 Now continuing the third lecture, December the 13th, continuing 
 assessment and the use of Standard Operating Procedure, you'll notice that an
 assessment, just at the beginning of the case, will not show up as much as an
 assessment taken a little bit later in the case. Run the case a few hours,
 and take another assessment. 
 
 The reason for this is, is you've shifted the values of the preclear
 and as we saw once before, you take off an effort band of some sort or 
 another, and an emotional band will show up and so forth. 
 
 Now, you are assessing against a cycle of action. As you well know, a
 cycle of action is from 40 to 0.0 on the tone scale, but is.. any area of it
 can be a small cycle with the same names. Whether you've got the broad cycle,
 the grand scale... Well, you're really just assessing against the grand 
 scale, so you don't have to worry anything more about that. 
 
 In your textbook you'll find the cycle of actions.. the cycles of 
 action are listed. There's Start, Change, Stop. Creation, Alteration, 
 Destruction. Be, Do, Have. Space, Energy, Time. 
 
 These are some of them. And you could really carry forward an 
 assessment using each point of each cycle of action, if you wanted to. You
 could take all the cycles of action and then take every noun of which you had
 any possible knowledge. You could feed these things through and it would..
 you see, you could expand this assessment out. It isn't a finitely small or a
 finitely large thing. 
 
 Really, what you're trying to do is.. you could take this very simple
 assessment, such as I gave the preclear the first day here - you take this
 relatively simple assessment, you just keep going over that assessment. 
 
 Or you can take a great big assessment, that'd be every point of our
 cycle of action, and every cycle of action, against every noun that you could
 collect anyplace. Be interesting, wouldn't it? 
 
 That.. that.. oh, boy! You could probably take up - if you gave these
 things fast, you could plot this all out, you would have quite an assessment
 on your hands. 
 
 Now it's probable that I will get down and build you a chart for 
 assessment. Build you a big chart for assessment, so that your.. your chart
 could be worked rather automatically and it'd give you the obvious mock-ups
 which you had to care for. But you could build that chart yourself without
 any trouble by simply taking cycles of action played against all available
 objects and nouns. 
 
 Now to go any further than this walks one into abstraction. You 
 really needn't go much further than this to get a good assessment of your 
 preclear. Once you've gotten the assessment, find out what he can do. 
 
 For instance, we didn't have an assessment on a preclear here and so
 a preclear's hands started to disappear on an E-meter. 
 
 What should you do? The preclear's sitting there and he's changing 
 postulates or something of the sort, and all of a sudden he says, "My hands
 are starting to go cold." Well, you find out what postulates he just got 
 through changing. Just go back over this and find out what postulates he's
 changing. 
 
 Uh.. if you hit one, why, let's find out if we can't do some mock-ups
 
 -110- 

 that make this. He hit a postulate, "I don't have to die," and his hands 
 started to turn cold on him. Oh, boy! What do you do? You just run the living
 daylights out of dying. You have him dying and his relatives dying and so 
 forth. 
 
 Well, if you were doing an assessment at the time, or if you just had
 him on an E-meter, you could just mention - let's see, "Mother dying; Father
 dying; Grandfather dying; Grandmother dying; women dying; men dying; children
 dying." All of sudden, you hit 'children dying' and maybe the machine goes 
 Booooooom'. Well, you'd save yourself a few minutes of time there by just 
 selecting out and having children die. Do you see how that would work? 
 
 By working with assessments - whether they're done formally, or you
 stop in the middle of a session, sort of, and just ask him a few odds and
 ends of this and that - why, you find lots of material. 
 
 Well, this preclear's hands went cold on him. Nothing was done about
 them, because no check was made on the.. no check was made on what postulate
 he had just been working with. And if that hadn't been immediately 
 discovered... Of course, the obvious thing is just start him handling 
 'hands'. 
 
 Now anywhere in any mock-up that you can possibly slide it in, slide
 in electricity, ribbons of energy, sparks and beams. Any place you can slide
 these in, on a mock-up. 
 
 You're working 'hands', well, let's put sparks on the toes. You're 
 working 'bodies in coffins', let's put some blue light and some red sparks 
 and things like that, top and bottom of the coffin. Let's go ahead with this,
 in other words, and uh.. and uh.. work it out - IN TERMS OF FORCE. And that,
 to a thetan, is force, flow, electronics, and so on. 
 
 Now if you've run into very heavy flows of course, you can run hoses
 or firehoses or something. Or you can simply go on working with objects. 
 You'll be surprised. You see, I'm having.. it's a little bit difficult 
 communicating.. communicating a simplicity to you. I get questions which tell
 me that you want a.. you want a highly regimented uh.. 'I don't have to have
 to think' variety of thing. And to tell you the truth, you can't process 
 somebody without thinking. Uh.. of course, you can just be an E-meter and 
 just sit there and be an E-meter. But I've never seen an E-meter make anybody
 well yet, unless there's somebody reading the meter. It's a very necessary 
 piece of equipment to an auditor, but uh.. unless he's willing to look at the
 needle and find out what it's doing and why it's doing it... 
 
 All right, now some preclear - as I said, we.. we suddenly start to 
 get drops on everything across the boards. Well, the best can be said for 
 this preclear is this preclear drops on everything. And some other preclear,
 we get nothing but indecision, indecision, indecision. Well, for heaven's 
 sakes! Know something about the anatomy of 'maybe'. Of course your preclear
 is going to be very indecisive about creation and destruction and everything
 else if this preclear's sitting in a lot of big 'maybes'. 
 
 So let's get an object here and then an object there. And let's work
 until we can tell if an object is one place or if it's another place. 
 
 The first thing about a 'maybe' is that it's confusion of location. 
 It's a confusion of beingness, a confusion of doingness, a confusion of 
 havingness. And it's too badly balanced to resolve itself. In other words, 
 it's all balancing everything, balancing everything else, and the fellow just
 can't make up his mind about it. 
 
 -111- 

 Well, the way to do that is to differentiate. And the way you 
 differentiate is to put things.. one thing in one location and then a thing
 in another location and then another thing in some other location. Simple,
 simple - nothing to it. 
 
 Take the first Q, Q-l. If one can do that, one can differentiate. If
 he can do that, he can start and stop at will. See, all those cycles of 
 action proceed out of Q-1 - very intimate. And it's much more important in
 processing to make something change in location or to unmock some real 
 universe thing than it is to indulge in a lot of speculation about it. 
 
 This is action processing if there ever was one. Keep things moving,
 if you possibly can. 
 
 And in an assessment, you don't have to be very particular, because
 the points necessary to be gotten on the case will show up with exclamation
 points with great ease. You won't have any trouble locating something on this
 case. You're going to get a drop. And if you just ran over all eight dynamics
 on "Are you willing to create?" And the fellow says, "Under what 
 circumstances?" Or "When would I create it?" Or "What am I going to do about
 it?" He's nervous about creating it, that you can bet your bottom dollar. He
 doesn't want to take the responsibility for creating, so he'll create it for
 somebody else. Get the idea? 
 
 So, we've got an upset about creation. And what'll solve that upset
 about creating things? Just creating mock-ups, that's all. Just let him go
 ahead and create 'em. Then take another assessment and find out what specific
 things are standing in the road. 
 
 This person says, "Destroy. Well, why would I destroy it? Why 
 shouldn't I destroy it? I don't know whether I want to destroy it." He's 
 nervous about destroying it, isn't he? He doesn't want to take the 
 responsibility for destroying it. Therefore he can't handle the force of 
 destruction concerning it, and it becomes a very, very simple thing, then, to
 process him or to assess him. You just get him to a point where he can at 
 least make something disappear. You'll find out that he's most willing to 
 destroy a worthless object. Get some object he's utterly certain is 
 completely worthless to everybody and everything, including himself, and then
 he'll get a clean destruction on it, Let's take a chewing gum wrapper, or 
 let's take some chewing gum, let's go find some chewing gum under a theater
 seat somewhere. And then let's very carefully take this chewing gum and make
 it get smaller or bigger. Or drop it someplace else, so that it will never be
 in the ken of man again. Well, that is next door to destruction, see? And by
 this gradient scale work it on up. 
 
 So, as I say, you could do the Grand Scale assessment, or you could
 do just a little assessment. But you certainly better ask him about these 
 things: the lists of relatives and associates as contained in the HANDBOOK
 FOR PRECLEARS and the list of body parts contained in the HANDBOOK FOR 
 PRECLEARS. I'll get around to writing all these things up for you. 
 
 You should ask him about these things. You should ask him about the
 dynamics, his body and peoples, that are at the trouble, more or less, with
 everybody. And you'll run slam bang into the computation of this case 
 immediately. "Would you create Grandma?" 
 Wham! 
 "Oh, you mean you wouldn't create Grandma?" 
 
 -112- 

 "I felt bad ever since Grandma..." 
 
 What it's dropping on is just 'Grandma', see? "I felt bad ever since 
 Grandma departed this life." 
 
 What do you do? You didn't have to go any further than that. We've 
 got him stuck right away in an assessment on Grandma. You can go the rest of
 the way, if you want to assess the rest of the case, but you discovered a 
 HECK of a DROP! That's all you're looking for is a WHALE OF A DROP! And all
 you see is little, tiny drops.' And you want that thing going off the pin! 
 
 And by the way, I'll.. I'll give an assessment just as long as the 
 machine is still in working order. But when it starts to be threatened as to
 its working capabilities, why I'll drop the thing and start processing. 
 That's a good rule to follow. Just don't.. don't be.. don't think you have to
 snoop in with a magnifying glass into the preclear's life. What you're 
 looking for is probably as obvious as this MEST universe. 
 
 Now how do you fix Grandma? Gradient scale of Grandma. We finally get 
 to a point where we got the.. a sidewalk that Grandma once walked on. He 
 doesn't know she walked on this sidewalk, but he supposes she might have. And
 what do we do to it? We mark it all up or we do something to it or other. And
 then we get something else that Grandma might have had something to do with,
 and we vaguely walk in until we've finally got an old, very used, third-rate
 shoelace that is all worn out. And Grandma's thrown away, and we've got 
 something to do that to. And uh.. we can start it and stop it and change it.
 
 And what do you do with these items? You put them in front of the 
 preclear, behind the preclear, above the preclear, to the sides of the 
 preclear and below the preclear and put them at a distance and put them up 
 close. That's what you do with 'em. And you change them in color. And you 
 change them in size. And of course you change the object from one object to
 another object. You change the sidewalk to a cow path. And you change the cow
 path to a boulevard. And you change the boulevard to an eight pass, super- 
 duper highway which you change back to a cow path which you change back to a
 sidewalk. Just keep altering this, changing it around, shifting it around. 
 This is really too easy to worry about it. 
 
 But you're going to say, "Well now, look: In postulates there are 
 various abstract computations." And actually, everything above the level of
 action would be in terms of.. everything above the level of action would be
 in terms of abstracts. And so your abstracts are very, very much to the 
 point. And objects, to shift around, aren't abstracts. You shift balls and 
 horses and cows and chewing gum and so on. But what about things this 
 preclear says he can't remember, he can't forget, he can't do this, he can't
 do that? And this is all abstract. 
 
 The only thing wrong with this preclear is the MEST universe; let's 
 not forget that. You find him here and he's agreeing with it. 
 
 Your first level of abstraction immediately above.. this isn't the 
 highest level of abstraction. This is the one that's a merger between objects
 and thoughts. That's the first level of abstraction. Up to this moment you've
 got cows and horses and chewing gum and ice cream sodas. Well, what is the 
 first thing you move into, into the field of language, is an abstraction? 
 It's 'forget' and 'remember'. 
 
 If you were a deaf-mute trying to teach a child, how would you teach 
 the child the meaning of the word FORGET and the meaning of the word 
 REMEMBER? All language is based on objects. Language is symbolized object or
 
 -113- 

 condition or state of being. That's.. that's all language is. Of course, its 
 condition could be an action condition or a static condition. 
 
 There's quite a dissertation on this in SELF ANALYSIS. It's in one of 
 the later acts; it talks about uh.. the.. the fish in Lake Tanganyika. It's 
 almost the middle of the book. It's not in the test itself; it's in 
 descriptive, I think, of Act 11 - not Act 11, but list 11 - something like 
 that or List 9. It's quite late in there, but it talks about language and 
 what language is and what the first level of abstraction would be. We had 
 this nailed down for a long time. 
 
 'Forget' and 'remember'. How do you make somebody forget? How would a 
 deaf mute make a little kid remember. He doesn't know the word REMEMBER. 
 Every time the kid tries to throw something away, the deaf-mute would give it
 back to him. Every time the kid leaves something behind, the deaf-mute would 
 give it to him again. And finally, the kid would go into apathy about it and 
 have the object. 
 
 And every time the kid wanted something or had something and was 
 trying to hold on to it you would teach him to forget, simply by taking it 
 away from him and not letting him have it. 
 
 So 'forget' is 'not let have' and 'remember' is 'must have'. Now 
 these reverse on each other low on the tone scale and cause a very bad mental
 confusion. The guy has been given something, he's got to remember it and he's
 got to remember it and he's got to remember it. In other words, he's got to 
 have it, he's got to have it, he's got to have it, he's got to have it. 
 Until, at length, he just goes into apathy about having anything. He really 
 won't have it and he won't take care of it, and he really doesn't remember 
 either. lie's just fading out into MEST. Same way with 'forget'. He can have 
 things 'forget, forget, forget' drilled into him until he gets daffy. 
 
 Now here's something very funny. If you just demonstrate this to a 
 preclear, very often a large sphere of his thinking will suddenly open up and
 become very clear to him for the first time, because he's been taught on the 
 level of abstraction, and never on the level of action. 
 
 "Now you must forget that." 
 
 He didn't know what 'forget' meant. And he says, "What's 'forget' 
 mean, Mama?" 
 
 And she says, "Not remember, of course." And she goes on washing the 
 dishes. Smart, she is. He doesn't know what 'remember' is either, see. 
 
 So he digests this and he thinks this over and he's got this figured. 
 And he worries about it - probably for days. All of a sudden he comes up with
 a clarification: "Ha! This is worrying me because I don't know what 
 'remember' is! I wonder what that funny other word is." He says, "What'd you 
 say 'forget' was, Mama?" 
 "Well, it's 'not remembering' of course." 
 "What's 'remember', Mama?" 
 
 "Well, Willy! How stupid you are. Why that's.. that's 'not 
 forgetting', of course!" 
 
 Nyeeowwww! And he stays in that spin from there on. 
 
 -114- 

 The essence of handling memory is 'forget'. and 'remember' at will. 
 That's the essence of thinking processes, is have or not-have, and that's why 
 thinking processes seem to get plotted up against time. And why the great 
 -- author George Q. Swishbottom uh.. takes 180 years to write this book, and 
 therefore it's a great book. But when you read it, you won't be able to find 
 anything in it. That's because he's so lashed down on the time track on 
 'forget' and 'remember' that he thinks words are objects. And the reason he 
 thinks they're objects is because he's so fixed and so squirreled on the 
 subject of forgetting and remembering. 
 
 Boy, he's really had to remember and he's really had to forget. This 
 boy has been subjected to more force per cubic inch than anybody else you 
 want to hear of. So it takes a long time, therefore it was a valuable 
 thought. There's no relationship. A thought is of a wave length and above a 
 wave length. And it can be as instantaneous as the dickens. You get some of 
 these people start thinking when they're outside and all of a sudden, and 
 they think themselves four or five years worth. Back out the back of their 
 heads and think for the next two three years and then move back in again. 
 They've been gone that long and worked out very complicated problems. All 
 right. 
 
 Now then, forget and remember is your lowest level of abstraction. If
 that's the lowest level of abstraction, what is the highest level of 
 abstraction? You could straighten that out with a preclear. It's just on the 
 basis of having him handed things and having him had things taken away from 
 him. That's your first mock-up sequence. 
 
 Just mock up two bodies out there and have one give one something, 
 and have that one that's been given something, give it back. And if the guy 
 can't mock up, of course you go into black and white processing. If he wants 
 to straighten out language, straighten out that first level. 
 
 Now there's an upper level of abstraction. Your top level of 
 abstraction is Interest. Now when I say 'top level of abstraction', I'm 
 talking about thought impinging on the MEST universe. And your first border 
 of impingement is Interest-Desire... You can write that down, if you want to, 
 but I told you all about this yesterday. Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. So it's 
 way up there - Desire. Gotta have. 
 
 Well, what are we studying then? We're studying forget is inhibited
 having, remember is enforced having, and your highest level of abstraction is
 a created desire to obtain. 
 
 And of course, no thetan who even got vaguely - go ahead and write it
 down, it's all right - uh.. no.. no thetan ever needed, for his interest or
 anything else, anything in this universe. 
 
 So the top level of abstraction carries with it some other factors of
 abstraction - the dynamic level is Desire and the other levels of 
 abstraction, in the order of their importance in processing, are Conviction. 
 And conviction, and conviction. Because the modifying and qualifying word for 
 each item is, for any desire, the fellow WANTS, he has to be convinced of an 
 EXISTENCE. In order to want a thing, he has to first be convinced there is a 
 thing. So your conviction is right there next door to desire, all the way 
 around. That's uh... 
 
 You know, if I were going to give a lecture, somebody said, "Uh.. 
 what is the entire anatomy of thought in this universe?" I would say, 
 "Conviction - thinking processes." 
 
 -- 
 
 -115- 

 You know, one of the neater techniques.. one of the neater 
 techniques, by the way, is uh.. trying to convince people is the same as 
 trying to move them around. Trying to convince them they're solid or not 
 solid, is making things solid and not making things solid, or making them 
 unsolid. And conviction is a demonstration of existence and a person who is
 convinced, has been convinced, of course, in this universe, of a trickery. 
 Because the universe doesn't have any existence except the capability of a 
 thetan. 
 
 And the capability of the individual thetan to perceive, to do, to 
 create space and to handle energy and objects in that space. And uh.. he 
 probably wants to convince others that the space exists. But that's the big
 trick - it doesn't. 
 
 So you go fishing around all you want to for creating an actual
 space, you can do all you want in that line, you won't find any 'actual
 space'. 
 
 There's an agreement on the actuality of space, and that agreement 
 took place out of desire to be convinced. So a very neat process comes out of
 that. Well, it's moving people around. That's your level of.. highest level
 of abstraction is Q-l. 
 
 Of course, the joke is that nothing exists to move them around in, 
 and they don't exist to be moved around, except as you mock up something to
 move them around in and to move them around. That's why the process works. 
 
 Lowest level of abstraction then, is Inhibit and Enforce. And then up
 at the top we get Desire, and of course we get people convinced they desire.
 Well, how do you handle that? Well, you handle that by moving objects around.
 
 One of the neatest mock-ups you can run on a preclear - this really 
 will stagger him - is make him make a piece of space and then make it solid.
 
 "Get a sheet of space - now make it solid. Now get a cube of space.
 Now pack it down into a solid object. Now you got a solid object? Make it
 into a cube of space." Neat. Why? Because that's conviction. 
 
 And he.. if you were to run this in. flows, which you're not going to
 run it in, you'd just run 'trying to convince people' and 'people trying to
 convince him', and 'others trying to convince others'. Now that is.. is a 
 terrific process. And the reason why it's a terrific process is very obvious.
 It's because it has such tremendous abstraction in its content. It takes in
 Q, but if you didn't understand what Q-1 was, you'd get upset about it. 
 
 But uh.. the guy exists, he's got to convince people he exists. 
 Existence is, if nothing.. if not force, force making objects, so if he does
 not have force, people are not convinced he exists. And if he does have 
 force, people are convinced he exists. So when he tries to convince people 
 that he exists, one of his later answers is to smash hell out of him. They 
 find out he exists. 
 
 Now when he can't use force, that answer is denied to him, so his 
 inability to use force is a demonstration he doesn't exist. 
 
 All right, we get invalidation of him is done by force. Convincing 
 somebody is done first by a thought and then by force. Invalidation is: "You
 don't exist," and convincing somebody is saying, "I do exist," or "You do 
 exist," or "They do exist." And it's best done by force. 
 
 -116- 

 I swear to Pete, if you were to go out here on the sidewalk and you
 were to take the first guy that came along and simply back him up against the
 wall and batter him until he finally admitted he saw a green toad - (I.. the
 green toad doesn't bear any resemblance to Purcell, I mean - that was not a 
 dirty crack) -- uh.. a green toad, the guy would eventually, even if he were 
 practically dying, probably come through and tell you, "Yes, I see a green 
 toad." He's convinced! 
 
 And what do they.. what do they finally pull - this language is 
 wonderful stuff - what do they finally do to someone who thinks he is outside
 law? They convict him, don't they. And when he goes to jail, he gets a 
 'conviction', and he is a 'convict'. He's been convinced. That's their method
 of conviction, is to contract time and space. They're trying to make an 
 object. And object is all that is convincing. 
 
 Now when you walk up to this wall and hit your hea.. hand against it
 like this, you see? You're convinced it's there because you can feel the 
 solidity of it. And if you didn't feel the solidity of it you wouldn't be 
 convinced it's there. So when you start doing unmocking, hold your hat, 
 because mock-ups of one's own universe and unmocking the real universe, 
 laughingly called, produce some singular results. 
 
 An auditor telling me last night, he.. he'd had a guy unmock.. unmock
 a part of a pinhole in the back of his head, and move this pinhole back and 
 forth - a hole back there. And make it a little bit bigger and a little bit 
 bigger and the guy was finally sitting there looking at the chair back. I 
 heard this story a little earlier. The fellow said uh.. "I seemed to be in 
 this forest, and then the forest turned out to be the green back of the 
 chair." He was looking out through the back of his head at the back of the 
 chair. 
 
 That's unmocking the back of a head. Well, the second you start to
 unmock, ALL of a preclear's experience on the track tells him, "No, no, no! 
 It exists! It exists! Look - be convinced! Please be convinced! We'll do 
 anything if you'll just be convinced!" And he really gets scared that if he 
 unmocks, thoroughly unmocks a table or unmocks a chair - you don't have to 
 educate him as to what to think about this. 
 He'll.. he'll say, "Maybe I better not do it." 
 And you say, "Why not?" 
 "Well, I don't know, I just got a feeling maybe I'd better not do 
 it." 
 
 And the next thing you know, don't be surprised if hard, solid 
 objects and all sorts of things seem to sort of hail in on him. That's all 
 the times when somebody backed him up against the wall and said, "There's a 
 green toad there, isn't there?" He finally became convinced. 
 
 Now his immediate and foremost desire, of course, centered on the 
 home universe. And the home universe might have merged over into this one. So
 his active desire was directed toward the home universe, and then became 
 crossed over into this universe. And many people have never discovered that 
 there was any transition. They still think this is their universe. 
 
 They.. every once in a while they'll gun around and they'll talk 
 about everybody being their puppets and everybody looks like.. they haven't 
 discovered yet that it's a group action. They.. they think they made 
 everybody here. And that's just uh.. an inability to differentiate between 
 
 -117- 

 universes. Their own universe and somebody else's. Well, they can start to 
 unmock this universe and rebuild their own; they get cured of this very fast.
 
 But uh.. they will start breaking convictions they have had in the
 past. And when they start breaking these convictions, one after the other, 
 why these convictions are mostly driven in and upheld by force and they 
 themselves have tried to drive in and make.. make other people convinced by
 using force. 
 
 Oh, this gets to be gorgeous after a while. A preclear.. a preclear
 is a.. you start to unmock and mock things up after a while - umocking 
 particularly - he'll run head-on sooner or later into a feeling like he'd 
 better not do it. It's.. it's uh.. "What if it all - umm-umm," because it's
 on the thinnest of gradient scales of agreement. 
 
 One of the things you do is to make him go through the action of 
 convincing somebody that something's solid. Make him pick up some empty space
 and convince somebody that something is solid about it. And he'll get the 
 weirdest sensations. See, the joke is, he's done just that. He gets the 
 essence of making a.. a gimmickahoojit. You.. you.. you're going to have a 
 game and you.. you have to agree with somebody and so on. After a while, if
 you've got a lot of solid objects on which somebody's agreed, you can pick up
 one of them and hit him over the head with it. 
 
 So behind every conviction lies a little pool of treachery. And don't
 be surprised then if you, as you unmock and mock things up in your preclear,
 or if you look on the assessment, you will find that there's a big charge on
 treachery, trickery - being stabbed in the back, and so forth. This table is
 treachery, trickery and being stabbed in the back in some.. in some category.
 And is desire in another category. And it's all at once, desire, trickery, 
 treachery. Because there's nothing there to be desired. But he wants 
 something there so that he can desire it. And it's trickery and treachery. 
 And boy, has he got an educated perception level! And you start to break 
 through that educated perception level and he just does wonderful things. 
 
 Then you'll run.. run this for a little while and you'll start 
 getting charges on the E-meter on 'It wasn't there'. He'll start going down..
 don't worry about this, just keep up the process. He's walked downstairs and
 he started to walk out through the front door. And got his hand through the
 door... before he remembered he'd better take the doorknob. That's upsetting!
 That's upsetting, for instance, to come over here and pick up this coke 
 bottle, and really have to make a little postulate about it. "Well, it's 
 going to be solid and I can pick it up." Otherwise your fingers close on each
 other. Fascinating. 
 
 Well, don't let your preclear get into that state. 'Cause we want
 this universe in good shape, because you're going to run slam-bang into these
 manifestations. 
 
 Now what's.. what's wrong with your preclear is as a little kid he
 tried to convince people of this and that. In school everybody tried to 
 convince him of this and that. And he's been trying to convince other people
 of this, and they've been trying to convince him of this. If you were just to
 run 'conviction' and just tear it off... 
 
 Now if you start running around trying to convince people Scientology
 works, you're walking into the biggest trap of all. Of course, Scientology
 works. It doesn't have to convince them. The.. the reason it works... 
 
 -118- 

 Oh, by the way. I didn't make a gag very clear last night. I said I'd 
 pop anybody if he kept talking about my ideas on this subject. Because what 
 we're talking about is the anatomy of the physical universe. And I'm damned 
 if this physical universe was my idea. 
 
 So if you were a little bit shocked or missed the point on that, I
 hope I made that very clear. What you're doing is accusing me, you see, of
 being the author of all this universe, and that's no good. 
 
 Now.. you can do a better job any day in the week. I mean this.. 
 this.. this.. look at that reverse flow as a trap, "I agree, therefore I've 
 got to have. But if I agree - I mean - If I agree to have, then I run into 
 'can't have'." "That on which I work hardest, I will have." Energy devoted 
 to, becomes havingness. 
  
 So Lord help somebody who insists on working only on the insane. 
 Obviously he'd go nuts! It's inevitable. What he devotes energy to, he will 
 have. That's one of the most fundamental rules there is. In order to have, 
 you have to devote energy to something too. This universe has got that all 
 nailed down. 
 
 That, by the way, doesn't happen to be entirely true. You can just 
 upset the agreement level and do that. 
 
 Now to tell you the truth, before I did very much about this 
 convincing and conviction and all that sort of thing, I was very careful 
 about it. I was, I was quite careful about it, because I.. actually you start
 working with this and you just feel these walls kind of go 'creak'. You say, 
 "Now, wait a minute." And it wasn't until very recently that I was thoroughly
 enough convinced that it would take more than two or three people working 
 hard in this direction to cave it all in suddenly. 
 
 But the whole thing of the process of Spacation - good old spacation 
 - done: You put out anchor points, see? Now let's put out anchor points while
 you're lying on the couch and let's unmock the couch. In other words, put out
 anchor points and put something of your own creation below the couch - but 
 inside your own space. Put out anchor points out here - you're lying on the 
 couch and put a.. a mock-up of your own down there. And then unmock 
 everything else but the beingness of you, the anchor points and that mock-up.
 
 In other words, unmock the real universe. 
 
 What's the.. what's the cure if your preclear suddenly.. all of a
 sudden decides his head is going to be blown off, or... This is liable to
 happen if you do that, you see. 
 
 Oh, you just unmock some more things. Just unmock some more. 
 
 You see, the essence of unmocking is that if he's really practiced at 
 unmocking things, even if he's still in his head, one day he unmocks his 
 body. And for him.. you see, his unmocking is done carefully within his own 
 frame of reference. He doesn't unmock for other people. He's kind of careful 
 about that at first, and then he gets a little less careful. And uh.. so, of 
 course, unmocking leads to a fellow just sitting there and no body. He 
 doesn't feel any body. Naturally then he can move around, and he actually 
 will move around on that unmocking. He's quite unwilling to do this. 
 
 But what's he run into? He runs into having to be convinced there is 
 a body there. And he thinks of all the hard times that he's had trying to 
 convince himself of the existence of something or other. He's been up to - 
 
 -119- 

 woof! - way back some time.. havingness. He's tried to convince himself 
 something doesn't exist, and something does exist. And he's tried to convince
 himself and get himself SOLD on the idea that there IS a universe there. And 
 he thinks of the times when his WANT has been stirred up, his INTEREST has 
 been commanded to this degree that he wants the object which has been 
 described. And then he sits there and his desire makes him want the solidity 
 and he gets space to come in together and he thinks of all the trouble he's 
 been through to go to all this sort of thing and to convince himself. And the
 thankfulness he felt when somebody walked up to him and handed him a real 
 object. Handed him a piece of the MEST universe. He didn't know the rules by 
 which you made something, but yet this other was real because he could be 
 convinced by it. And how could he be convinced? Because it could hurt him. 
 And because it could give him interest and pleasure and because it had color 
 in it and all that sort of thing. 
 
 So as your preclear starts on this track, he's liable to put on the
 brakes. But that is very aberrated, because, you see, at any moment you can
 re-mock up it. 
 
 The essence of mock-ups is the essence of perceiving illusions. And
 when he perceives mock-ups better, he perceives this universe better. So all
 that becomes very simple. 
 
 So there.. there is a level of abstraction which is at the upper 
 spectrum of all abstractions. You.. when the mathematician says, "A equals 
 alpha" or something, he does it with a conviction. He has decided that there 
 is a convincing actuality in that relationship. And the reason he can say 
 that is preceded by, not mathematics, but a conviction or a convincing of the
 existence of a beingness. 
 
 And before beingness there must be a convinced.. convincedness about 
 beingness. And your lowest level of abstraction, of course, is easily solved 
 because that's 'forget' and 'remember'. Now, don't forget those two because 
 the preclear's memory is as good as he can receive and retain objects; and it
 is as useful as and as workable as he can give away and let go of objects. 
 And between these two things, then, you get the whole range of what is 
 laughingly called 'the abstract'. 
 
 Now, objects, then, positioned in space, increased, decreased, made 
 to disappear, made to appear again and so on, are handling from a level of 
 Q-1 the entire span of abstraction as it applies to this universe. And let no
 one kid you otherwise. 
 
 Mathematics are symbolical manifestations of number, quantity and 
 quality, and.. applied to this universe. 
 
 You go outside the universe and make up a mathematics '1 equals 8' 
 and then don't ever worry about proving it. Because that's the next thing 
 that people ask you to knock you down scale and make you buy things, or make 
 you give up things - you've got to prove it. And of course you can't prove 
 something that isn't there. So a man goes into the doggonedest, most 
 long-winded dissertations and most idiotically, logical, wholly absurd - 
 well, just get this: Now do you see, the reason why you work is so that you 
 can eat. Nothing more logical than that, is there? That's real hard-rock 
 stuff. 
 
 Now just a minute. If you didn't.. weren't so convinced it was work, 
 you would probably eat better. All right, we've knocked that out just a 
 little bit. Now let's go up the line. Whatcha eating for? Well, you're eating
 for the sensation. Well, if you could mock up flavors which were better than
 
 -120- 

 you could buy, you certainly wouldn't bother with what was called 'real'
 stuff, would you? So therefore you wouldn't be eating for the sensation.
 
 Let's go over into some better reason for this. Now let's see. A 
 fellow's in a body so he can be identified. Oh, you mean you can't make an 
 identification of yourself show up so that people can see this? It's coming
 down to an inability of some sort, here. 
 
 Come on, let's.. let's prove why you have to work. Well, I have to
 work, I have to - well... 
 
 And that is the way with any proof there is for anything - proof or
 'pruff' - in this universe. It just goes around in a squirrel cage. It's
 just.. it's just nonsense. 
 
 That's true of space, energy and time, you see? I mean, they had 
 space, energy and time - each one evaluated in the terms of the other two, 
 and nobody outside this rat race. So if we could never get outside of this 
 rat race, we could never find anything that would solve time. We move over 
 here to Be, Do and Have and we move back there to look at... "Well," we say,
 "to heck with that. We're out of that rat race." Well, we've just 
 consistently moved up the line and moved the product of Be, Have and Do is 
 space, energy and time. All right, Be, Have and Do are conditions which can
 be set up by postulates which then, if everyone is convinced thoroughly 
 enough, exist as space, energy and time. And you work from this upper 
 abstraction of Be, Do and Have, and you get space, energy and time. 
 
 But you get something else, too. You don't just get space, energy and
 time. You find out that postulates can be made about almost anything. 
 
 Now the first time these postulates begin to get very set and matter
 begins to be unmovable and people become to be very unhappy and the game 
 stops being a game and becomes very, very hard work, is when everybody has to
 prove it all the time. They're proving something that isn't true, no matter
 what they're trying to prove. 
 
 Now we've taken apart an anatomy here, an anatomy of many levels of
 conviction which have resulted in many levels of desires and enforcements and
 inhibitions, resulted in many levels of conviction, many levels then of 
 affinity and agreement and communications. And what we've done is, in the 
 -- language of this, backtracked right on up the line until we had reconstructed
 this. And we followed the track back and all of a sudden we test it and now
 go up track or down that track again or get off that track and go over on 
 some other track and do something about that. 
 
 And uh.. it's up to you to establish a reality along this level. It
 is awfully tight as a level of application. I mean, you're not very far off
 any grooves. You.. you've got postulates.. you've got Q-1 and then you've got
 postulates. And then you've got Be, Do and Have and that gives you Start, 
 Change and Stop, Space, Energy, Time. Therefore it can give you any kind of
 an abstraction, so-called. It can give any kind of an object or any kind of a
 condition. 
 
 And you've just got all of that, just nearly fitted together in sort
 of a little telescope. And you can pull it out and look at it lengthily and
 drag it out endlessly or simply snap it together real close and start asking
 about the highest level of abstractions you can. You do an assessment on this
 E-meter here and look that over and you find out what he can't do. Well, the
 essential things that he can't do is can't unconvince himself once he's 
 convinced. And you might say that would be one of the rougher aberrations. He
 
 -121- 

 can't convince himself that he can be unconvinced, because he thinks he has 
 to convince himself to be unconvinced. And, of course, everytime he convinces
 himself that he has to be unconvinced, he becomes more convinced and lower on
 the scale, because of your reverse vectors and other things. 
 
 So I want to see.. I want to see assessments done, but certainly 
 not.. not with... You know that before you start work on the preclear, fill 
 up, oh, maybe ten notebooks, exhausting all this out carefully. 
 
 Now if you continue to run a preclear on the machine while you do 
 this, you will see whenever he's run up against one of these blocked 
 convictions, he's uh.. hit a point where he feels he has to be convinced. And
 you run up against one of those, and it'll give you quite a shock on the 
 preclear. That is to say, he's.. he's run up against where.. a point where he
 feels - oh boy! You just run dials down on that - where if he gives this one
 up, the whole universe will go 'poom!' and he'll get quite upset about it. 
 
 But uh.. I'll read you a couple of little laws about conviction, by 
 the way. "Trying to convince is the same as trying to move people around - 
 people or objects around; that they are solid or not solid; that they have 
 space; that they don't have space; that they act; that they don't act; that 
 they are perceived; that they are not perceived; that they can perceive; that
 they can't perceive." 
 
 That's all. Total level of line-ups. And one of the rougher things is
 that empty space is solid. Try.. try to convince somebody that empty space is
 solid. You get the big relief of somebody.. let's say you're dropping 
 somebody out of a sixteen story window or something like that. Think of the 
 big relief he would feel if he had a solid thing put immediately under him -
 I mean, right under him so that he would just drop a couple of feet and touch
 this solid thing. Boy, he'd feel so relieved. Well, that's.. that's pay for 
 being convinced that a solid thing can keep you from falling. It doesn't 
 happen to mean that a solid object can keep you from falling or it doesn't 
 happen to mean that gravity can necessarily act on you. 
 
 This gets very, very interesting after a while. Uh.. you could throw,
 quote 'solid objects' around at quite a.. quite a rate if you wanted to. It's
 up to you to recover that. It's not up to you to be shown. And also when 
 you've recovered it, it isn't up to you to show anybody that. It isn't, it 
 isn't up to anybody to.. you don't have to demonstrate anything to anybody. 
 As a matter of fact, I make a very set rule against it. To hell with it. 
 
 Somebody comes up to me and says, "Can you prove that so-and-so and
 so-and-so?" It's just.. that's been going on in this track for 74 trillion 
 years: "Would you please prove to me that so-and-so and so-and-so? Would you
 prove it to me? Well, I can't see the reason in it." Both of those things are
 just as haywire as hell. There is no reason in it. And as far as proving it 
 is concerned, they want to be convinced and the fastest way to convince 
 anybody would be to shoot them or something. And that's real conviction. 
 
 Yeah. What's also amusing is trying to convince people that particles
 have various qualities and that they are visible or invisible. It becomes 
 very fascinating, trying to demonstrate to somebody, really prove it to him,
 that a particle exists. 
 
 You can imagine yourself early on the track, going into heated 
 discussions about this thing, until the guy finally would groggily say, 
 "Okay, that's a particle. I'm convinced." 
 
 After a while we'd get all these particles together and we'd say, 
 
 -122- 

 "You see that table? That's something solid. Now look, I'm going to prove to
 you that that table's solid. Now take your fist..." 
 
 He says, "I haven't got a fist." 
 
 "You haven't got a fist?! Well, now look. Let's take a particle there
 - now hold on to the particle. You've got the particle? Now hit it against
 this table, see?" 
 
 And the guy goes... "Yeah! There's something there - not.. not really
 too solid yet though." 
 
 And you say, "Well, just a minute, just a minute. Whap! Bam! It's 
 solid. Okay, now you hit it with that." 
 
 "Yeah-yeah. Nice and solid now." 
 
 I mean, it's just as idiotic as that. The guy isn't convinced so you
 convince him. He's already been convinced there's such a thing as energy so
 he can be bapped, zapped. He's convinced of that and uh.. now that he's 
 convinced that there can be energy you can convince - there's such a thing as
 a particle, and the energy's got to have space to be in, isn't there? Of 
 course, energy's got to have space to be in - naturally. How could there be
 any energy if there wasn't any space for it to be in? So that's space, isn't
 it? Okay. Guess that's proved. 
 
 All right. Now, if there's space and there's energy in it, you don't
 want that space and that energy in motion all the time. That's silly to 
 postulate that it keeps changing position in space. You haven't proved to him
 yet that it is changing position in space, see? 
 
 "Now you just move it over there in the corner. Now, when it gets 
 over there in the corner it gets solid, doesn't it? It's not moving." 
 
 The fellow says, "What do you know! It's not moving." 
 
 "Well, when it's not moving, it gets solid. There it is: Solid - 
 solid object. That will be a dollar." 
 
 Somebody's already worked the magic on you that a dollar or a pound 
 -- are worth having, that you can buy things with it that you can't manufacture.
 
 The only thing valuable about the whole thing was a piece of 
 knowledge. If you know a modus operandi and can put it into effect without 
 excessive labor or cost, you sure don't need the object from somebody else,
 do you? 
 
 So it was knowledge, actually, in essence, that was above all the 
 levels. 
 
 Now you will find that knowledge is something that most of your 
 preclears will just shudder about destroying. They don't want to, unless it's
 knowledge about themselves. So, you give them.. have them mock up police 
 dossiers that tell about all their affairs and everything else, and you get
 that blown up and so on. Because they've got to take the terrible value level
 that they have off knowledge. Because if they had translated the word 
 'knowledge' as meaning 'a fact', then they have to hold on to their 
 facsimiles. So they feel they can't destroy their facsimiles because their 
 facsimiles are knowledge and this is not true. Their facsimiles as records 
 are of no great value. Present time action is of greater value. 
 
 -123- 

 The knowledge of how to get it accomplished or how to accomplish 
 present time action is valuable, not the file in which the knowledge is 
 contained. The invaluableness of a file does not consist of the quality of
 its file cards. And if the file could exist without file cards, throw it 
 away. Keep the knowledge, get rid of the file cards. 
 
 Knowledge can exist if we have a very easy, good method of reworking
 it at any time. You don't need it. And you'll see that happening the moment
 that you suddenly realize that you are sitting with the.. a formula which
 produces knowledge at will. And the guy will say, "Well, I know. The hell
 with these facsimiles." 
 
 He's convinced, too, that facsimiles are used in lieu of force. This
 is a horrible trap. He thinks that knowledge will always serve in lieu of
 force. Well, it will if you can get there with enough of it quick enough. But
 don't try levels of esoteric communication when there's a soldier on the 
 battle field and he's got the rifle trained square on you and the finger is
 closing on the trigger. That is exactly the wrong moment to try to inform him
 that you know more about rifles than he does, so therefore you should be able
 to... Oh, no. No. You're going to lose your havingness right there. 
 
 Another thing is.. is overevaluation of havingness. A person who 
 overevaluates havingness consistently and continually, then he will begin to
 protect things that .he's better off without. He will have things he doesn't
 need because he feels he can't ever replace them. And you get your 'packrat'
 nature of Man. 
 
 And he goes below that level, he feels that other people want to 
 damage him solely because he has things; therefore he'll start to abandon,
 abandon, abandon, abandon. He has no proper evaluation of the importance of
 havingness. 
 
 Which means automatically then he'd have no proper evaluation of 
 time. And so he doesn't have. 
 
 But it all starts out with a desire and a conviction and goes on down
 the line. And after a person's been convicted and sentenced to 74 years.. 74
 trillion years in the MEST universe, that much havingness of the MEST 
 universe, it's time some of you bail him out. 
 I'll talk to you later this evening. 
 (TAPE ENDS) 
 
 -124- 
