From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Mon Jul 12 22:37:39 1999

Path: newscene.newscene.com!newscene!novia!feeder.qis.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!kiowa!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news

Date: 13 Jul 1999 05:37:39 -0000

Subject: FZ BIBLE 2/11 MORE 3RD ACC TAPES (1954)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

Message-ID: <2d6763382efd3eeef0359b5e8339c666@anonymous.poster>

Sender: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>

Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to

	<squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity

	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.

From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>

Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net

Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net

Lines: 593

Xref: newscene alt.religion.scientology:865270 alt.clearing.technology:90553





FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST



FZ BIBLE 2/11 MORE 3RD ACC TAPES (1954)



**************************************************



Here are another 11 of the 3rd ACC (Advanced Clinical Course)

lectures of early 1954.



These are based on existing freezone transcripts.  We had 2 of

the reels (3ACC-04 and 3ACC-63) which we used for a second proof 

to ensure the accuracy.  We did not have reels for the remaining 9 

(they must exist in the freezone somewhere because they were 

transcribed).  There are some problems with the transcripts

for 3ACC-23 and 3ACC-41, as noted in those files and if anyone

does have these tapes, please verify these transcripts.



In all cases, we also consulted Alphia Hart's notes on the

3RD ACC which were taken during the lectures and any descrepancies

or missing sections have been marked.



3rd ACC lectures 24, 25, 32, 35, 42, and 66 were posted

earlier this year as "FZ BIBLE 0/6 SOME 3RD ACC TAPES (1954)"



3rd ACC Lectures 6A, 6B, 8, and 44 were posted last year

and reposted earlier this year.



We are sorry to be issuing this ACC in bits and pieces but

NONE of these lectures have been available from the Cof$

for many years and we are finding them a few at a time amoung

old timers in the freezone.





**************************************************



CONTENTS:



1.  3ACC-04 BOREDOM, PACE OF LIVING, TRUTH

2.  3ACC-07 PROCESSING DEMO: RANDOMITY PLUS AUTOMATICITY

3.  3ACC-23 LABELS:  BEINGNESS AND JUSTICE, CONT.

4.  3ACC-37 LIVINGNESS PROCESSING SERIES (DYINGNESS)

5.  3ACC-40 GOALS OF 8-O (OT) ABILITIES

6.  3ACC-41 BASIC DATA ON 8-O (OT)

7.  3ACC-43 O.T., INVERSION: COURAGE AND MOBILITY

8.  3ACC-57 GROUP PROCESSING ON CERTAINTY, 8 DYNAMICS

9.  3ACC-59 GROUP PROCESSING, AUTOMATICITIES

10. 3ACC-63 GROUP PROCESSING ON CLASS - BEING MEST

11. 3ACC-67 GROUP PROCESSING ON CLASS:  RESIST EFFECT



Jan to early Feb 1954.



**************************************************



STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 



Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology

Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.



The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of

Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the

copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.



They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be

stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 

Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered

to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.



The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings

of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.



We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according

to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.



But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,

the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 

testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  



We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion

as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures

without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.



We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do

not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope

that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose

to aid us for that reason.



Thank You,



The FZ Bible Association



**************************************************

 

3ACC-07 PROCESSING DEMO: RANDOMITY PLUS AUTOMATICITY



[An existing freezone transcript from old reels.  Checked against 

Alphi Hart's notes.  Need reel for proper proofing]





3rd ACC lecture 7



PROCESSING DEMO: RANDOMITY PLUS AUTOMATICITY



5401C06, 3ACC-7





..the body out on the sidewalk.  Be the motion of the body out

on the sidewalk.  Now be the body.  Now be the room.  Now be the

motion of the body, now be the motion of the body out on the

sidewalk.  Now be the corner.  Now be the motion of the body

walking down to the corner.



OK, be a thousand feet up.  Give me some places where you're not.

Some places where somebody else isn't.  Be yourself.  Give me

some more places where you're not.  OK.



Now give me several things that you can lose.  Several things

that you can afford to lose.  Now check over some things you have

not lost.  Now some things which you own.  Now some things which

you know absolutely, with certainty, that you do not own.  Be

them.  Be them, one right after the other.  OK.



Find the two back points of the room.  Now sit there for a moment

and look and don't think.  Now look through whatever you're

looking at.  OK.  What you got?  OK.  Feel better?  You're

hungry?  Put some people in your stomach.  Go for British.



Now look, cannibalism for the duration of this class at least,

doesn't hold.  How's that, feel a little better?  Who

exteriorized on that one?  Good.  Anybody exteriorize on that for

the first time?  A little patty-cake way of exteriorization.  Did

you?  He doesn't know.  We have to solve on some of these cases

degradation because of exteriorization, before they'll

exteriorize, because probably most of the people here who aren't

exteriorized right now had, at one time or the other, and then

they felt very degraded for having done so.  And that's what you

have to solve in this case.



Well that's beside the point.  SOP-8C is still very much in

order, just as it rolls.  Carol, be your lungs.  Be your body.

Be your lungs.  Be your body.  Be somebody else's lungs.  Well,

was that what you did?  Did you do that?  



(Tried moving that off.)  



Oh you did.  Still obey?  Yes, well you be your lungs

again.  Alright, both you and Carol and you be somebody else's

lungs now.  Be somebody else's lungs.  Now be somebody else's

lungs, and be those lungs with TB.  Now add lung fever.  Now

wheeze and pant and can't get air, as the lungs.  Now get a

gleeful feeling of actually lousing him up.  Just get what you're

doing to this person with your TB and so forth.  Just fix them up

but good.



Now be the person.  Now be the lungs.  Now be your lungs.  Now be

the effort of your lungs.  OK?  You still holding back a cough?

You still afraid you're going to cough?  Alright.



OK.  That better?  Well, I hope you feel better, but the

practical truth of the matter is, you characters, I didn't

process you this morning to make you feel better.  I tried to

give you the opening gun on randomity and automaticity, beingness

and resistance.



Do you know you've been resistive thetans now and then?  And

did...



Anyway, we're on the air, I'd better not make remarks like that.

Poeple will get the idea that I sometimes inject spicey remarks

in my lectures, and of course I never do.  I've never said

anything risque in front of a microphone, never since noon.

Haven't been on a microphone.



Anyway, we are now going to cover, we are now going to cover; you

know it's very fortunate by the way, you do have symbols.  Don't

go fighting symbols just because I said that a thetan fought

them.  It's very fortunate you have them, because the truth of

the matter is, it's a wonderful code system until somebody begins

to louse it up.  A symbol is as good as it represents exactly

what it is, and it's as bad as it starts to represent something

else.  A symbol never gets dangerous 'til it gets into an

abstract state.  You don't have any trouble with this word space.

You might have trouble with space, but you won't have much

trouble with the word space.  See, and you won't have much

trouble with a lot of things.



But carrying on here this afternoon, we have a very, very

important; by they way, this is quite important to you, is I

don't happen to be covering this stuff at length.  You better

alert to that fact.  I'm not covering anything at length.  Now a

lot of times when I find people very, very pleasant and

agreeable, and life is running along very smoothly, and I don't

intend to get an exact certain job done with the unit, I'll talk

and so on, just to be a good talker, and amuse the audience and

so forth.  I don't happen to be doing that now.  Of course you

can't resist throwing a few punches around, but the stuff I'm

giving you is rather terribly condensed.



If you knew how terribly condensed it was you'd probably be

upset.  And we covered this same material in three weeks with the

first unit.  Three weeks of approximately three hours a day.  The

first unit, by the way, occasionally thinks of these SOP-8C as a

new technique or something of the sort, and so on.  As a matter

of fact, they were trained in it, but they were trained in its

basic theories, and they've come out with extrapolations of this

course, because that's what they were trained to do.  And it's

very amusing that their orientation on this is slightly

apologetic, because they're departing from a rote procedure

slightly.  But they're departing from it on exact, solid theory,

and they're departing from it along the line of a theory, which

of course leads them anywhere.  They can go all over the hills

and far away and still get results from a preclear.  They're just

applying these basics.



Alright, what we're going to talk to you about today, and

probably never mention again, is randomity and automaticity.  And

I'm going to tell you all about it in about fifty minutes, and

I'm never going to talk about it again.  Now that isn't let's

hurry up and grab on to all these symbols and so forth, but let's

get a clear cut picture of these two things.  Recognize that they

are definitions, that the definitions are not necessarily true in

the field of music, they are not necessarily true in the field of

making bread, but they are very definitely true in the field of

Scientology, because when we use these we get people out of their

heads and in good shape.  Now we're getting people out of their

heads, you know, and in good shape, speaking of symbols.



Alright, let's, let's then go into these two things on their

purest definition, which is to say randomity is the ratio of

predicted to unpredicted motion.  Minus randomity is where that

fraction is greater than one, and plus randomity is where that

fraction is greater, is less than one.  Reversly, if it were the

ratio of unpredicted to predicted motion, minus randomity would

be where the factor was minus less than one, and plus randomity

would be where the factor would be greater than one.  So I don't

care which way you state it, it all adds up to the same word, the

same thing.  But because we've already said minus, the latter

definition is the one you will be asked to put down on a quiz

paper.  The only reason you get a quiz is if it's a precise

definition.



You know, it's one thing to teach someobdy the airy theory of

something or other, and another thing to ask him, "Point to an

ashtray."  When he points to a chandelier you know he doesn't

know what an ashtray is.  The kind of data we're handling here

happens to be of that order.  Ashtray, space.  Space is

something, it is a vewipoint of dimension.  Communication is

something, it is a message or a particle going through distance

in a certain direction between two exact points, that's a

communication.  And, randomity is, in spite of the fact that's it

embraces randomness, is a precise definition.  And it is the

ratio of unpredicted to predicted motion.  And that is exactly

what it is, and that's all it is, and it isn't anything else, and

it's what thetans make games out of.  And if you don't know that,

why, then you can't produce a game.



See, you'd be fumbling around wondering what people have fun

playing.  Truth of the matter is they'll play anything that has a

randomity, that has an agreement with what they think is fun.

And they'll have a randomity, if you have a minus randomity, that

is to say the less randomity than what they think is fun, then

they won't enjoy the game.  And if you have more randomity than

what they think is fun, they'll say the game's too fast and too

hectic.  Just like you're going to say this crowded in patch of

data here, right at the beginning of the course which you are

then going to forget all about and I keep jumping on you about

all the time, is much too much randomity.  But, it can't be

helped.



Here's, here's this, this definition.  Random what?  Random

motion of particles.  Well, what's random about it?  That which

is random about it is that which is unpredicted about it.  And

that which is not random about it is that which is predicted

about it.  So we take this magazine, and we say the magazine is

here, we are going to put it over here at the other corner of the

table.  We do so.  It's predicted motion.  That's cause.  We say,

"Alright, here's a magazine, and lord knows where it's going to

go."  My foot, it stopped, but still terrifically random.  I

expected it to skid.  That's unpredicted.  But it's still caused

to the degree that I threw down the magazine.



Alright, we're all sitting in here feeling happy as can be, and

all of a sudden a kid jumps through the ceiling and throws a base

ball at Ross.  Now he is a particle who is coming through an

unexpected place, and he does an unexpected thing with another

particle; in other words two unpredicted motions.  See, they're

only unpredicted because; well, Mr. Sidler, I'm awfully glad to

see you.  The unpredicted part of the action is only this:  Ross

didn't predict it.  See, that's, you don't have to go into

patterns where they follow smooth flows, or they're parallels on

the hexagons, or anything like that.  See, it's nothing but, all

we've got to do is realize that we are dealing with knowingness,

not dealing with patterns of particles.  And then we'll get what

randomity is.  It's a very simple thing, and it's been digging

around for a long time but it needs a terrific amount of

explanation.  A few sentences anyway, because you're going to be

living with it.  You've been living with it for seventy-six some

trillion years, and you haven't got it solved yet, so it's about

time we nailed it.



Now when a preclear is bad off he has a fixed rantomity.  That we

were calling, because I didn't want to start into randomity

yesterday, I called it survival pace.  Supposing front lines were

just climated on a survival pace, well that's his randomity,

bullets flying all over the place and so forth, he can predict

this.  He finally figured out a way to predict this.  "You never

get hit until the one comes along that's got your name on it."

You see, he predicts it.  He handles it in this fashion.  He

says, "Well, up here guys get killed."  Then he develops a sixth

sense so he isn't where the bullet is, and then he becomes

unkillable.  He actually does this, but that's his level of

knowingness pitched against the flow of particles.



Now in order to have a flow of particles you have to have space.

So it follows with an individual who has any randomity at all,

must have space.  So an individual who is fighting randomity runs

himself fresh out of space.  You want him in space, too much

randomity, so he says immediately, "Well, the way to cut down

randomity so I don't have to predict is just have no space.  Ha.

No particle flow.  Ha.  Sit still.  Simple.  Nothing unpredicted

about that, oh!" and he gets a somatic in his stomach.  So that

becomes no solution, because he can't exist and live without

space.  And so he always has some space, and in the effort to cut

it down to a minimum he merely brings in and tries to hold still

the particles so he can predict them.  Well he has become effect

at this time, and he is quite convinced that is effect and that

he'll go on being an effect.  But we have to move him over to

cause.  How do we move him over to cause?  Simply by making his

level of knowingness sufficient to predict the course of

particles.



How far do you think you could drive an automobile if you

couldn't predict the course of that particle on a highway, and

the course of other particles on the highway?  What interval of

time is it necessary for you to have in order to predict these

particles?  Not a very long interval of time, true.  But you

should have several seconds.  And a driver, yes, because when a

driver is driving along the road in a fairly relaxed condition as

he often does, the oncoming cars, he sees these oncoming cars

actually several seconds before they will actaully impact, he

sees them start to do something funny.  That's your normal course

of driving, and so he puts on his brakes or he speeds up.



Now you had it gaged there for a moment against an accident.

Well of course in an accident his level of knowingness has been

exceeded, or the mechanical ability of the car to be controlled

has been exceeded.  And so we get on either side the particle

failure, or the knowingness failure.  That's what we call a

mechanical failure in an airplace.  Airplane's flying along, all

of a sudden he goes boom and explodes all over the sky.  Nobody

could predict that one.  Why?  Well, it's the mechical failure.

The fellow who predicted it or could predict it is a long way

from there, and he is the fellow who designed or the fellow who

built the airplane.  But that still was at one time a predicted

motion.  It was predictable at one time, and wasn't predicted.

And that we call a failure.



Therefore, what is a failure?  A failure is a predictable motion

which wasn't predicted.  What is being wrong in terms of motion?

Being wrong in terms of motion is realizing that one had the

capability of predicting a motion, and he didn't predict it.  So

now he knows he is wrong.  Why is he wrong?  His level of

randomity has been exceeded.  See?  He all of a sudden got a high

level of unpredicted motion to the level of predicted motion he

was operating on.



What's the tolerance of a thetan?  What are the exact

mathematical terms would be the tolerance of a thetan in terms of

unpredicted motion to predicted motion?  The tolerance of the

thetan to unpredict, in this ratio of unpredicted motion to

predicted motion would be one hundred over one percent.  A theta

can tolerate one hundred percent unpredicted motion.  That's why

people go to amusement parks.  They try to attain this hundred

percent of unpredicted motion, and they try to still read around,

and leave as much as possible, some predicted motion, I mean,

they try to leave that aside.  But it's always with them.  They

for instance can predict gravity, so on.  Where they actually get

to is far, far short of their hundred percent.  But because they

can't get unpredicted motion they settle into a rut of a survival

pace, you see?  They wanted unpredicted motion and they couldn't

get it, and they were too smart for it, so they cut down their

knowingness, and fixed their survival pace at a lower pitch so

they could get some randomity.  Why do people come down hill?

They want some unpredicted motion, that's what they want.



Well they've fought predicting motion because a thetan can

predict motion at I don't know what distance into the future.  I

daresay that a thetan in good shape could predict the course of

an air particle now floating in this room for the next thousand

years.  He'd probably draw it down to the finest pin point.  And

yet that air particle will probably flow all over Earth, and be

in every town and hamlet you can see so, and he'd know exactly

what moment and what year it would be in what towm and what

hamlet.  I mean well, here's prediction of motion, he probably

would just know this.



Well imagine the poor plight of this beast, this thetan.  Let's

just imagine the poor plight of a poor fellow.  He has this

terrible situation on his hands.  He knows everything.  Well, he

could predict everything, poor fellow.  No game.  He knows he's

going to win.



Well actually he doesn't get trapped in this, and it doesn't

cease to be a game to him until he becomes unwilling to

duplicate.  He has to have original motions.  Now it's enough of

an unpredicted motion for a thetan to put something in a little

black box, close the box down, and then forget what he put in it.

And then open the box up again, and be surprised.  That's your

first level really that these processes, your first level of

randomity is just doing something so it'll surprise you.  Now

you'll find preclears playing this with somatics, you will see

they do things that will surprise them.



Well, here we have a pretty easy problem.  Why, why has life

become serious?  It becomes serious because one has too much

unpredicted motion.  His considerations alone governs whether he

likes it or dislikes it, so he's decided to dislike a certain

breed of unpredicted motion.  So he fights it.  So he becomes to

himself unpredictable, because by fighting it he becomes a symbol

or a mass, and he becomes himself a part of it.  Most people

think of themselves as a communication particle, and if you were

to, if you put a stamp on the forehead of most psychos in an

institution and dropped them in a letter box, they'd be real

happy.  They're a message enroute someplace, they're a particle.

They can at least predict being a letter.



Alright, what, what problems are we faced with here in

processing?  The individual who's trying to balance the desirable

level of excitement against the desirable level of security, all

excitement depends upon unpredicted motion.  And all security

depends upon predicted motion.  So the day he believes he can be

destroyed he gets interested in predicted motion.  Up to that

time he isn't even vaguely interested in it.  He can't get enough

unpredicted motion.  A fellow comes back to you and says, "Whee,

isn't it fun to be a lightening bolt, striking all over the sky?"



Well, where does this take you in processing?  You've got a

preclear, he's got a terrific security goal.  He's trying to cut

down his unpredicted motion.  That means he's fighting

unpredicted motion.  By resisting it he becomes it.  So he's

unpredictable, but sold on the fact that he has to have security.

So he does the strangest things.  He has to have security, so

twenty-nine years of the service which will retire him at thirty

years, will find him resigning.  And he says, "And I don't know

why I did it."



Now the thetan is doing nearly everything he's doing to himself.

He has set up some automaticity in the past in order to

accomplish some randomity, and this kicks back at him.  And after

a while he says, "I'm in terrible condition, process me."



Alright, what's automaticity?  What's this got to do with

randomity?  Well one of the ways you set up randomity is to set

up a chess player.  Sit down on one side of a chess board, you

make a move, go around to the other side of the chess board and

you make a move against yourself, and then you go around to the

first side of the chess board, you make a move, and go around to

the other side of the chess board and you make a move, and you

try to fool yourself by saying, "Now look-a here.  Here I am, I'm

moving on both sides of this chess board, one side after the

other, and I know exactly really what moves I made against

myself, and it's no fun."  Did you ever play checkers or chess

with yourself?  Did you ever try to play bridge with yourself or

something like that?  You know what's going to happen, there's no

opponent.



So you decide the best thing to do is to make an opponent.  So he

duplicates himself and then you say, "I've forgotten I have

duplicated myself.  So myself is sitting over there, but I don't

know myself, and this is some other person."  And his name is

Wagwalla or something.  And here's this other guy.  And now we're

playing chess, but that isn't fair, as you've only made him a

part of the person.  So he's not a worthy opponent.  So again

there's no randomity.



So you introduce a chess player that knows as much about chess as

you do.  And you'll have immediately cut yourself to 20 on the

tone scale.  And any thetan, given the slightest chance, will cut

himself from 40 to 20, just bang, just like that, by producing

the other chess player.



Well the production of chess players of course is a limited

project.  I can sort of hear somebody saying, "I wonder who's

chess player I am?"  Your own.  You notice the cells have never

given up this method of procreation.  A cell is his own identity,

in his own son.  And is his own identity in the second, third,

forth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh,

twelfth generation.



I refer you to the first book, cellular division.  The identity

is the same.  You know that is, because I've conducted a series

of experiments on this subject.  You don't know it is, but I know

it is, on this basis.  I trained a generation of cells to resist

cigarette smoke blown at the culture.  They'd all bunch over to

one side of the culture.  Well, I started out by blowing steam at

them, they didn't avoid steam because it was just wholly steam,

didn't matter.  And then substituted for the steam cigarette

smoke, and then blew steam in, and then blew cigarette smoke, and

then blew steam in.  They finally would avoid the steam, but mind

you now, cells will not avoid steam in a culture.  And there's

the nicotine poison and so forth, kicks it back, so they get

trained.



Now we can go two generations down the line.  No part of this

culture was part of the experience, but the children were, are,

here now.  And these were the children of the same culture as

those.  You blow steam at them, they duck.  Two experiments.



I don't know why people didn't do it before, but that's because

the field of psychology was not something you looked at, it was

something you thought about and did something else with.  But

that experiment could have been the most basic experiment of

psychology.  It actually had to be done.  You had to say, "Now

what's this being man composed of?"  Well he's composed of cells,

and all the cells are part of a whole, so the behavior of the

cells could be a pattern of the behavior of the whole.  And it

could have been worked out that way very easily.



Anyway, you did work it out that way very easily.  And I very

much looked at having conducted it, because it covered an

enormous section of knowledge, a way of not having the material

your own...



[end of transcript]



[The following notes on the final section of this lecture are from 

the ACC notes (published 1955) of Alphia Hart, D. Scn. who attended

this ACC.  These are notes rather than a complete transcript.  We 

begin with the sentence corresponding to the 5th paragraph above.]



The person who son't look at the back of a book to see how a

story ends doesn't want interference with his unpredictability.



Delusion is only a machine that will give the preclear

unpredictable mock-ups.  He put the machine out of his control.

There are machines that set up sharp and unpredictable pains,

too.



You can't get the preclear out of his head until he can be

cause, and he can't be cause because of automaticities.



Every one of the machines was set up with more particle

motion thatn the preclear thinks he has.



Automaticity is a machine which has been set up by the thetan

to serve the thetan. The thetan gives power to the machine

surreptitiously.  Soon the power breaks down. The occluded

persons have machinery that predicts blackness.



When you run out these machines, he'll have to have more

to enjoy the game.  Have him set up new machines, but

give them a finite time to quit operating, not to run forever.



ANYTHING THE PRECLEAR IS DOING AUTOMATICALLY, MAKE HIM DO IT 

HIMSELF, CONSCIOUSLY!  It'll quit misbehaving.  Have him do it

in mock-ups, and you've run an engram.  If in his mock-ups a

racing car keeps flopping on its back and you have him mock

up a racing car and make it flop on its back, you may find -

with an E-meter - that it's something else flopping on its

back - such as an airplane.  Make the preclear think of something,

and get pictures - and you'll key it out.



To undo a loss, tell him to close his eyes and lose the room,

then postulate he'll find it again and open his eyes.



A person can't accidentally set up an automaticity - that's

basic on the chain.  Have the preclear make enough pictures

and you'll key out the machine.  That's why Self Analysis and

Creative processing work - but it takes a long time.  But they'll

always get a preclear out of his head.



Those who say they can't get mock-ups have a machine that wipes out

the mock-ups before they're mocked up.  Have them get a "no

mock-up", over and over.  By doing it over and over, you're

duplicating, and keeping it from becoming automatic.



At its best, it takes one to two minutes to run out an

automaticity.



The only way anyone can control you is by taking over your

automatic machinery.



OCCLUSION: Something at which the preclear will not look.



AFFINITY: Wavelength of flow.



[end of notes]





***********************