 This is the second lecture hour on December the 6th. You know I could
 talk to you quite a bit about logic. Talked a Jot about logic, logic is oh..
 interesting stuff uh.. there's a lot of material. But possibly the best 
 method of addressing this subject I would know of would be to go back over 
 the formative steps which made Scientology and demonstrate it so that we 
 could demonstrate at the same time the fundamentals of logic. And I won't put
 very much time in on this, and uh.. give you something else in this hour. 
 
 I just want to mention the definition of logic. Logic is a gradient 
 scale of data, related data. And logic could be said to be the aligning of 
 data by gradient scale. And anyone who tells you that mathematics is logical
 is crossing up their definitions. mathematics is symbolical, and as a 
 symbolism carries forward all manner of impossible relationships, or nearly 
 impossible relationships, which can then be applied with some approximation 
 to the real universe or to any other universe. 
 
 It is all very well to say one equals one, hut till ye ask, "One 
 what?" It's very nice to have an.. have an abstract datum, "One", and this 
 abstract datum is a symbol that will represent another "One", and that is the
 symbol which represents but.. let's say one what? And we say one apple. And 
 if we say one apple equals one apple - oh no. One apple does not even equal 
 itself. I give you Korzybski on all of that. He's done good work on that, and
 we needn't labor it any further. 
 
 But at no time should an individual make the mistake of believing 
 that a symbol is the thing. And people who insist that the symbol is the 
 thing are not only badly aberrated; they are insane. That's just blunt. If 
 you decide to hit a definition of insanity, the best definition of which I 
 know would be: this person widely believes that the symbols are the things. 
 And you would hit it. You could go into any insane asylum, you could have 
 uh.. manic depressive, schizoid tendencies, uh.. or old-time dementia 
 praecox, or any one of these things, and you could go straight across the 
 hoards on the thing, and you would find out this person thinks the symbol is
 the thing. I don't care what type of insanity this is, whether you're talking
 about a computing psychotic or a dramatizing psychotic or any other 
 interesting thing. Because that is a characteristic of MEST, and MEST is 
 itself insane. It is insane because it cannot determine or align itself. It 
 has to do it according to a pattern determined for it. And anytime anything 
 has to have everything done for it, you get an insane object. 
 
 Sanity would be the ability to reason. Reason can be done in 
 abstracts, and reason can be done by logic, but logic is not the thing. logic
 is a method of extrapolating from one datum and building a bridge of tiny 
 gradients to another datum. 
 
 When first Aristotle marched upon the field with his uh.. logic, man
 was uh.. man.. man didn't have any logic. He had not codified logic to amount
 to anything, and so it was quite welcome to him. He was not so aberrated at 
 that time but what he couldn't handle this and know its speciousness. But 
 when you find somebody has.. has achieved a syllogism as a perfection, you 
 have somebody who is very close to passing in his chips at the nearest spin 
 bin. The symbol is not the thing. The shadow is not the substance. That 
 doesn't mean you can't work with symbols, but it does mean very definitely 
 that you should never mistake these two things. The symbol apple is not an 
 apple; you cannot eat the symbol apple. That is the best test of it. 
 
 Now in all of the lines of logic we have, then, therefore, this 
 liability: that people can confuse an abstract with a reality. And when we 
 say a reality, we could make it a reality for any universe. But the abstract
 is not the reality. Never. 
 
 -46- 

 Me could say all sorts of things about logic. We could say a tot 
 about mathematics. But we could spend our time a little bit better elsewise.
 
 let's take the subject of Scientology and let's see if there's any 
 logic involved with it at all. There isn't a mathematics that can embrace the
 subject of Scientology, because it is an invented mathemat1cs. It's an 
 invented mathematics that accepts gradient scales and "absolutes are 
 unobtainable". And it is a method of thinking about things. And is just as 
 true as it is workable. And no truer. And is not, in itself, an arbitrary, 
 fascistic uh.. police force to make sure that we all think right thoughts. 
 It's a servant of the mind, a servo-mechanism of the mind, it is not a master
 of the mind. Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day
 when it becomes the master of thinking. Don't think it won't do that. It has
 every capability in it of doing that. 
 
 Contained in the knowable, workable portions before your eyes there 
 are methods of controlling human beings and thetans which have never before 
 been dreamed of in this universe. Control mechanism of such awesome and solid
 proportions that if the remedies were not so much easier to apply, one would
 be appalled at the dangerousness to beingness that exists in Scientology. 
 
 Fortunately, it was intelligently invented, and I say that without 
 any possible bow; I say that because part of its logic was: the remedy should
 exist before the bullet. And that is just an arbitrary. There really is no 
 reason for that, except for this: when you invent the bullet before the 
 remedy, you have to invent the remedy under duress. It's very hard to kneel 
 alongside of a patient who is suffering from a super radioactive burn, and 
 try to figure out in that moment what is radioactivity and how does it affect
 the human flesh. That's not the time to figure the remedy. The time to figure
 the remedy is before the bullet. 
 
 Now I want to throw no aspersions or criticism or.. or anything else
 at the field of nuclear physics and my very good friends in nuclear physics;
 there are very few nuclear physicists in the United States that are really 
 nuclear physicists. There are a lot of professors of English and so forth who
 are employed by the government under the heading "nuclear physicist". It was
 very amusing, by the way, I was down at one of the big companies not too long
 ago and I took.. took occasion to ask the boys in charge of three or four 
 departments what they had their degrees in. One of 'em had it in English and
 one of 'em had it in Arts and the other one had it in Drama. And I agreed 
 with the last one, because I said there's sure plenty of drama in it, 
 whatever else there is. But here we have, here we had a flagrant case of 
 inventing the bullet and then wondering what the remedy was. They invented, 
 the dopes - I, pardon me, I.. I.. I didn't mean to become overwrought about 
 that. These.. these noodleheads uh.. invented and manufactured - can you 
 imagine a central goverment doing this?! I mean, it would have to be a 
 central government that was just scraping the bottom of the tone scale! A 
 central government that needed.. needed rocket guns to shoot anchors up high
 enough to grab on to hold bottom! They invented an unlimited weapon without 
 inventing any defense for it. They didn't invent a force screen and then 
 invent an atom bomb. They didn't invent a method of controlling the people 
 who would use atom bombs and then invent atom bombs. No, they just said, 
 "Gee, we can make a lot of explosion! What do you know! Let's all run around
 and be.. be very, very explosive!" And what do you find? They.. they.. they 
 didn't even go and look up in their elementary textbooks on.. on national 
 uh.. the.. the.. the art of running a national government, and didn't even 
 find out this following line: "In the presence of an unlimited weapon central
 government ceases to exist, and has always ceased to exist." That's 
 interesting, isn't it? It's right in the textbooks. 
 
 -47- 

 Any time there has been a weapon of unlimited scope and power against
 which there has been no adequate defense, the immediate result of the 
 presence of that weapon on the national scene - not its use, but its 
 continued presence on the national scene - has caused the disintegration of a
 culture and the central government. Uniform, it's all through history. 
 
 The first example of this is the horse and the sword. He was the 
 first unlimited weapon. He started coming out of the steppes of Russia in 
 1500 B.C., and he swept down upon a defenceless Europe which had only the 
 most fragmentary type of infantry uh.. formation. And the horse and the sword
 went through Europe like a lightning bolt. And there was nothing to stop him!
 Nothing! And the civilization which was Europe in those days - and it was 
 that civilization on which the Phoenician civilization built, by the way - we
 know nothing of it today to amount to anything. Why? It was just swept away.
 For 200 years, from 1500 B.C. to 1300 B.C., we had a state of anarchy and 
 chaos existing in central Europe which has never since been approached and it
 was done with a horse and a sword. And why did it stop? Because somebody sat
 down and did some real heavy thinking and came up with a brand-new idea: a 
 wall. Came up with this brand-new datum: a wall. And they built walls around
 their towns, and walls around castles, and they built walls, walls, walls, 
 and first thing you know you couldn't have a cavalry detachment composed of
 bandits or militia or anything of the sort suddenly riding through every 
 village and hamlet. There were always walls into which to retire. And the 
 Phoenician then, with those walls, was able to push frontier posts out into
 the further reaches of a onetime civilization and reconquer it to some 
 degree. 
 
 And Rome, itself, and Greece could cokie into existence because of 
 what? Walls. And finally this was improved on to such an enormous degree that
 we have the Great Wall of China. The idea even got out there, which was 
 finished uh, the third or fourth century A.D. Walls licked the cavalry rien.
 Now there have been a few other imbalances, but there has never been an 
 imbalance to the degree that exists today. 
 
 Rut what kind of a government and what kind of a weapon is really 
 serious? Not a weapon which destroys mud. A weapon that destroys minds, 
 that's serious. Out of the body of knowledge which lies before you a 
 sufficent technology is to take over, seize and handle any government or 
 people on the face of the Earth. You aren't of an ethical level, even, that
 permits you to observe this. You wouldn't think in these lines. And yet if 
 only those principles were known, there would be people who could and would
 think in those lines. 
 
 You can control men like you would control robots with those 
 techniques. The implantation, black Dianetics, pain-drug-hypnosis are very 
 mild methods of control. Do you know that the Sufi Mohammedan cult under 
 Hashshashin controlled Europe for 300 years with the rather thin gadget of 
 throwing hashish into some young man, suddenly making him appear, wake up in
 a beautiful garden where there were forty black-eyed houries to serve his 
 every desire, where there were rivers of milk and honey - real milk and 
 honey, rivers and fountains. And he could stay there for about three or four
 days, and then he would suddenly be told, "Now you have had your taste of 
 paradise. In order to return to paradise it is necessary for you to return 
 down to earth and carry out the commands of this order." And this young man
 would then find himself suddenly in the middle of some large town, and he 
 would know that all he had to do was to walk up and kill the sultan of that
 town, and if he himself were killed in the same act, he would immediately 
 appear in the garden of paradise. Hence the Assassins, and the Assassins 
 controlled practically every breath Europe took for almost 300 years. How 
 simple it was. 
 
 -48- 

 All they had to do was write over the signature of the grand high 
 assassin to the sultan of whatever they wanted to address and say, "Unless we
 receive certain camel loads of silk and so many slaves," and that sort of 
 thing, "we are not going to be friendly." And believe me, those things 
 arrived. Right now. Or, "We do not.. Dear Royal Potentate Nighness, we do not
 approve of your recent law uh.. congress uh.. Bill 862 uh.. and we think it 
 ought to be changed." Bang it was changed. Why? Because nobody could stop one
 of these young boys. Nobody could stop 'em. The fellow'd suddenly walk out of
 the crowd right straight into the drawn scimiters of the guard, and before 
 anybody could even make him halt in his tracks he had stabbed the royal high
 sultan in the breast most expiringly. 
 
 That was an unlimited weapon. But it was a weapon effected through 
 using phenomena of the mind. If you release the remedy, and if the remedy is
 fast enough before the forces of evil can muster their machinations and use 
 the overt act, it can't ever be used. There is only one thing that could 
 happen to Scientology, and that is to say that it would be buried. The remedy
 would be buried. If it ever went out of sight, this world's done. All you've
 got to do is invalidate it and put it out of sight and hide it, and it'll 
 come up in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, and mankind will find 
 itself a slave. 
 
 So anybody that knows the remedy of this subject, anybody that knows
 these techniques, is himself actually under a certain responsibility - that's
 to make sure that he doesn't remain a sole proprietor. That's all it takes, 
 just don't remain a sole proprietor. Don't ever think that a monopoly of this
 subject is a safe thing to have. It's not safe. It's not safe for man; it's 
 not safe for this universe. 
 
 This universe has long been looking for new ways to make slaves. 
 Well, we've got some new ways to make slaves here. Let's see that none are 
 made. 
 
 Now it's fortunate that we are able to make Clears as fast as we can
 make them. It's very, very fortunate. Because black Dianetics, as most 
 destructive things work in this universe, could work a lot faster than the 
 old-time techniques - work really fast. Nowadays - get this - you can use 
 creative processing; the process of using mock-ups will flip out a PDH 
 without ever touching it or addressing it. Isn't that fascinating. You can 
 knock a PDH to pieces with fifteen minutes of processing. And it takes longer
 than that to put one in. 
 
 Another condition could exist, a PDH could be so - a pain-drug- 
 hypnosis - they knock the fellow out, they drug him - could be laid in with 
 great rapidity. But it could be laid in so strongly that the individual is 
 rendered dead. Or non compos mentis from there on and thus out of 
 communication. That individual is no menace to anybody. He's either complete
 ravingly gone, out of communication, and look.. or he's dead, and a bullet 
 does the same thing. So it's not a good weapon, really. Because if he's 
 able.. if he suddenly starts acting peculiarly or doing things which 
 completely alter any pattern he has had in the past, or if he is doing things
 which look like they are vaguely bad, then how easy it is. You can get ahold
 of him. You'll find almost any preclear can be given creative processing. And
 you could get ahold at him and flip the PDH out. That's interesting, isn't 
 it? In other words, you can take 'em out as fast as they lay 'em down. 
 
 Therefore we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is 
 produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's uh.. 1984? Yes, yes, 
 that's wonderful. That would be, could be, the palest imagined shadow of what
 a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with ra
 
 -49- 

 remedy in existence. Well it's all right in this offhand age to just brush 
 things aside and say, "Well, it's of no importance, no importance, really, 
 and.. let's not be dramatic the way people are being about the atom bomb." 
 Actually the atom bomb isn't as serious as this subject. It's just a MEST 
 weapon. And, it's all right to be very offhand, and very cheerful and so on, 
 and - like the little boy whistling in the dark says, "No ghosts or boogymen 
 exist." - Well, this boogyman does exist. 
 
 It's a very simple remedy. And that's just make sure that the remedy 
 is passed along. That's all. Don't hoard it. Don't hold it. And if you ever 
 do use any black Dianetics, use it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of 
 sight and made it so it wasn't available. Because he's the boy who would be 
 electing himself "the new order". We don't need any more new orders - all 
 those orders as far as I'm concerned have been filled. 
 
 Now when it comes, then, to logic.. when it comes to logic, the logic
 of putting this together had as its first criteria what? Application? What 
 were we going to do? What were we trying to do? That was fairly well 
 thought-out, we were trying to help beingness. What are we going to do? Well,
 we're trying to help beingness. There's a good cause and effect definition. 
 We sit down and we say, "Now, what, what's our purpose? What's this all 
 about? What's the first statement made on that? Well, that was it. 
 
 And uh.. it wasn't a slop-around of.. well, let's be scientific and 
 let's fool around and let's see if we can make a lot of money, or if I could 
 only do..." No, it was just a simple clear-cut statement. It presupposed one 
 thing: that something could be done. A presupposition. And it had to assume, 
 also, that the something which could be done would be, basically, simple. 
 These were unwarranted assumptions. But it's a universe that's made by 
 postulates. So we just postulated that before we began, and it's been going 
 ever since. But uh.. darned near, well, it's a little over twenty years' 
 worth now. And for two-and-a-half years it's been under heavy duress and 
 test. 
 
 I was the most stunned fellow in the world when I found out that the 
 First Book did not work fast and uniformly in the hands of auditors. I 
 couldn't figure out what I was doing that they weren't. I didn't learn that 
 until a relatively short time ago. Very short time ago really. I was simply 
 saying, "Now there will be light. Now there will be sonic. Now there will be 
 somatics. Now there won't be an engram." And I was doing it by a gradient 
 scale that made it stick. It was a very very important omission. But, getting
 a communication level on it. Furthermore, I didn't know how good it could get.
 
 With this series and with this training which we have now we have 
 passed by the level where this could be more damaging than it could be 
 beneficial. We have unbalanced the scale in the opposite direction. And when 
 anybody did that, it was certain that it would do what? It would take this 
 universe with it. I'm afraid that's possibly happened. I've been very careful
 not to think of... 
 
 Wrote a ghost story one time, used to have a lot of fun writing 
 stories, I love to write stories - uh.. I walk around the circle every once 
 in a while now, I.. I think to myself, "Gee, I.. I really ought to be doing 
 something interesting like writing stories." Little fellow, Professor Mudge, 
 Professor Mudge - all he had to do, he was supposed to have found in Spinoza 
 the way to teleport automatically. And all he had to do was think of a place 
 and he would be there. And if he thought of a place he would be somewhere 
 else, and if he thought of another place he would be there, but he couldn't 
 get it under control. And he was having one horrible time; he was just having
 a dreadful time because he knew there was one place he mustn't think of - one
 
 -50- 

 place above all others of which he must not think, under no circumstances, 
 and he was just gritting his teeth for fear he would think of it before he 
 found the remedy by which he could control this. And when it came all the way
 through to the end, he at last could think the thought: the sun. He musn't 
 think of the sun. 
 
 Now, so it's sort of like that in Scientology. I've often wondered if
 we aren't playing tag with that thought we dare not think, because there 
 would be a sudden creaking and cracking of the walls, and there it would go.
 But, we have done a very good crawl up the line, here, to a proximity to that
 point that isn't dangerous. And I think we could possibly think of that 
 thing, now, because we've got the bridge built to the back. 
 
 What's all this got to do with.. with logic and processing? It 
 doesn't help an auditor too much to be logical. Because logic is a rather 
 specious thing. Sometimes it helps an auditor to be most dreadfully 
 intuitive. I used to do horrible things, I used to sit and process a 
 preclear, and I'd.. I'd look at him and see his... I'd look at his engrams 
 and say, "Hey." And I was making a little demonstration not too long ago, and
 a fellow was running a DED-DEDEX, he was getting his own head knocked off, 
 and he'd knock somebody else's head off, and then a couple of other fellows'd
 knock their heads off, and we were doing these 1-2-3, 1-2-3, running brackets
 on it in each one in turn, and what do you know? The somatic he had wasn't 
 reducing very well. So I said, "Well, all right, get ahold of the girl." And
 he says, "What girl?" And I said, "That girl in the cave." And he says, "What
 cave?" And I said, "Why, the cave, of course, let's get ahold of the girl in
 the cave," and he says, "Oh I, I think I'd better keep on running this other
 thing here." And I said, "No, no let's get ahold of this girl." And he said,
 "Well, get ahold of her how?" And I said, "Well go ahead, get ahold of her,
 now, now, bash her head in against the rocks." And he said, "Oh no, no, no."
 And he began to get rather ill. There was where it was, of course. But the 
 trouble was is he was sitting there with his eyes sort of turned or his 
 energy beams sort of turned away from the front ridge, which was right in 
 front of his face, and which looked like a small motion picture going on. And
 all the time he was running the other he kept actually holding this 
 facsimile off. And there it sat, him with his hands wrapped around a girl's
 ankles, about to bash her head in against the wall. Well it's pretty hard for
 an auditor to resist the temptation of auditing that way. But it's very 
 startling to the preclear. Too startling. An E-meter does a better job than
 that. And you start looking at too many ridges, you'll start going into 
 communication with too much entheta or too much energy, so that's kind of 
 bad. But you can get a feel about a preclear. And the more you work with him,
 why the stronger you can get these hunches about him. As long as you can be
 certain about them, work with them. If you can't be certain about them, don't
 bother with them. Hit your own level of certainty with regard to preclears.
 
 It doesn't do much good to be logical about a preclear. We know in 
 Scientology there are so many things that can be wrong with him in this 
 universe. We know he has so many can'ts on create, and so many can'ts on 
 destroy, and so many can'ts on change in this universe on eight dynamics. And
 we know he's got these various compartments of eight dynamics, and he can't
 do some of these things. That's that. You run mock-ups on these things, and
 your preclear'll come out all right. There's no sense in trying to be 
 logical. 
 
 Never bother to ask him, "Why? Now why was that aberrative to you?"
 Never ask him to evaluate, because the silliest trick of this universe is: 
 beyond the progressive line of agreement there is no logic in this universe.
 That IS the logic of this universe. Therefore engineering, mathematics and 
 electronics seem to be so certain and so true. But they are only the track of
 
 -51- 

 agreement - there is no logic beyond that agreement. You can make any kind of
 a logical series of exercises you want to make, and have a wonderful time 
 with them, and amuse yourself no end. But logic was not used to work out 
 Scientology. Logic was not used. 
 
 If this had been the simple job of putting together how do you make a
 universe, that job was done in 1938, and it was written about in a book 
 called EXCALIBUR. But it didn't work because everybody was in agreement with
 the MEST universe so you had to find out what this universe was all about, 
 and you had to find out how it was put together and what all these agreements
 were and what the progressive scale of agreement was, and what happened on 
 the whole line. And then you could make Scientology work. So it became a 
 study of agreement, progressive agreement. But progressive agreement doesn't
 really fall within the.. the framework of logic. Logic is a progressive 
 similarity. 
 
 Well, now I'm going to give you something which is a little less on
 the opinion level and a little less more in the sky, and I'm going to talk to
 you about something very specific in the line of processing, and make your 
 Saturday night a little more worthwhile than it has been so far. And I'm 
 going to show you about difference, association and identification. We're 
 going to look over here at the tone scale, and we're going to have here... 
 and then we're going to have minus scale. And we're going to work here with
 difference, association and identification. A=A=A=A. This is the behavior of
 the reactive mind. Everything is identified with everything on a certain 
 subject. A spelling might be different, the word would be the same, the 
 fellow would have it confused. The literal command value of an engram. That's
 identification in the line of thought. 
 
 Fellow walks down the street, and he sees a garden hose, he trips 
 over the garden hose and he's very upset about it. lie's got it identified,
 you'd think, with a snake. No, we didn't say he was a Freudian psychoanalyst.
 Uh.. he has that garden hose identified with what? Well, with the Battleship
 Missouri. And why has he got it identified with the Battleship Missouri? 
 Well, it's because he comes from Oklahoma. That's not sensible, is it? Well,
 it's sensible to this preclear! A=A=A=A, everything equals everything. 
 
 Now this person is disassociating, and it is a strange thing about 
 this tone scale, that the bottom of it is a mockery of the top. Things which
 are at the extreme bottom of the tone scale actually mock the capabilities of
 theta in a little tiny, tiny bit down there at the bottom. No, no, no force,
 no power to it. So on. For instance, there's love and uh.. good fellowship,
 protection, brotherhood, and so forth, is down just before the fellow's dead,
 clear down here to 0.0. The nicest anybody is, is to a dead man. They say, 
 "Look at the poor fellow," and all that sort of thing. 
 
 Sympathy is a mockery of actual assistance. It's actually a mockery
 of good communication. It's a perversion. So we get to the bottom of the tone
 scale, we find the great party of "let's all bow down and worship Uncle Joe"
 uh.. is running around like mad using a group and is calling it brotherhood
 and yet each man there is using the group in which to hide. No man there will
 take responsibility for anything. They're trying to say, "Five morons make a
 genius," they're trying to say, "Because this is a big group we have the 
 masses, we are therefore bright and we are therefore powerful and we are 
 therefore wonderful." 
 
 This is nothing against communism as a teaching. Actually that can be
 a very high-level teaching, but there's plenty about communism as a practice.
 It's a bad practice where it is used to enslave Man. Any practice that 
 enslaves Man ought to be shot down in its tracks. And that's all that ought
 
 -52- 

 to be shot down. The men who do it are insane; they can be salvaged. 
 
 But here we have a brotherhood feeling just before you get to zero.
 And it's a mockery of a feeling of very expansive uh.. beingness with. One 
 can be a terrifically high individual and yet feel an enormous, embracive 
 feeling toward his fellow beings. One can do that, but he's not NEST. 
 
 The MEST guy down at the bottom doesn't love his fellow beings. He's
 Just mocking it up in a last dog hanged effort to say, "Look, I'm a thetan!
 I'm a real being! I actually exist! I have life in me! Look, I feel this 
 brotherhood! Please, please, please don't kill me! Save.. hide me, because 
 I.. I.. I.. I'm really alive." And so they take the highest capabilities 
 there are and mock them down here. The MEST itself is sort of impersonating a
 brotherhood of life. But that's not living, that's dying. 
 
 So way up at the top here you don't have this A=A=A=A as a 
 differentiation, but you DO have a level where a fellow can say, where a 
 fellow can say, "The chrysanthemums are no submarine and somebody let the air
 out of the spokes." And he knows what he's talking about. Actually it's quite
 a trick, talking non sequitur. Uh.. sometimes you'll sit down and you'll 
 start talking to a little kid, and you'll tell him something like that, and
 the little kid will look at you very intelligently and say, "Yes, but no 
 shoes." And somebody down at the identification band almost goes mad. They 
 look at them and then they try to creak these things together. They.. 
 they're.. they're dealing in these inanities all the time, but they never 
 notice it. So, there you have that level of mockery. 
 
 So up here we have differentiation. Now you could have enough 
 differentiation to have a complete universe, a complete universe, a complete
 universe, a complete universe and then have these complete universes 
 segregated or in communication with each other without destroying them. 
 That'd be quite a trick. 
 
 Now. That's spelled different because it's supposed to be different.
 Now. Down here, we have what? We have association. And, as association - uh..
 fellows can link up and say, "Look. We're all members of this team, and we're
 good guys. But they're all members of that team and they're bad guys. So 
 therefore all our actions are good and all their actions are bad. And we're
 going to go through these strategy and tactics in order to lick them 
 fellers." Something like that. Or, somebody comes along and says, "Now let's
 see.. water boils and this boils or that boils and it does something or other
 and you divide that by 212 and you get the square root of gophers." And uh..
 you.. you.. he says that's very associative and it's very logical. 'Course,
 what is the most associative we've got? The most associative we've got is 
 tracking the agreements, the gradient scale of agreement which is known as 
 the MEST universe. So, we've got association; that's linking this and that.
 
 I've told you that story about the three fellows, one of them... 
 they're all riding in the subway train and the subway train's making a lot of
 noise, so one of them says, "Oh.. I have to get off at Wimbley." And the next
 one of 'em says, "Uh.. no it's not, it's Thursday." And the next one of them
 says, "I'm thirsty too, let's get off and have a drink." Now that.. that's 
 too differentiative or it's too identified. It's not associative. And of 
 course that's just nonsense, it's non sequitur uh.. and it.. it's just 
 missing a few steps to be logical. And the logical thing is for the fellow to
 say, "Um, I'm getting off at Wim.. at Wimbley." And the fellow says, "I don't
 have to go there till Thursday," and the fellow says, "Oh, is.. is tomorrow
 Thursday? Well I thought that uh.. today was Thursday. I can't have a drink."
 And you depend on that as being a sequitur situation. That would make it 
 associative. 
 
 -53- 

 Now some people believe you have to be logical. Those people who 
 think you have to be logical are more or less located in that band. But those
 people only become militant and very, very ornery about all of this when they
 get way down here, and then the fellow.. you're going along in steps and you
 say, "Now you see, it's this way." And you skip about eight steps in your 
 logic, and you say, "Now there's.. that's how we're going to get the copper 
 down that mountain." And the fellow says, "Yeah, but you said... now just a 
 minute, how about this? How about that? How about something else? And how 
 about something else? And how about something else?" And you say, "Well 
 that's all included in there." And you explain it to him very patiently. 
 "Yeah, but," he says, "how about this?" And then he says, "And then there's 
 the tax on the sacks." And you say, "Well that.. that only.. that's only 
 one.. one milreis and.. and..." He says, "Yeah but," he says, "you haven't 
 added that in," you say, "It's not necessary to add that in, we're working on
 a gross of 50% of the cost of the thing, and we've allowed for that." And he
 says, "Well you've got to figure these things out, you've got to be very 
 careful, you got to be very cautious, you've got to figure all these things 
 out and you've got to figure..." 
 
 It's like the ensign goes out and he shoots the sun and then he.. he
 gets a sextant that has an index error of 25 degrees, and he goes out and he
 shoots the sun and he figures it all out and he comes back in. And then he 
 gets his tables and he figures the position of the ship out against that 
 sight, he figures the position of the ship out to one-eighth of an inch. 
 Taking the Pacific Ocean, he figures the ship out to one-eighth of an inch. 
 And you got.. you go in there and you find all the chart tables just covered,
 there's masses of, just, oh boy, figures, and the guy has really got his 
 position. And you say, "How about the index error of the sextant?" "Well," he
 says, "that's normally so-and-so and so-and-so. Well I haven't paid any 
 attention to that, of course," he says, "that is just the.. that's just 
 taking the observation," he says, "we don't worry about that." And you say, 
 "Well just why are we sailing three miles north of Kansas City, then?" Now 
 he's done a typical stunt down here. He's become too thoroughly associative 
 without being even vaguely logical. And just below that level the whole chain
 breaks up, and the fellow starts to disassociate. 
 
 Every once in a while you'll get a preclear and she'll be.. she'll 
 come in and talk to you, or he'll come in.. he'll be saying to you, "And, and
 all up and down the street, and when I parked it uh.. the cows aren't any on
 two sides, and I know that's why they're after me." And you.. you say, "What
 did you say?" He says, "Well I'll get 'em off of me in a minute, but..." 
 That's dissociation. 
 
 Now down here is a dent... and this, oddly enough, is exactly what it
 says: it's identification. There isn't a one of you sitting in the audience 
 that doesn't have a card or something on him which says that he has such and
 such an identity. That is a identification. It relates two completely contrary
 things together. It says your name is so and so and that you are a human 
 being. Isn't that weird? One of the reasons you pack a body around is because
 it's a good identification card. But I don't think it's a good identification
 card. You have to.. it, it weighs a lot of pounds and it gets on buses and 
 off of buses, and you need all sorts of things to cart the thing around. But
 nobody would recognize you if you didn't have it. Now that's an awful lot of
 poundage to carry around just to have some fingerprints. 
 
 Well when I say identify, I mean identification. I mean that badly 
 logical in every sense that Count Korzybski meant it. And it's.. it's just 
 horrible. The most terrible things stem out of that. Now when I say, "I am 
 something" well "I am something" is up here in association - it says, "I am 
 associated with." But when you get identification, you've got you, a producer
 
 -54- 

 of universes and a regulator and changer of all things, mixed up with being a
 piece of MEST. And the most identified a guy can get is buried. He's been put
 into MEST, he is MEST and he has been slid into the MEST and covered up. And
 that's identification. 
 
 So, if this is identification, is there any lower level than that? 
 Yes there is. There are the levels of "I am not", "I am.. I, I am a body and
 I am less than me" by -8.0. Because below that level an individual so 
 thoroughly believes he is a body, he's living the lie that he is something 
 else than what he is to such a degree, that he is no longer himself - and 
 what do you know? - he is even anxious about being something he is not. 
 
 He's even afraid he can't be that. He.. he.. he's already conceded 
 that HE doesn't exist, that he is a body. That's at 0.0 on the tone scale, 
 that's "being a body". And then we go below that and he says, "I'm not even 
 able to be a body. I'm so much lower than this that I'm not even a good body.
 I have to own a body. Or I have to control a body, or I'm very excited about
 a body, or I have to hide. I even have to hide the body." 
 
 Now it's just a lowered level of "I am" at the top here above 40.0, 
 then "I am something" - you could say down about 20.0 "I am a member of the 
 team and I am doing so and so." And then down below that you could say, uh..
 "I am and I run a body." And then it gets down to zero, "I am a body. I am a
 body named Jones." Something like that: "And I don't know anything else than
 that. And if somebody walks up to me and says.. says I am something else than
 this body named Jones, I can prove to him completely that I am Jones. I am 
 only Jones. I even carry identi.. I carry fingerprints, and I carry 
 identification cards in my pocket, and I can prove to anybody that comes 
 along that my name is Jones, that I am Jones, and that's that. And that's 
 wonderful, and it's very cute of me to be able to do that trick." 
 
 And down here, why the guy even isn't.. isn't able to be a Jones when
 he gets below this level. These are the thetans you find hanging around the 
 morgue who have been there for a number of years because they haven't got any
 place to go and they couldn't even be a body. They don't even know they're 
 there, it's very, very.. it.. it's amusing or heartbreaking, whichever way 
 you want to look at it. You go along and put your.. put a.. put a 
 communication line on one of these characters and he sort of looks at the 
 communication line, he's already in apathy and he says.. he says, "Look, a 
 line." And you say, "Hey, what are you doing?" And he says, "I guess 
 something's disturbing me." That's about as alive as he is. 
 
 So, what's all this about? This is a related experience, then. So, we
 get something else. We've already noticed that we had cycles of Action. 
 Cycles of action begin with creation and end with destruction. All right, if
 those things are the case, then let's take a look at the cycle of 
 differentiation. And as we look in this, we find the cycle of differentiation
 begins here with.. the cycle of diffentiation begins with "differentiation",
 continues through "association", and passes on through to "identification". 
 And that is the cycle of havingness, it starts here and it ends there. And 
 it's the cycle of reason, it's the cycle of having (which is time itself) and
 it is the cycle of being. And that is the cycle of all things which measure 
 cycle. 
 
 Now. It tells you that if these three conditions exist on this line 
 that you have to reverse the cycle on the preclear. Now let's look up along 
 here and let's find out if there's any other cycles involved. Yes sir, there
 sure is, here's your second cycle of action, which is "Start-change-stop", 
 and up above that level here's another cycle, which is "Creation uh... 
 alteration and destruction". And up above that level you have, over here, 
 
 -55- 

 "Space, Energy and Time". And down below this level, monitoring all of these
 things, we have in human experience, we have "Be, Do and Have". And those 
 things are all related, and these are all related, and these are all related,
 and this is 40.0 on the scale, and this is 20.0 on the scale or thereabouts,
 and this is 0.0 on the scale. Interrelationships of reason, of experience, of
 the MEST universe - interrelationship of all the laws of motion, and of the
 law of the cycle of the universe itself are postulated, then, on this tone 
 scale, and in order to raise an individual up the tone scale you only have to
 get him to reverse any one of these cycles and the others will reverse. 
 Reverse any one of those cycles, the other cycles will reverse. In order to
 bring an individual up the tone scale, then, from the infinity of the MEST 
 universe back up to the zero of the MEST universe, you would have to work him
 then from the low part of the scale up the scale. 
 
 Now there are many intermediate steps on each one of these scales, 
 but these steps are each one of them a gradient scale of logic, and it is 
 undone by tracing the sequence of agreement which came about and resulted in
 0.0 and below 0.0. So it is in essence a workout of disagreement; it is a 
 method of making an individual disagree with the MEST universe. And a man who
 can finally disagree more and more with the MEST universe and do it on a 
 gradient scale so he is not grossly upset, is, of course, going upscale 
 continually. But if you force your preclear to agree with the MEST universe
 you are in each case going over from differentiation toward identification 
 because the NEST universe itself in the furthest reaches, is an 
 identification of such chaos and confusion that it divides actually only into
 two halves, and that's positive and negative, and the positive is have, and
 the negative is have not. This have and have not in terms of human experience
 makes positive and negative experience. 
 
 So, what's the best way to get this preclear up tone scale? Well, 
 there's an awful lot of ways to do it, because there's another cycle right 
 here. And this cycle here is from serenity through sensation down to the 
 emotional scale, and that again has your three points. So you run the 
 emotional scale backwards. You run the emotional scale backwards and you'll
 find your emotional scale fits exactly across that scale of differentiation-
 association-identification. Sympathy, low on the tone scale, is "I am being
 my fellow man," for instance. Anger is.. is "I am holding again and with, 
 thank you, my fellow man". 
 
 Now. Whenever we have emotional-sensational-serenity, we've got down
 here a tone scale with which we're very thoroughly familiar. That tone scale
 goes from enthusiasm at 4.0, down to conservatism, down to boredom, to 
 antagonism, to anger, to fear, to grief and to apathy. And therefore we know
 this little band in here very, very intimately, we are very, very sure of 
 this little band in here between those two. But actually there are some 
 emotions and conditions which are below that which are listed, of course, in
 our textbook and which we will have to cover later. 
 
 But uh.. to bring your individual up the level, then, just this far,
 has been quite a trick with old techniques -4.0 to 0.0. But look at how you
 bring him up tone scale now. All you have to do is use creative processing to
 start making him associate and differentiate. "First let's mock up Momma. All
 right. Let's mock up Momma again. Okay, let's change one of those nock-ups to
 the wife. What's the difference between the two nock-ups? Oh - ya mean.. you
 mean you've both got 'em wearing the same dress? And they're both wearing the
 same shoes? And they're talking both in the same - now wait a minute, you've
 got to change one of these until we get some kind of a difference between 
 them." And the fellow'll say, "For heaven's sake, I never recognized it 
 before, but I DO have my mother and my wife slightly confused." 
 
 -56- 

 You just create mock-ups until they can create mock-ups for mom and 
 mock-ups for wife which are instinctively very different. You create 
 mock-ups, then, on identification of various actions that they would tend to
 take in their life - what is the difference between driving here and driving
 someplace else? What is the difference between driving a car and driving a 
 wagon? You'll be surprised how some guys are fouled up like a fire drill, 
 they're stuck in something back in 1776, and every time they take the car out
 they wreck 1t or something of the sort. And uh.. there weren't any 
 automobiles back then. 
 
 You.. you'll get some of the most amazing identifications out of your
 preclear, and all you have to do is give him one mock-up of one, and one 
 mock-up of another one and let him look at the two mock-ups. And if he can't
 get up the scale to where he can do that kind of a mock-up let's get the 
 first basic elementary differentiation, and that is the difference between 
 black and white. You get the difference between grey and very grey. Now get 
 the.. get him to handle and control at will grey and very grey, and then 
 finally get him to handle and control at will black and white and turn them 
 off and turn them on. Not only turn them off and turn them on, be able to 
 locate them all over the place, and put 'em in time, and put 'em this way and
 that way - he's got two things differentiated, he's got black and white 
 differentiated. Good, he's got them differentiated? Now let's break 'em down
 and get various colors, and let's handle those colors, because that's 
 breaking white down. And now let's get the black and blacker, and get him to
 differentiate amongst the various shadings of black. The kind of blackness 
 there is that has something in it, the kind of blackness there is that 
 doesn't have anything in it, what are the difference between these two 
 things? 
 
 Me get him to differentiate and differentiate, and we'll find out, 
 what are we doing? We're coming right on up the tone scale toward 40.0. Now,
 he can't do that very well, we have a bad time with that, let's get him to 
 stop and change things. Let's get him used to being able to stop things and 
 then change them. All right, now, for instance, there's.. there's.. there's 
 an example of that little drill now, "Mock up an automobile, have it passing
 from the right to the left. Stop it. Now. Change it into the Eiffel Tower. 
 Okay. Now, as the Eiffel Tower have it move from the right to the left. Stop
 it. Now, change it into a human being." I mean, just a simple drill. You'd be
 surprised how many people it just keeps right on going, and when it comes 
 to... They can't stop anything. All right, they have stop, and back here to 
 change. 
 
 Now we get somebody in destruction, and we find out this fellow, oh 
 boy! Yeah, he can sure destroy things. In fact, it's all so destroyed he has
 nothing but a black visio. Well let's encourage him, then, on the destruction
 of things. Let's figure it out, let's get him so he can really destroy these
 things real good. "Now, you got that tower? Well blow the tower half down. 
 You got tower half down now? That's good. Remake it into a school house." 
 You're backing up the scale on him. You're making him half destroy things and
 then alter then, half destroy things and alter them, half destroy 'em and 
 alter 'em and so on and so on and so on. So, you're getting destruction back
 to alteration. 
 
 Or making him destroy them. Destroy anything he's got. He says, "I'm
 haunted by this visio that so-and-so and so-and-so, I'm haunted by this 
 completely black visio. I am sure it is a black visio of my basement, but I'm
 not sure - it might be a black visio of the sky." 
 
 And you say, "Well that's just dandy, let's take and throw a big 
 black cloth over this black visio." And he thinks for a long time, and he 
 
 -57- 

 finally throws a black cloth over the black visio, and he knows it's a black
 cloth because it has a little feel to it. And you say, "You got that black 
 cloth over that visio? Now.. now be very careful, now, but close a great big
 cone of blackness down on the top of the black cloth. You got that now? Now,
 change it from a cloth to a carpet." Guy'll think for a long time. Sometimes
 he can do 1t. Alteration of blackness. You'd be astonished how much you can 
 alter and vary blackness. Don't quit or give up because your preclear can't 
 do anything else. Or maybe he can put a black spot up on something with his 
 eyes wide open, and then finally be able to shift that black spot an inch. Or
 turn it white, or do something or other with it. So, you've got him again, 
 backing up towards 40.0. 
 
 All right, now we.. this business of trying to handle time in human 
 experience has been almost impossible. But we come to a very interesting 
 series of processes when we come to the handling of energy, because his 
 rehabilitation of force must be good, he must be able to handle force and 
 generate force and receive force in all categories. And, more important than
 that, he must be able to handle and control space in all categories in order
 to back this up. 
 
 All right, those are the various scales. They are the scales of
 logic, they're the scales of experience, and they're the scales of processing
 in Scientology. Thank you very much. 
 
 (TAPE ENDS) 
 
 -58- 
