FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST



FZ BIBLE 1/30 UNIVERSES CASSETTES (5TH ACC)



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



CONTENTS: Universes Cassettes (the 5th Advanced Clinical Course)



32 Cassettes containing 33 lectures plus Introduction and Appendix.

The first lecture is also the final lecture of the 4th ACC and is

numbered 4ACC-72. Posted in 30 files ("+" used where a second item

is in the same file.)



01. ..... Introduction

+ 4ACC-72 29 MAR 54 EVOLUTION AND USE OF SELF ANALYSIS

02. 5ACC-01 30 MAR 54 UNIVERSES

03. 5ACC-02 31 MAR 54 SIMPLE PROCESSES

04. 5ACC-03 1 APR 54 BASIC SIMPLE PROCEDURES

05. 5ACC-04 2 APR 54 PRESENCE OF AN AUDITOR 

06. 5ACC-05 5 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: SAFE PLACE FOR THINGS

+ ..... APPENDIX

07. 5ACC-06 6 APR 54 LECTURE: UNIVERSES

08. 5ACC-07 7 APR 54 UNIVERSE: BASIC DEFINITIONS

09. 5ACC-08 8 APR 54 UNIVERSE: PROCESSES, EXPERIENCE

10. 5ACC-09 9 APR 54 UNIVERSE: CONDITIONS OF THE MIND AND REMEDIES

11. 5ACC-10 12 APR 54 UNIVERSE: CHANGE AND REHABILITATION

12. 5ACC-11 13 APR 54 UNIVERSE: MANIFESTATION

13. 5ACC-12 14 APR 54 SOP 8-D

14. 5ACC-13 15 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: EXTERIORIZATION AND STABILIZATION

+ 5ACC-13B 15 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: CERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

15. 5ACC-14 16 APR 54 SOP 8-D: LECTURE

16. 5ACC-15 19 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: UNIVERSE ASSESSMENT

+ 5ACC-15B 19 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: AREA ASSESSMENT

17. 5ACC-16 20 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: REMEDYING HAVINGNESS

+ GP-Spec 21 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: REACH FOR PRESENT TIME

18. 5ACC-17 21 APR 54 ELEMENTS OF AUDITING

19. 5ACC-18 22 APR 54 SOP 8-DA

20. 5ACC-19 23 APR 54 SOP 8-DB

21. 5ACC-20 26 APR 54 GENERAL HANDLING OF A PC

22. 5ACC-21 27 APR 54 ANCHOR POINTS AND SPACE

23. 5ACC-22 28 APR 54 SPACE AND HAVINGNESS

24. 5ACC-23 29 APR 54 SPACE

25. 5ACC-24 30 APR 54 SOP 8-DA THROUGH SOP 80-DH

26. 5ACC-25 3 MAY 54 VIEWPOINT STRAIGHTWIRE

27. 5ACC-26 4 MAY 54 BE, DO, HAVE STRAIGHTWIRE

28. 5ACC-27 5 MAY 54 EFFICACY OF PROCESSES

29. 5ACC-28 6 MAY 54 ANATOMY OF UNIVERSES

30. 5ACC-29 7 MAY 54 ENERGY - EXTERIORIZATION





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



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



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





UNIVERSES (5th ACC) file 1/30: Introduction and tape 1:





=============================



[This is the introduction provided with the transcripts]





UNIVERSES



AND THE WAR BETWEEN THETA AND MEST



INTRODUCTION



This series of twenty-six remarkable lectures and seven

Group Processing sessions was given by L. Ron Hubbard

between 29 March and 7 May 1954, to the students of the 5th

Advanced Clinical Course.



These materials define the mechanics of universes and

detail the ongoing struggle between theta and MEST, giving

answers to many riddles which keep a being pinned at

effect. The progression of world events in 1954, outside of

Scientology, was such that L. Ron Hubbard's development of

the technology to free mankind spiritually became more

vital daily. In this year of 1954, the various national

governments of Earth were working diligently to turn the

planet into a series of armed camps, ready to enter a final

rush toward extinction for the race of man. The United

States and Canada activated a plan to place radar stations

across the far north of the continent to warn of enemy

aircraft or missiles crossing the Arctic; French forces

were defeated in Vietnam, paving the way for the communist

takeover of the northern portion of the country and the

later Vietnam War; Colonel Abdul Nasser seized power in

Egypt; the first nuclear submarine, Nautilus, was launched;

and a hydrogen bomb test devastated a small island in the

South Pacific, demonstrating the ultimate of man's

destructive technology.



As mankind worked to develop more ways and means of

destruction and annihilation, Ron worked ceaselessly to

develop the technology of sanity and freedom and to create

the future which man had become convinced would never exist.



In these lectures, Ron reveals the dynamics of how a thetan

gets trapped in universes other than his own and thus

becomes subject to the mechanics of that universe,

apparently losing the power of his own postulates. He

outlines the remedies for these conditions, and provides

abundant examples and applications of this data in the

context of day-to-day living.



This Advanced Clinical Course was given in an intimate and

informal setting on the premises of the Church of

Scientology in Phoenix, Arizona.



It is our great pleasure to present the Universes and the

War between Theta and MEST Lectures.



The Editors, 1989





=========================



UNIVERSES (5th ACC) tape 1:



Transcript of taped lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 



4ACC-72 5403C29 



Number 1 of a series of 32 cassettes bound in two volumes 

entitled "Universes and the War between Theta and Mest"



The remaining tapes are the lectures of the 5th ACC,

however this first lecture is from the end of the 4th

ACC. It may have been attended by students from both

courses. Since this lecture is referenced in 5ACC-1,

it should be studied first.





EVOLUTION AND USE OF SELF ANALYSIS



A lecture given on 29 March 1954



And this is March the 29th, 1954. This is a talk on the

evolution and use of SelfAnalysis. This book is relatively

misunderstood. In the first place, it is obvious that a

process as simple as that contained in Self Analysis would

not do anything for anybody. That's obvious. And in the

second place it's obvious that everybody's in better shape

than this book calls for.



The various processes which are available to an auditor as

we go up along the line - include one that is about the

lowest rung you can hit, which is mimicry - treatment of

psychotics. You mimic them. You mimic them physically;

that is, not verbally but physically. They're lying down

doing nothing; you lie down and do nothing. They'll get

irked after a while. You've gone into communication with

them. That in essence is communication, duplication. So

that's about as low as we can get beyond some mechanical

aids for psychotics.



Now, we go up the line from that and we find out there's

another process known as Contact SOP 8, Step VII. [See

Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this

volume] And Contact is just find something real and reach

for it and withdraw from it. That's a surprising little

process. Now, SOP 8, Step VI is actually this book. And SOP

8 is written to do a lot of work for a lot of auditors

without a tremendous amount of instruction. And the

instruction itself on SOP 8, VI is in this book rather than

SOP 8, Step VII.



Well, SOP 8, Step VI, Step VII, Step V - all of these things

are a case level. I want you to get this rather clear here.

SOP 8 has case levels and is a structure of cases. SOP 8-C

[See SOP 8-C Formulas and Steps in the appendix of this

volume.] has nothing to do with case levels. Although it

approximates the same processes, it is designed to be run

on somebody who is exteriorized, SOP 8-C.



All right. But SOP 8, Step VI, means neurotic, a neurotic

case. SOP 8, Step VII, means psychotic case level. SOP 8,

Step V, means resistive, occluded. SOP 8, Step IV is

somebody who is having problems with havingness. They're

having problems with ownership, havingness and so forth and

do not exteriorize until these are remedied. This person

probably has a little bit of visio, spotty and so forth.

SOP 8, Step III is simply somebody who is nailed down

because he can't tolerate space easily. And once you've

remedied space on him, why, he exteriorizes easily. SOP 8,

Step II is somebody who is exteriorized simply by getting

him to get a mock-up of his body. It's a case level. The

fellow is using a little more energy than he should. And a

Step I simply exteriorizes.



SOP 8 is actually a rundown of "How much inside are they?"

And "What are these case levels?" See? SOP 8. Now, that has

to do to a large degree, then, with Homo sapiens. That is,

thetan-plus-body, thetan-in-body - that sort of thing.



Now, we get over to 8-C and we're taking it for granted

that somewhere along the line, why, we're going to make a

Theta Exterior. But with SOP 8-C we depend on

exteriorization techniques, some additional techniques.



Now, we have in addition to SOP 8 and SOP 8-C, we have what

was being used in Unit 4 and which we're simply calling

Unit 4 procedures. It's just some elements put together

which are used. That's a fairly easy setup there. It's

fairly easy to audit. It's very simple. But there is a new

thing in there. There's two new things in that SOP - pardon

me, Unit 4. You call it SOP, Unit 4. There are two new

things in it, really, and one of those is Beingness

Processing and the other is Universe Processing. These are

very important processes. We're going to spend a lot of

time with those processes.



But with Self Analysis we have a medium which (1) will not

get people into trouble, (2) which is very easy to use and

(3) which cuts across practically all the cases you will

encounter. In other words, there's a certain security in

using it because it wouldn't matter who walked up to you,

Self Analysis would do something.



Well, now Self Analysis does an awful lot of things. But it

also has some limitations. Let's look at the limitations

before we go into what it will do and how we use it.



Those limitations are very, very marked. On a great many

cases - I would say the majority of cases - Self Analysis

works for quite a few hours. It works probably very, very

well for about fifty hours and then slumps, and in many

cases will slump earlier than that. But by slump, that

doesn't mean the person goes back to his original state.

That merely means the process hangs fire. The person just

doesn't improve. His IQ doesn't improve above a certain

point, and so on. It'll improve him up to a certain point,

in other words, and then hang fire.



Now why does it do this? Well, he probably ran up to and

including - with Self Analysis - all of the situations which

could easily be remedied without recourse to universes. We

didn't... just neglected any problem of universes or

anything like that and we just cleaned up everything we

could clean up with relationship to universes and that's

it. This fellow is stuck, let us say - without getting too

technical - let's say this fellow's stuck in Mother's

universe. Well, we've cleaned up everything he can reach in

Mother's universe. And he really sort of is using up the

same energy now, over and over. He just gets up to a point

where he marks time.



This you can expect with this process simply because that's

what happens when it's used on children. Now, there's no

better test of a technique than its use and results on

children. Because children are usually in better shape, in

one lifetime, than adults, by a long ways. So if a process

will hang fire on children after twenty-five or fifty

hours, you can certainly expect it to hang fire on an

adult. Therefore it has a limitation. It's actually a

limitation of the amount of energy which a person can

easily invest into mock-ups.



Now, you get somebody who's still creating energy and you

could go on making mock-ups forever. But you get somebody

who is depending on other things to create energy for him

and you simply use up the available store of energy and

reinvest them into mock-ups. You just change the frame and

pattern. You've handled just so much energy and after that

he doesn't handle any more energy.



It isn't that his mock-ups go off. He'll go on getting

mock-ups, he'll do the same thing. But you'll notice a

curve upwards - a rather steep curve right up front - a

curve so steep in terms of advancement in the early stages

of the use of Self Analysis that it's almost a vertical

line. It's a tremendous advance, you know, in its first

uses on almost any case. Because it, in using it, cracks

through the neurotic level. And it just cracks through it.

And it cracks through it on the same level as firing a

rocket. But like a rocket, it runs out of fuel in a hurry.



So we can crack somebody up through a level of his

immediate workaday world. The problems of havingness, his

surroundings, immediate conflicts, things like this have a

tendency to diminish. And he gets less worried than

previously. And life goes on much better for him. But if we

just kept on using Self Analysis, he would get up to a

saturation point. Because you're just handling energy that

he's already handled. In other words, we've taken up the

available supply in the universe in which he finds himself

and there we have it.



All right. The fact that it's limited, though, doesn't

immediately preclude the use of Scientology. You know,

just because a pair of pliers won't build an automobile is

no reason you wouldn't use a pair of pliers on an

automobile. I think that you would be rather embarrassed

if in trying to keep an automobile running you didn't have

a pair of pliers. And similarly with Self Analysis,

auditors commonly and continually neglect this book.



And something else happens. When somebody writes in and

says, "We have a desperate case on our hands," that person

is dramatizing Q and A, duplication. This person is just

dramatizing the fact that he's being desperate because the

case seems desperate and therefore what's indicated is that

we must use a desperate process. So he says, "Where is the

auditor?" or "Where can. . . what nearby asylum uses

Scientology?" or "Let's immediately call for ambulances,"

or something of the sort - "because the person with whom we

are dealing is frantic." Therefore, we must have frantic

means. He doesn't ever add that phrase; it just reads

through everything he's doing.



All of a sudden somebody's wife is in terrible condition.

She maybe just had a baby or something like that and she

comes back home and mutters to herself quite long and

arduously about how she's going to kill the child at the

earliest possible moment or something like that. And it's ... 

of course this is a desperate situation. So everybody

wants to get desperate. Well, they'll occasionally write

the HAS desperately. And I get the letter and the same

reply always goes back. And the reply is as follows - because

such an emergency case and so forth actually is not

something that would find an auditor immediately going out

and looking up. In the first place, these cases are

temporary. They are very hard to audit. And it generally

is the rest of the family that needs auditing. It's not a

case of auditing a case. Yeah, you'd have to audit the

whole family. Now, we have group processing, that's possible.



All right. So we write them a standard letter and I say,

"Well, now there's a little book, Self Analysis. I'm

sending you a copy of it. And what you want to do is read

its instructions and then sit down and read this to the

person." Normally these people are not out of

communication; they can do such a process. All right. Days

go by, weeks go by, we hear no more about it. Maybe about a

month later we get this letter and it says, "Well, we took

.." - see, just forget about Self Analysis. "... we took

this patient to see an auditor and the patient was audited

for two hours and isn't Clear. And the problem seems to be

very bad and so forth, and what do we do now?"



Well, this isn't the kind of a case, you see, that's going

to surrender in two hours. Well, you say, "Well, get some

interested member of the family and take the little book

which we sent you and sit down and read the book to them."

And see if you can get them to do this. And you know, every

once in a while after about the third or fourth letter,

somebody gets interested enough to do it. Just about that

far off.



Now, there's ... a professional auditor would know many

processes which would do better or maybe faster work. But,

you know, the fact of the matter is that case after case he

would crack up through a certain level, you know, he'd push

them up to a certain level faster if he simply opened a

copy of Self Analysis and started in anyplace - particularly

its next-to-the-last list.



Now, over here in the next-to-the-last list, it says, "The

following usually stabilizes any of the above conditions."

And here we get the most important process in Self

Analysis. It says: 



1. Recall a time which really seems real to you. 

2. Recall a time when you really felt affinity from someone. 

3. Recall a time when someone was in good communication with you. 

4. Recall a time when you felt deep affinity for somebody else. 

5. Recall a time when you knew you were really communicating to somebody.

6. Recall a time when several people agreed with you completely. 

7. Recall a time when you were in agreement with somebody else. And 

8. Recall a time within the last two days when you felt affectionate. 

9. Recall a time in the last two days when somebody felt affection 

for you. 

10. Recall a time in the last two days when you were in good 

communication with someone. 

11. Recall a time in the last two days which really seems real to you.

And 12. Recall a time in the last two days when you were in good 

communication with people. And 

13. Recall several incidents of each kind.



Now, that process, basically, is just this: "Now, let's

recall something that really is real to you." "Let's recall

a time when you were in good communication with somebody."

"Recall a time when somebody was in good communication with

you." "Recall a time when you felt some affinity for

somebody." "Recall a time when somebody felt some affinity

for you."



Those are the basic questions. And there you have the

snap-point between upper psychosis and neurosis. The first

time some of the people you work on... You wouldn't suspect

these people were really batty. They probably would grow

bat wings with the greatest of ease and the smallest amount

of hormones. These people are apparently all right and you

go ahead and you work them. And after you've wasted

yourself two, three, four hours of work, you find out that

their case isn't advancing anyplace. Well, this is a

question of first things first. You were going to build an

automobile or something but you neglected to pick up any

iron to build it with.



This person's havingness is in terrible condition.

Ordinarily this is true. So what condition do we find

immediately? We find that this person cannot have a past.

This he's certain of. This is the most thing he's certain

of. Although he is living in the past, he cannot have a

past. He is out of present time. You will see the mechanics

of this very adequately in Universe Processing. The

mechanics of psychosis just lie straight out in front of

you. Why a psychotic goes into the past and so forth.

Mainly a question of energy.



But here we have an individual who can't have any past.

Well, if he's a little short on energy and he can't create

any, the only place he can look for it is in the past,

isn't it? So, if he can't have any past and the only place

he could have any spare energy would be from the past, why,

he's on about the biggest maybe that you could get onto.

He's got to reach into the past to get some additional

energy because he can't create it anymore. Yet he can't

reach into the past, because there's no energy in the past

for him to reach for. No part of the past is touchable.



You could call this person a person with an untouchable

past. Now, nearly everybody that you walk into who is in

any kind of poor condition (I mean, you know, standard,

normal) is badly out of contact with the past - badly! So you

ask him to remember something that's real, and quite often

this will amaze you. Don't be too startled to have a

case - every now and then, a case appear which takes fifteen

minutes to remember something real. Don't be too surprised

at this.



You could help him out and fish around and get something

just a moment ago and do it on gradient scales and so

forth, but if you just suddenly ask him that... You don't

have to do that, you see. Just ask him the question,

"Let's remember something that's really real to you," and

he goes clouding around and fooling around and so forth

and it's five minutes and ten minutes and fifteen minutes

and all of a sudden, "Yes!" What you've done there is ask

him for something that's safe to remember. You see that?

Instead of... This is the way something real translates to

him: something that's safe to remember. And he'll remember

it with great reality, which is to say, great security.

Which is great reality. And he will remember this and then

he'll feel better.



And you can almost hear a case click when it does this and

has difficulty in doing so. But on almost anybody that has

never been accustomed or acquainted with auditing, you

just come along and start asking him those questions one

after the other, you get an astonishing result. Now, here

for three years, that technique has been known and

used - three years. Every now and then I get ahold of some

preclear that's having a lot of trouble - been audited a lot,

lot of trouble. And I ask him this question, "Has anybody

ever asked you to find anything real?"



And the preclear quite uniformly says, "No. Nobody ever

asked me that question."



And you say, "All right. Remember something that's really

real to you."



And every now and then - not in each case - but every now and

then, why, one of these persons will go click, snap and

relax about existence. They found out there is a part of

the past. They can have a past. And this is something to

have. They did exist yesterday. Well, if they didn't exist

yesterday, you see, and they're definitely worried about

whether they're existing now, it's a certainty that they're

not going to exist in the future.



So here we have a case of straight survival. No future.

See, if they didn't exist yesterday, they can't have any

proof that they're going to exist tomorrow either. They're

trying to prove that they can exist tomorrow by saying that

they existed yesterday. Well, they can't do this because

there's nothing real in yesterday. Yesterday didn't exist.

So now let's call your attention to that very sharply.



How long could you carry on that process? Now, that process

isn't as limited as the rest of Self Analysis. How long

could you carry on that process? I don't know - five hundred

hours? Doing what? Saying to a preclear, "Let's remember

something real to you. Now, let's remember a time when you

were in good communication with somebody. A time when

somebody was in good communication with you." You could

just go on and on and on and on. But it's an individualized

process, because it takes people different lengths of time

to recall something, you see?



So it's really not a good group process and actually will

bog people if run on a group. I've watched it bog a group.

You "Remember something real," and then the 50 percent of

the group that isn't doing so well, they didn't get it

because the auditor only took thirty seconds or something

to ask his next question. And that was much too soon on

this group. So it's not really a good group process. But

it's an excellent individual process.



Now, what would happen if you ran that that long? If you

just sat down and ran this on somebody that long - five

hundred hours - what would happen? A very remarkable thing

would occur probably at about thirty hours or something

like that. They would run out of Straightwire for this

lifetime. Call that Straightwire questioning; stringing a

straight communication line. They'd run out of material

that was immediately something grand, and they'd crack

through into things that weren't quite real but were

getting more real in past lives. Now, this is a spooky

thing. And auditors don't like to run things on people that

make them too spooky. And it takes too long to produce this

effect. This is one of those slow effects.



I had it tested out one time. I had two auditors testing it

for me over a weekend. And these boys audited about twelve

hours apiece over the weekend just with that process

because they had a busy week ahead of them otherwise. And

they almost audited themselves into the ground. And at the

end of that time just the thought of somebody remembering

something real made these boys want to scream.



But both of them, on their test cases and so forth, cracked

through into complete reality on incidents in earlier

lives. In other words, they just ran out of material

immediately available in this life. Now, of course they

were auditing a medium grade of preclear. You could audit

twenty-four, twenty-five hours on some preclear who was

very bad off. A Step V is not terribly bad off but a Step

VI is pretty bad off, a Step VII is horribly bad off. You

could audit this on a Step VI or a Step VII for probably

twenty-four, twenty-five hours and they would get back

finally to last month. I mean, you could - it'd just take so

long.



Because, you see, this is the one test which you use as an

auditor - and you always use this test - is communication

lag. It's what we call communication lag. The reply to the

question, the reaction to the stimulus - how long does it

take for a person to react to certain stimuli? Now, that is

reaction time. In Scientology it's communication lag.

Reaction time, my hat. It never did anything for anybody.

It merely told somebody whether somebody was drunk or

something like that. That's been its total use. Now, with

an understanding of communication itself, you will

understand very quickly in investigating this that it

takes the preclear as long to answer as he has extraneous

and unnecessary communication bric-a-brac kicking around

between himself and the body. In other words, you see, it

takes him as long to answer as he has extraneous,

unnecessary mass around his body.



He's got a terrific amount of (quote) "mental energy" -

stagnant, stuck, ridges, old communication lines,

old computations, old machinery, junk, junk. And you say to

him, "Hello." Now, it's going up through a communication

system which is going this way and that way and shunting

over this way and through the resistances that way and on

up the line, on up the line, up the line, up the line. It

finally hits something which is pretending it's him. And he

receives "Hello."



So he turns that over. He hears "hello" and he answers

immediately, actually. He says, "How are you?" And then

this "How are you?" goes down all these lines and goes over

to another line and over shunts and resistances and past

this ridge and down through that ridge and through a couple

of caves and into a couple of vacuums and through a couple

of blank spots and comes into the voice box finally. And

the voice box activates and it says, "How are you?" But

what's.. . it sounded like to you, was you said, "Hello." 

.. [long pause] "How are you?"



These people really, sometimes - most of the time they

think they're answering right up. They don't realize there

was that much time avoided. Now, most of the nervousness

you have in talking with people is the amount of time you

have to wait for this answer.



They're as dead as they have time in their communication

system. How dead is a person? He's as dead as he has time

in his communication system. If a fellow has a

communication lag of twenty minutes, he's practically gone. 



Now, you'll see a person's communication lag lengthen in

sickness. You see this easily. Gets very weak and so on.

But people walk around who are apparently feeling all right

who have the same kind of a communication lag. Well,

they're a case of not-thereness. You have to run up so many

lines and over so many shunts and under so many railroad

trestles and so forth in order to get to this person, that

you'd think he lived about eight stars and twelve universes

from you before you could finally get a communication back.



Well, now, how would you know then how long to go on asking

a person to remember something real? How would you know

when to quit? Well, you would quit when you got his

communication lag markedly shortened to something

approaching an acceptable communication lag. So that he

could easily carry on a rather fast conversation, let us

say, with a high-school boy. You see? Ever hear teenagers

communicate? It almost gets completely stated and then it's

answered. You know? Back and forth.



Well, if you could push a fellow through up to something

like that kind of a communication lag - that's still a lag,

by the way - you'd still have something. You'd really have

something. Well, you don't have to get it that good. Get

his communication lag down to about a tenth of a second, so

that you say, "Hello." He says, "How are you?" You know,

it's received and it goes out again. Because he would be in

terrific shape if you did that. He wouldn't be interrupting

you or anything like that. He'd just be in terrific shape.



Well, if you took somebody off the street and you asked him

to remember something real... By the way, you'd explain

what you wanted them to do, you merely want them to recall

something real. You'd explain it to them first so they

don't have to fumble over this one. And then you say, "Now,

all right. Now recall something real." And you'd find out

that you could say "(One and two and three and four and

five)," and they'd say, "Okay." About a five-second

lag - six-second, ten-second, something on that order. That's

horrible. That's awful!



This fellow, you ask him real quick, "What'd you have for

breakfast?" - brdrdrr.



He'd say, "Well, let's see. No, that was yesterday morning.

I don't know why I'd think of that. Hmm. Let's see. Hmm.

Hmm. Oh, well, yeah... Um.... no, that was yesterday.

Uh..." and so on.



In other words, he couldn't possibly pinpoint data like

that. The whole bank is sort of just shotgunned. He can

recall something real as long as you don't steer him. But

if you ask him suddenly something specific, you'd find his

communication lag just going on out, out, out, out, out,

out. Therefore, how well off is your preclear that you're

administering that next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis

to? He's as well off as he answers and recalls swiftly.



Now, if you think he's just faking - he really isn't

recalling something - there's only one way that really would

tell you accurately. That would be an E-Meter. You could

see the E-Meter flick every time he remembered something

real. You'd sit there and watch the E-Meter. And it would

bounce right there at the moment when he recalled something

real. Then right afterwards, he'd say, "Mm-hm." Yeah, he's

recalled it. So there is an accurate check you could make.

Ordinarily isn't necessary. People aren't that covert about it.



Now, what about this thing of asking him... Why do we ask

him just one question on "Something real to you" and then

two questions on communication and two questions on

affinity? Here we have a triangle, ARC. One is affinity and

one is reality and one is communication and they're all

interlocked. But why two questions on communication and

two questions on affinity and only one question on

reality? Well, that's because reality depends upon

agreement. You have asked him two questions when you've

asked him something real. You know, he must have had a

parity of communication at the time - he must have had an

agreement, an intention, which was similar to another

intention before something sounded real to him. He might

have been the two things having an intention with each

other but this is why the energy is hung up at that point.

It is suspended. There is an agreement at that point.



You get that? I mean, an agreement takes two parties.

Reality is agreement. So we'd only have one... One

question would hit two sides of the agreement which would

give him reality. Because when you're asking him to

remember something real, you're asking him for an effect

upon him. So, of course, it must have been in agreement

with him somehow or another, or it must have been his level

of acceptance, to have had an effect upon him.



All right. A person has to agree to an effect before he can

have one. He must have agreed to have been sick before he

can be sick, and so forth. It doesn't mean that he suddenly

can say, "Well, I'm not going to agree anymore to be sick,"

and suddenly become well. Because universes complicate the

problem a little bit more than that. But that's a basic

rule. If we were just operating with one universe, a person

could simply say to himself "Well, I'm now self-determined

and Clear," and he would be at that moment Clear. If he

were only involved with his own universe, this would be

true. But if he's involved with just one other universe,

it isn't true. The thing to do would be to bail him out and

then ask him to make up his mind about it.



One of the cruelest things you could do is get somebody who

is in about eighteen universes and say, "Well, now, all you

have to do is make up your mind not to be sick anymore."

There he is lying on the operating table, you know, and

he's just been cut to ribbons. "All you have to do is make

up your mind to be well, you'll be well. That's all there

is to it." "It's your own fault" - same thing. Society's

always demanding people make up their own minds, and they

aren't operating on their own minds. They're operating on a

lot of other minds.



Anyway, here we have, in communication, the matter of

outflow and inflow. Communication can outflow, can inflow.

All right, what do we get then? A graph of communication

runs like this: it goes cause, distance, effect. What is

cause? Cause is source-point of a communication. What is

effect by definition? It is receipt-point. What is cause?

Source-point. What is effect? Receipt-point. What is

communication? Cause, distance, effect; C-E.



Now, by the way, you just process by that definition. I

mean, the definition itself is the process. We're trying

to get an individual at source-point, and put what he's

trying to effect at effect-point, and have anything that

wants to be, be at source-point, and have the individual at

E capable of being the effect of any cause. We want the

individual to be capable of being the effect of any cause

and capable of causing any effect.



Now, what is a very... perfectly well individual? It's an

individual who is capable of causing - he's capable of it; he

doesn't have to - he's capable of causing any effect, and

he's capable of being the effect of any cause, without

consequence. Capable of being the cause of any effect

without consequence to himself. Capable of being the effect

of any cause without consequence to himself. And of course

that in essence is communication: C-E. 



Now, a conversation is, C - going from ... from right here

to left, cause - effect. But over here on the left side, to

make it a conversation, we've got to put a two-way line on

it. And then we get it cause - (over here to the right)

effect. In other words, you say, "How are you?" The fellow

receives - he duplicates "How are you?" - and then he says,

"I am fine," right there where he duplicated "How are you?"

And then the fellow who asked "How are you?" duplicates "I

am fine."



So we have: "How are you?" "I am fine."



Now, that's a two-way communication system. A communication

system does not necessarily go two ways. A complete

communication goes from source-point to receipt-point.

That's a complete communication. Just... If you go down

and send a telegram, the fact that the telegram has left

you, gone over a line, arrived someplace else - that's a

complete communication. There doesn't have to be any answer

to it. For business and military and the other social

purposes, the distrust of communication is such that

everybody expects an answer. It's only when communication

had gone to pieces that everybody has to have what we call

an acknowledgment.



So that we get on the bridge of the ship, we say to an

individual who is steering, we say, "Hard right rudder."

And he is supposed to echo, aloud, "Hard right rudder." He

isn't supposed to just turn hard right rudder. That's

because the officer of the deck doesn't trust the fact this

individual will hear him or do it. So we get into the habit

of getting acknowledgments on everything. And these

acknowledgments are then a part of a two-way communication

system.



But let's look at this kind of a communication: you pick up

a rifle and you shoot this guy. Well, that's sure a

communication! You were a source-point and he was sure a

receipt-point. And he's too dead to answer. But yet it's a

complete communication.



Now, what is a communication, then? It's the cause-point,

the distance, the effect-point or the receipt-point, and in

addition to that it is the particle or impulse which...

particle or impulse; see it could just be a thought

without any particle connected with it at all, or impulse

- which goes from the source-point and arrives at the

receipt-point. Now, that is the message. That's what is

being communicated. So we have these component parts of a

communication. Which is just source-point, distance,

receipt-point and the particle or impulse which goes

between. That's total as far as communication is concerned.



All right. The more lines, circuits, impasses, ridges,

barriers that a person has had erected in him - you might

say blocks - that a person has had mounted up in him by life,

the slower he will go from one side to the other. You see

that? From the C to E, the slower the communication.



All right. The communication system then in which we're

involved in any event is a very simple one. The thoughts

and impulses which are communicated, the particles, the

quantity which is communicated - it doesn't matter how

complex that is. Doesn't matter how complex the thoughts or

the system or anything else is. What we are concerned with

is the system itself. And that's never complicated. The

basic, the fundamental of a communication system is always

simple. It doesn't matter how many complexities are

communicated. That doesn't make it a complex thing. Does it?



Just because you put the Einstein theory between

source-point and receipt-point does not make communication

difficult. It doesn't. It merely involves the fact that

something over here at receipt-point must duplicate what is

sent at source-point. That just says something must

duplicate it over here. And you will find this to be the

case. You will go into universities and find mathematicians

who have studied the Einstein theory, and you will find

they are simply a receipt-point. There isn't an

understanding of the Einstein theory. There isn't further

thought on the Einstein theory and so forth. They're just

repositories. Somebody dropped the Einstein theory into

their ears and they drop it back at students and that's

about the end of it. See?



That is what is mainly maddening about earthwise education;

it's just that. Here we have this problem of a

communication line and all they do is just communicate. You

see? They just communicate. There is no creativeness,

destructiveness or anything else that goes along with it.

Because these things are the data or items or thoughts or

impulses that are communicated. But basically as far as

social problems are concerned, as far as the problems of

command are concerned, as far as the problems of

controlling oneself and as far as the problems of illness

are concerned, these things become problems when a

difficulty occurs in a communication system. If you could

communicate directly and completely to some tremendous

illness, it would vanish. This is 8-80. You know? And now

you just ask somebody who has maybe got a sore hand, you

just ask him to communicate with his hand, you know, just

get a good communication line into his hand. The soreness

more often than not will just simply go away.



Communication. It's getting in contact. But that is

something else. He is communicating something else: he's

communicating beingness and life to the hand. But you can

communicate nothing if you don't have a line. So we have to

start with a line. We have to start with C-E.



It wouldn't matter if we knew the most fabulous secrets

that the pyramids never had chiseled into them. It

wouldn't matter if someone sitting on the left hand of

Moloch himself had simply come down and given us all of the

information and the best secrets that were ever tailor-made

to confound people. They would do nothing if they were not

susceptible to being communicated. You see that?



For instance, I might know all about Scientology and not be

able to communicate anything about Scientology to you.

Well, it would just dead-end right there. Wouldn't it? Hm?

Now, that is a simple thing. So that the problem of

communicating Scientology is certainly on a parity with the

problem of the existence of Scientology, if Scientology is

going to do you any good. See that? Now, it would be all

very well, I could make a bunch of mystic signs and say,

"Well, it's the extrapolated 1/c of the Einstein theory,

goes out the left ear and this is the inverse ratio to the

cat." And then look at you and be very harsh and severe

because you couldn't put it down on an examination paper.

This would do nobody any good, nobody'd get well. The

communication, if perfectly duplicated, would simply be a

communication. But there would be no thought going over the

communication line.



But let's get more fundamental than that. Let's suppose

that an individual just refused to put up a communication

line. Because a perfect communication would have to

contain within it two other things to be a perfect

communication leading to understanding. Now, we've got an

addition. There's your communication, the graph C-E. Now,

we'd have to have some affinity and some agreement, that is

to say, some reality. In other words, we'd have to have

these two things before we'd get a perfect communication.



All right. So much for that. There's quite a little bit,

then, to delivering somebody a little bit of Self Analysis.

What would you have to do? You'd have to be in

communication with him in the first place. And the next

thing, you would have to mark whether it was doing him any

good or not. Now, how would you know whether it was doing

him any good or not? Well, his communication lag would get

smaller. He'd have less time lag.



Finally you'd get to a point of "Remember something real."

And he'd say, "Yup." "Remember something else that's real."

"Yup." "Remember something else that's real." "Yup."

"Remember something else that's real." Pang, pang, pang! 

You see?



All right. So much for that. On communication itself we

have a two-way flow. We've got an outflow and an inflow.

Two communication systems involved. There are two

communication systems involved, so that when we say C-E,

and then where the E, is a C, and then another line where

the distance is, and then E back at the person who

originated the communication - that's two ways, so it takes

two questions. You know, a very funny thing happens. You'll

ask some people, "Now, let's recall a time when you were in

good communication with someone."



And they'll say, "Oh, yes. Yes. Yes." They remember that. "Yeah."



"Now, let's get a time when someone was really

communicating with you." Oh, boy! And I have seen a lag of

thirty-eight minutes on that question.



You see, the compulsive thing to do is if you outflow fast

enough and long enough and hard enough, then nobody will

ever have a chance to inflow at you. This is a person who

is afraid of being an effect. And he'll have all sorts of

explanations. He'll say, "You know, all my life I just have

not associated with people who were at my level of

communication and so forth. Nobody ever talked to me.

Nobody'd ever give me any information. People talk, yes,

but they don't say anything." And oh, a lot of

justification involved here. The point is the person is

using communication lines themselves to fend off being an

effect. He doesn't want to be an effect. That's what's

wrong with the case.



All right. You start to audit somebody. You start to audit

him, you start reading him some SelfAnalysis. And you say,

"Remember a time that's really real to you."



He's liable to say, "Well, now do you mean. .. do you mean

real? Or is it really real or which is real? You know, what

do you mean by reality anyway? Now, a lot of philosophers

have taken up reality. There's Descartes, for instance, he

took up reality and so forth and then I think that one of

the ancient Greeks tried to define reality and so forth.

And uh...."



What are you doing? I mean, what are you talking to? That's

a communication lag right there. You're just watching it

roll. He knows what remembering something real is. It's

just something that happened - something he knows happened,

that's all.



Well, he goes on this terrific outflow, see. That's ...

He doesn't want to be an effect. That's all he's saying.

You know, he's going to go C where he is to E where you

are. But you're not going to go C where you are to E where

he is. You get the idea? He's not going to be a

receipt-point. Because it's dangerous to be an effect. If

one thing has been learned by this individual throughout

life, it is dangerous to be an effect. That's very irrational.



Do you know that eating candy and seeing Marilyn Monroe

and... I could just start off on a very long list here that

would demonstrate that effects were not all bad. And so,

of course, this individual who is trying not to be an

effect has laid aside any joy of existence there is. And

the only pay you ever get for the suffering you do is to

have some fun. This is good pay too. People will go two,

three years through the most arduous hair-raising ardures

simply to have some fun. It's the amount of time invested

in fun repays an awful lot of time invested in effort and

labor and so on. That's kind of the way the world runs.



Let's be very practical, let's don't be totally scientific

about it. We find out that this fellow, then, must be

denying all the joys of existence if he is compulsively

communicating at you. If he's compulsively, obsessively

communicating at you, he must be then denying himself most

of the joys of life. So, he will complain to you that

emotionally he feels dead. And that's the one thing he says

and the one thing he knows: that emotionally he feels dead.

He doesn't really get a kick out of life anymore.



Now, there's somebody else that is bound and determined

that he is going to be at the E point of the line. And

never at the C point of the line. So you ask this person,

"Now, remember something real," you see.



And he says, "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. And what do you mean

by the Einstein theory and trying to run it on me this early...



"But, I didn't say anything."



"Ah, yes, you did. There's no question about it. You asked

me right that moment to remember something real. And you

yourself cannot define something that's real and you know it."



I mean, we just run into this reaction. Hah! Well, our

communication didn't go through very well.



Now, supposing you ran into this one. "All right," you say

to somebody, "All right. Now, let's recall a time that's

really real to you."



And you just get plain eager but interested ransack through

the bank. You just get nothing but "It's that? No. It's

that? No. It's that? No. It's that? No, that isn't really

real." He's being silent all this time. What he's doing is

a long lag, see? You're getting somebody who is ransacking

the bank so that he won't have to cause a communication.

You just got the reverse.



Here's this fellow, he's sitting there, he will do anything

other than put forward a communication to you. In other

words, you've got a fellow who obsessively wants to be an

effect. Now, if you ask this person what his life had

consisted of he'd say, "Well, I've been beaten. I've been

maimed. I've been handled badly. I've been ruined. I well

remember my father putting flu germs into my milk."



He'll tell you all about this. It's what's known as

motivator hunger. He wants to have something done to him.

He doesn't want to put out anything. He wants it to flow

in. Well, he's short on energy. He thinks if somebody beats

him around enough, it'll give him some new energy or

something. He expects things to happen to him. This, by the

way, is... The obsessively communicating case would miss

your eye as being a rough case. He'll sort of miss your

eye. You'd say, "Well, the person talks..." It sounds

like he's saying something, too. If you listen closely it

all is connected and it's reasonable and so forth. Well

the, yeah, you kind of miss that obsessively communicating

person as a rough case.



But you'd certainly never miss this other one as being a

rough case. Because that's what we mainly object to.

Because that person's going to take things away from you

and give nothing back. In other words, you can say things

to that person, but that person is really not going to say

anything back to you to amount to anything.



Well, remembering something real remedies that havingness

in him without him having to pull your bank down or take

energy away from something else. In other words, he can

have some energy in the past. So we have the two-way

question. And time when the fellow was communicating with

somebody, this person who takes a very long lag and says

absolutely nothing - this person's saying nothing and just

sitting there and so forth - well, if we asked then, "Now,

give us a time... Now let's remember a time when you were

communicating to somebody." Boy, you'd really get a long

lag then. See? Because that's what's really inhibited. He

can't communicate with anybody. But you could find lots of

answers on times when people were communicating to him.

Oh, sure, he'll remember these rather easily. See?



Well then, what is this obsessive outflow but a

communication lag? You didn't get an answer, did you? You

didn't get an acknowledgment to your communication. You

said, "How are you?" and the fellow said "Yapity, yapity,

yap. And what do you mean by the word how?" That's just one

manifestation of it.



Another manifestation of it would be change the subject.

And oh, there's all kinds of things. But, "What do you mean

by this word how? Now, there's the use of the intransitive

verb on the transitive side of the verb there. What do you

mean, now, 'how are you?' You mean how am I now? Or how am

I in the future? Or how am I in the past? Or, how ... Isn't

that an Indian word in the first place?" That's a

communication lag. It's never arrived, has it?



Well, another way of nonarrival is you say, "How are you?"

and the fellow says, "Well, uh... hm, I don't know, but

uh... uh... I'd hate to give you uh... a very accurate or

positive statement on the matter because really, actually

uh... I uh... Well, you say, I'm... I'm really not

so... Well, after all, uh... I was talking to a fellow

over there and he said I felt fine." I mean that would be a

more reasonable thing for the fellow to say.



Now, there's a communication lag. He's just putting off the

time when he will have to be at the C point. This person

would also tell you that the things that he did... if he

were to do something in life, it would be bad. I mean, if

he were to go out here and give some old lady a thousand

dollars cash, the thousand dollars cash given in the purest

charity would result, certainly, in her loss of her home,

her family and an incurable disease. I mean, he would not

be capable of good. He is somebody who feels that he should

be or he could be or he'd try to be, but he can't. He

mustn't communicate, much less be capable of evil.



Something would go wrong with his evil too. If he were to

go out here and want to hit a little boy over the head with

an axe, why, the axe would turn into candy or something

like that. Or he'd find out the boy was wanted by the

Federal Boys Institute chief, Edgar Spoofer, and that he'd

receive a reward immediately for having killed Public Enemy

Number One. He would be incapable of good or evil.

Something would happen, it would go wrong. So the safe

thing to do is just don't communicate. This also gives the

appearance of "Well, I don't want anybody to know I'm here"

sort of a thing. The fellow's withdrawing from sight.



Well, the other fellow gives the appearance of suddenly

wanting to appear in sight. You know, he looms up. He

seems to be the fellow who's obsessively outward

commum.cating all the time. He looms up, he says, "I'm

here, I'm here, I'm here, I'm here." He gets between you

and things you like to look at. That's the least he does. See?



All right. In the handling, then, of Self Analysis, an

understanding of the basic principles of communication are

then necessary. And this to one reason or another is why

auditors - when they have not known anything about auditing

really and have used this book - may not have achieved the

results they might have achieved with it. They didn't know

about communicating itself. They didn't know about

auditing itself.



All right. Let's take mock-ups themselves and we can go off

on a very fast list of mock-ups. If you'll notice, they're

non sequitur. They don't tell a consistent story. They

aren't on a consistent subject. They change subject matter

continuously. That is an invitation to the mind to

differentiate. Those people who are in trouble are in

trouble because they are thinking. They are thinking

obsessively or trying to keep from thinking obsessively.

And they are so worried about thinking.



Well, thinking is a parade of sequitur events. It's a

gradient scale, a shabby thing called logic. And this

gradient scale is actually a parade which goes on all

through life with people who are not in good shape. What we

know as a stream of consciousness would be a neurotic

manifestation. That's normal, then. Well, is normal

neurotic? I'll tell a man it is! I used to think it was up

around 2.8. But we didn't have a minus Tone Scale at that time.



Now, here then we have things that are widely different and

not related. And when you first give three or four mock-ups

to a person as called for in Self Analysis, he will find

himself a little bit trying to relate them one to the

other. That's his effort to keep on thinking in a stream of

consciousness, obsessively. He's trying to relate these.

Why is this? Why did you ask him to get a mock-up of the

time when he found a ball, and so on? He's trying to

figure, figure, figure, figure, figure.



Well, you just keep on going and you ask him for a time he

was hoeing the garden and this time and that time and...

Create a scene in which he's hoeing the garden, you see, is

what it calls for, let's say, something like that. And then

create a scene when he's young, and when he said goodbye to

somebody else, and so on. When you first run this, he will

connect them together. You get the most disrelated things

imaginable here. "You got out of the cage. Create a scene

in which you got out of the cage. You enjoyed a new car.

You didn't have to go there anymore. And you found your

hands were adroit." I mean, he'd string a story. Lord knows

how he'd bend his brain around to string a story amongst

these things, but he will.



And that is an obsession. And that's really all that's

wrong with him. He has to connect everything logically with

everything. And you just give him a lot of non sequiturs

like this and he finds out he doesn't have to connect

everything like this. After a while he can relax. He

doesn't have to think, think, think, or stop himself from

think, think, think, all the time. Now, it also handles

energy and changes the energy in the bank. But the deep

significance of these non sequitur mock-ups is to break

down this obsessive stream of consciousness which people

are worrying about all the time. With those two factors you

have the reason for beingness of Self Analysis. And if you

use it, you stay in good rapport, you obey the Auditor's

Code and you use it on people, you can go forward a long

way, and you will bring up cases a lot higher than you

thought possible.



Cases go into temporary slumps, by the way. They go home

and find their mother-in-law just came for six months. They

do all sorts of things. And these slumps are very easily

and quickly repaired by "Remember something real," and so

forth. Just put them in contact with the past and give them

some mock-ups, non sequitur, like this: "Create a scene,

now, in which you found you had hidden without any cause.

You frightened somebody. You overcame conservatism. You

discovered a friend. You were friendly. You did something

that was forbidden and got away with it. You showed

somebody the door." All of a sudden the guy is sprung out

of the obsessive change of thought in which he's been

hanging up for a long time.



The consequence is relief an ability to concentrate upon

his environment, not having to look inside his head. So

you extrovert him. And you'd really only run that long

enough to extrovert the person so that he would be looking

out into the environment instead of in at himself. And

that's actually how long you would use it as a temporary

assist. You just extrovert him. He'd be thinking of other

things. He wouldn't any longer be concentrated upon these

problems which were worrying him.



And that's the book.



(end of lecture)



==========================

_