's 
 been forming up a whole lifetime on it. 
 
But that's invalidation to go at it that way, really, So you just
 sort of take it by mock-ups and let it work out. But as you work it out, you
 will find that as you're attaining recognition in him of a higher level truth
 toward his true capabilities, when you're getting him up toward the higher 
 truth of his own self-determinism, what makes his being tick, he's becoming 
 freer and freer and more and more of an individual. 
 
A lot of people think in processing that the more you process an 
 individual the less individual he becomes. Now you think he returns to the 
 great swim, uh.. the big dunk, uh.. I use those reverent terms to describe 
 Nirvana. Uh.. this is a pool in which all individuality and identity, those 
 two things not even vaguely being similar, but they're put together with a 
 uh.. like that and then they're dumped into this big pool. And uh.. after 
 that all is lost. One.. one floats in complete serenity and peace with the 
 universe. That's right, with the universe. Only one difficulty with it: 
 that's perfectly true. There's nothing truer than nirvana. But you're walking
 on nirvana. It's mud! And it's mud from there on down!
 
 Now any time that youwant.. any time that you want to fix up a
 preclear so that he joins the infinite allness of allness in this universe,
 why zap him with a zap gun or something and disable the thetan so he can't 
 even think himself elsewhere, junk the body and throw it in a lime pit.
 You've got him. That would be it. 
 
And by the way, this is supported by empirical data. You go out here 
 and you look. And you.. it.. you know it's sorta hard, once in a while I run
 up against one of these communication breaks. Uh.. I tell you, go out and 
 look, uh.. you. you'll all be able to do this some day. But there is a point
 where experience gaps. Now I'll tell you what I mean when I said you go out 
 and you look.
 
Uh.. I went to a theatre, Queen's Popular Theater, one of the old 
 theaters. I was sitting there. All of a sudden I felt vaguely uncomfortable 
 uh.. and realized what I was doing - I was uh.. I knew what I was doing. I 
 didn't suddenly feel uncomfortable - what am I talking about? I just suddenly
 decided to fish around and feel all the lords and ladies that had been in 
 this joint since the beginning of time. That was way back from Queen Anne's 
 time or something like that, this old theater. 
 
And uh.. I was fishing around and all of a sudden I fished through 
 the floor of the theater. Just put a beam down through the floor of the 
 theater. Neeooww. No! And I shuddered and kind of cringed into myself and I 
 went home that night and I thought, "Boy, that.. that's really rough." And I
 did a lot of mock-ups and so on, and tried to get it straightened out and so
 on. Every once in a while I kept shuddering over this stuff. And that's the 
 first time that anything had made me shudder for a long time and I didn't 
 
 -41-

 quite understand what it was because I didn't stay with it long enough to 
 find out what it was. And I finally asked one of the boys; I said, "Say, uh..
 what's wrong with the Queen's Popular Theater?" Well, he thought. "Oh," he 
 said, "in the days of the great plague that was one of the plague burial
 spots. They just brought them there in wagons and dumped them in." 
 
 Well, here all this time later, the ground of the Queen's Popular 
 Theater, it's not imaginarily at all, that is quite.. this is a lot realer 
 than looking at things with MEST perceptics, they're pretty weak, is.. is so
 soggy with.. with agony and sordid putrification, and death, and so on, that
 it's an awful jolt to come into contact with it. 
 
 You see, there's a lot of livingness still there. How do you like
 that? I mean, that ground isn't dead. That ground still has life. That's one
 of the many nirvanas you can reach by going on into the MEST universe. 
 
 I say go out and take a look. You could go down here past one of the
 graveyards - amuse onself every once in a while - go on over to the graveyard
 and see how many thetans are stuck in the skulls. You know, they.. they do 
 this horrible thing these days - they embalm people. They take them, put them
 on the table, they cut them open and nobody.. never occurs to anybody, I
 guess, really, to chop the tops of the skull off and empty the skull or do 
 something about that or anything. No no! No, let's pack them all full of
 formaldehyde and preservatives, and let's paint the face so they look very 
 alive, and let's be very kind to the body after it's dead. Particularly after
 it's dead. Hell... And let's take it out and bury it in a nice lead coffin 
 which will protect our loved one from seepage. 
 
 And uh.. the body is very lifelike and quite often a thetan cannot 
 make up his mind whether or not that body's dead or not. He knows it's been
 sick, uh.. but he.. he'll.. he'll be groggy himself and.. and he'll.. it's 
 obviously still alive if the smell of formaldehyde is.. can get pretty 
 overbearing really. 
 
 But you go down past the cemetery and uh.. usually most country
 cemeteries, where they sort of wrap them in a blanket and dump them in on 
 their heads and say, "God be with you, rest in peace, uh.. planted by his 
 loving wife Agnes" or something of the sort, now that.. that's really very 
 calm. They're no thetans left around there. 
 
 Uh.. but you go in one of these modern cemeteries, one of these nice
 modern ones. Boo! There's more trapped thetans around that joint than you 
 care to measure up in a long day of Sundays. And if you want to amuse
 yourself, uh.. put out a line on them and say, "Hey fella, why don't you get
 on your way?" And they sort of feel groggy, "Huh? Voice of God, huh? Must be
 the voice of God." 
 
 So you want to play god? Well you ought to go down and do this 
 sometime just for kicks. And uh.. yeah, put a little bit of an energy beam on
 them and.. or plant the thought, "You are now on top of the grave." Or, "You
 are now on top of the headstone." And if you really want to pour the juice 
 into them - it's kind of bad to hypnotize thetans; I usually feel sorry for 
 them - if you want to pull the.. if you want to pour the juice in on them and
 go just brrwhack! "You are now on top of the tombstone." There isn't any
 doubt about your getting them out, truth be known.
 
 You can put out enough energy. Beam in, sort of bore a little hole in
 the guy's head and then.. and then put the energy concentration flow into the
 center of his forehead, in in in in in in in, and his skull will go spatter,
 brains and all. This is no joke. I mean, I'm not joking about this. 
 
-42- 

 So there isn't any doubt about your getting somebody out of his head.
 It's just how tough do you want to get as an auditor? So anyway, you go down
 and you fish out.. you fish out a thetan or two and you feel real good. 
 You've done your boy scout trick and the loved one then ceases to be troubled
 with seepage.
 
 Another interesting place to go; we got on this last night, that's 
 why I was mentioning it - another interesting place to go is down to the
 morgue. They come in there, charred bodies, and they come rushing Into the 
 morgue with this and that and fragments and bits and bones and things like 
 that and throw them into these big slabs that are on drawers. Open a big
 drawer, body size, and they dump the body in there. And they sometimes will 
 lay them and sometimes on marble slabs and they tie a big tag on their big 
 toe. And it has whatever identification, where the body was found. I don't 
 know why they insist on doing that to a body. But they.. they do.. they take
 the big toe and they tie the tag on there and put it on a slab. Well, anyway,
 in these drawers, they push the drawer back in again and people come in,
 weep, weep, looking for their dear Charles or something of the sort. And the
 attendant drags open the drawer - "Nope," next drawer. "Ouch," you know,
 slam! Next drawer - by the time she's looked at four or five of them, she 
 doesn't care whether she finds Charles or not! And there's rarely any
 refrigeration in these places to amount to anything. 
 
 But uh.. you go in there and you talk about a bewildered lot of 
 thetans! They come in, the guy's still hanging around, saying, "Gosh, I'm 
 dead; I'm dead, I.. what about.. what about the wife and kids, uh.. uh.. gee
 I.. I.. I haven't paid the rent and uh... Oh why, oh why did I ever get mixed
 up with that steam boiler in the first place? And uh.. I should have noticed
 the name plate on it was such and such an electric company, and.. uh..."
 
 And he.. he gets.. gets in and you say, "Hey, why don't you.. why 
 don't you shove off?" And the fellow says, "Huh? Huh? Who's talking? 
 Somebody talk to me? I got ideas, I guess I'm hearing voices". 
 
 Big confusion, see? He's already real confused and uh.. you push hain
 around a couple of times. And you.. you, once in a while you.. you feel like
 telling him, "Look, why don't you go back to the house and take a look? And 
 if you're so worried about where everybody is, just why don't you go back and
 take a look?"
 
 And they just - communication level - and go back and take a look.
 "I'll take a look. The body's here and I need the body to walk back with. And
 I couldn't do that because here's the body." 
 
 Soy, that's really idiotic when you come down to think about it. The
 guy's got a charred piece of humanity, that's got.. just got through being 
 blown up or something of the sort, and he knows very well it can't walk back
 to the house and pat the wife on the head. So you argue with him for a little
 while, and in most cases, why, zip! He's gone to some between-lives area. And
 back again you go over to the hospital and you say, "Well," you meet a couple
 of them around, and so on. And you think, "Well gee, you know, that's real 
 good." 
 
 Uh.. uh.. they come in and you say, "Hey! Psst!" And uh.. they..
 question mark, question mark, "Who? Who? What's this? What's this? This isn't
 on schedule. Uh..." 
 
 You say, "Hey, uh.. uh.. you uh.. trying to pick up a baby here?" 
 Something like that.
 
 43

Big guilt feeling. "Yeah, yeah." You say, "Why don't you take that
 third one over there in the crib?" Something like that, so on. 

"Oh, are you the fella that's supposed to tell us here? We didn't
 know that, I mean..." 

But mostly you.. hard... you'd have a hard time attracting their
 attention. They're very down tone scale and they just go on in saying, "Ah 
 well, I gotta be a baby, I gotta be a baby, I gotta be a baby, I'm a baby, 
 I'm a baby, I'm a baby" - Bong! And there they go. 

Fascinating. Very very interesting. But they're pretty confused 
 actually.. the.. actually a thetan can straighten himself out if he's got the
 educational background of a few years as a stability. And he suddenly steps
 out on a gradient scale of reality. He knows he's here. He just hasn't been
 killed. Uh.. he knows he's here. He's.. he's uh.. walks out, he's still got
 the body. He can make up his mind. He has a power of choice. He can carry on
 with it and he.. he straightens out just fine. He doesn't have any 
 difficulty. 

But you catch him off guard at times when he's already shocked and 
 upset. Well, what's the difference between taking a thetan out when he's in
 fairly good condition, and is there any relationship between that and 
 processing a preclear when his body's in pretty good condition? And doing 
 something for a thetan whose body has just died? Or who has just got to have
 a body?

Well, yeah, there's gradient scale. Uh.. your thetan who has just 
 lost a body - the highest level of truth which he thought he could attain 
 was, "I am a body." And that's pretty high compared to the state he's been 
 battered into as a thetan. So he's.. he's'.. he's got a low-level actuality. A
 low-level decision, postulate or agreement, or whatever you want to call it,
 and.. and he's got a body. And that has not been broken. But if he's.. if 
 he's just died, he's just LOST that low-level beingness. He.. he.. hi.. his
 level of truth is just out - is just gone. He has no certainty. He hasn't 
 single datum of which he's now certain. He knows he's dead, somebody's been
 telling him he should go to heaven, somebody else has been telling him for 
 sure he ought to go to hell. He's known all the time that he's got to go to
 Station 862 and report in. But he's.. he's in a complete state of confusion.

All right. Now what.. what do you solve? How do you solve this.. this
 terrible confusion? Well, there's still another level of certainty much lower
 than the certainty "I am a body" that could actually be contacted. You'll 
 have to figure out what it was. 

You take a psychotic or a neurotic. There is still a level of
 certainty exists, and one could almost say that where a level of certainty 
 ceased to exist, the life and beingness cease to exist as well. 

Whether it's true or false, a certainty is a certainty. And so 
 there's some terrific analogy then, isn't there, between this word truth and
 the word life itself? And it all boils down to really one thing, one thing.
 When he's completely free, actually the highest truth that one attains to is
 a truth of a certain sort. He can attain to higher truths than this, and they
 exist, but, before there is space for him, he does have a truth, and that 
 truth is, "I AM". 

And as he goes down the line it becomes "I am something". There's 
 still "I am", but the "I am" is less then and the "I am something" - the 
 "something" becomes greater. "I am the something" and the "I am" becomes 

 -44- 

 less and the "something" becomes greater, until at last he winds up in the 
 conviction that the "something" is all the "I am" there is. 
 
 But as long as there's even a "something" that you can contact and 
 communicate with, you can still start him back up the line toward "I am". But
 you take off to restore "I am" or his high level of truth by restoring it on
 the gradient scale of the "something". And so he's less and less the 
 "something" and more and more "I an". Until he finally comes up into full 
 awareness and it's very hard for somebody who's saying "I am the something" 
 to realize that the "something" is really one of the things which impedes his
 being "I am". Rut that "he is something" still and still knows that "he is 
 something" is enough to keep him from becoming "nothing", and he holds on to
 the "something" in lieu of being "nothing". But as he goes back up the line,
 he gets more and more "I am" "I am" "I am". 
 
 Now then, the highest level truth that you could attain with an 
 individual would be the springboard from which you started out to reach the 
 highest level that you possibly could attain for this universe, which is "I 
 am", with no need to be "something". 
 Let's take a break.
 (TAPE ENDS) 
 
 45 
