FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FZ BIBLE 7/30 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 7/30 (tape 7):

Transcript of Taped Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 

5ACC-6 - 5404C06 

Number 7 of "Universes and the War between
Theta and Mest" cassettes.


LECTURE: UNIVERSES

A lecture given on 6 April 1954


And this is April the 6th, 1954. A lecture.

The basic material of Scientology is actually available in
a very orderly form, really, because over the period of
years there have been various writings appear which
carried the science up to that level to which it advanced.
Furthermore, there are a great many lectures on this
subject, each one topping off all former work. Thus there
is an orderly record of the progress.

However, the very, very early material on the thing, where
it was written down, was never organized. A good reason is
it costs a great deal of money to organize things, and as a
consequence the very earliest days of Scientology are not
recorded and are not available in any other form than
Scientology: A New Science which was written in 1947.

Now, anybody caring to follow the track of development all
the way along and actually study the subject probably
should start in by reading Scientology: A New Science in
Issue (I think) 28-G of the Journal of Scientology where
it's published in full. It has appeared before. It's been
sent out across the world by individuals. It was published
once a long time ago in a mimeographed form, it was
republished in hectograph form, it was republished in just
plain carbon copies, so on. People would get a hold of a
copy of it and they would write it up and send it to some
friends. So that book really got around. But that's, for
all public purposes and so forth, the first writing that is
available.

There is an earlier writing than this. There's a book
called Excalibur which was written in 1938. That book is
about 125 thousand words and is the theoretical top level
of philosophic principles which we're still using. But it
had no connecting link with anything like therapy. It had
no connecting link, really, with beingness or something of
this sort. It just took off in... ten thousand feet up and
climbed. Nothing connected to Earth about it. Some of its
principles are quite interesting. One of them is "A man is
as sane as he feels dangerous to his environment." That's a
very interesting line out of it, because as the years have
gone along that has proven to be more and more an accurate
statement when you consider a man as that composite of a
thetan plus a body, Homo sapiens. He feels dangerous to his
environment, he's all right. When he feels that the
environment is dangerous to him he's all wrong.

The word survive and the first principle of existence also
appear in Excalibur and are run down to a considerable
extent. There is a great many electronic manifestations
outlined, and several new laws there. There is
considerable about the somethingness and nothingness of
existence, and there's a big examination of why. Why are we
living? This is something that bothers people every once in
a while and there's a dissertation in there on it.

But none of this material, as far as you're concerned, is
particularly relevant. The first writing then on
Scientology which you would find of great use is the 1947
thesis, Scientology: A New Science. This, by the way, was
released from time to time from 1947 on; was once in a
published form called The Original Thesis.

It is a fascinating thing that no time along this track has
any major principle been changed. The viewpoint of the
material has shifted, but the material itself has not
changed. And the viewpoint has had to shift primarily in
order to communicate the information.

That's what's most important: the communication of the 
information.

Now, we have published to date, or there is available to
date, most of the work on Scientology. Some of it appears
under the name of Dianetics. The reason this is, is because
in 1947 it seemed that a public presentation of this
material was in order and an effort was made to present it
to the American Medical Association and the American
Psychiatric Association. And the material was prepared and
was titled, for their work, "Dianetics." It came on a
little bit later, 1950, the material was again presented
under Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health,
published by Hermitage House in New York City on May the
9th, 1950.

This book was actually a pilot project in the face of the
fact that the American Medical Association and the American
Psychiatric Association didn't want anything to do with
Dianetics. They found that in order to know something about
it they had to read, and they were too busy with their
patients, and had far too many patients (they informed me
at every turn) to investigate or read or pick up any
information about how you did something for a patient. And
they pointed this out quite frankly. I pointed out to them
that it might be economical, in terms of their own time, to
do a little study on it. And they said, yes, this was
undoubtedly true, but you see they didn't have enough time
to be economical.

I didn't realize at the time that I was fighting straight
up against a complete identification that wasn't doing any
thinking, and I... at the time I had felt a little bit
revengeful about it. I thought, here's all this work that
has gone forward and the people who really should be using
this work are not even interested enough to look at it,
although they admittedly have no organization of the whole
field of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy.

There is no organization of psychosomatic medicine and
psychotherapy in existence today except for Scientology and
these books under the title of Dianetics - which is also
Scientology. I don't make that as an empty statement; I am
simply quoting the Freudian Institute of Vienna. I'm also
quoting one of the leading - probably the last of Freud's
students, Dr. Osterkamp. He looked at the Logics and Axioms
and .. which were brought out in 19... late 1950, and he
said these-1951, pardon me-and he said, "These are the
first organization of psychotherapy." And the Freudian
Institute is in thorough agreement with this.

Well, just the fact that somebody had organized their
material should have been of interest, and I was stupid
enough to be a little bit miffed, so I published it as a
popular work, but I didn't think that it would sell more
than about six thousand copies. I don't specialize in bad
prophecies, but one should be allowed a bad prophecy once
in a while, and this was a bad prophecy: "Dianetics: The
Modern Science of Mental Health will sell six thousand
copies." Oh-Oh. It sold a hundred thousand and it's still
selling years later.

It reached out into the public and said to them, bluntly,
"There is some thing that can be done about the human
mind." That was its main message. Said something could be
done about it. Other books on the subject, other works on
the subject, don't carry this message. They say nothing can
be done about the human mind - apathy, apathy, apathy - and 
if you did do anything about it, it would only be after, oh,
eighty or ninety years of very close-packed memorizing what 
the philosophers have said, and this of course is impossible 
and you're dead, you're dead, you're dead, all is apathy. And 
the field of psychology is a companion in this sin.

So this book said something could be done about the mind.
It said some thing else which was quite interesting. It
says, "You're not responsible." Very cute. Now, as long as
I was willing to say, "You are not responsible for what you
are doing," why, the American public was very happy to buy
the book, and they're still happy to buy it. And this
keynote is of great interest to an auditor, because by the
time I had brought out a book called Advanced Procedures
and Axioms, I had discovered that postulates were the basic,
and that they were senior to all mechanical manifestations.
And if postulates were the basic, then of course there was
only one person who was responsible for his own condition,
and that was the individual making the postulates.

That's curious, isn't it. Because it said you are totally
responsible. Advanced Procedures and Axioms and its
companion book The Handbook for Preclears are the biggest
drug on the market that you could imagine. They have not
sold any hundreds of thousands of copies. They have been
offered, they have practically been given away, and the
main thing they say is "You are responsible."

For instance, Advanced Procedures and Axioms carries the
theory of responsibility forward, analyzes it and presents
it. It's too much. The second that you told people they
were responsible, they didn't want anything to do with you.
Well, the truth of the matter is they are responsible. You
can trace almost any accident back to the postulate that
the accident would occur. Almost any accident can be
traced back in this wise. Fascinating. The fellow does it
himself.

But do you know people go around and use this as a total
accusation all the time. People say to people, "Well,
you're to blame, you're responsible and you've done it,"
and so on and so on and so on. See? So as a result, why,
everybody resents the idea of being told they're
responsible. But do you know they can't get well until they
get responsible. In other words, everybody resents being
responsible. And the biggest condemnation the society uses
is to tell somebody he's responsible. And so the society
resents it. So this adds up to the fact that the society
resents getting well.

And there is actually, in essence, the main trouble you
will have with a preclear. He will apparently want to get
well, but the second you start to really make him well,
he'll balk. Why will he balk? Because he's being asked to
be responsible. The only route out is the route of taking
responsibility.

Well, if everyone then stays in a total agreement that we
must resent any possible activity which will try to fix
upon us the responsibility for our own condition, of course
nobody's going to get well. Everything will just keep going
downhill beautifully, everything will get more automatic,
more machines; shame, blame and regret will become the
chronic emotions of the society; one day some messiah will
leap forth and say, "The kingdom of Cactus is at hand," or
something of the sort, "And all you have to do now is lie
down and pound your heads on the pavements and you will be
saved." You see, you can't save yourself; you have to be
saved by some other agency.

Well, you'll find this condition of no responsibility will
deteriorate to a point where the society practically will
do that. They'll pound their heads on the pavement and
commit suicide.

Well, that's all very well, but those who have a slight
vested interest in the society and who like to see mock-ups
put up and taken down and an orderly progress going on have
a tendency to resent the idea of everything going out
through the bottom. It doesn't seem to be a very logical
thing to go on this way and then have everything go to
pieces into an apathy.

You see, it would be all right if it just went to pieces in
a boom. But please not a billion year apathy. That's a
little too long.

So the public at large, then, bought Scientology under the
guise of Dianetics as long as Scientology apparently told
them that they did not have any responsibility. They missed
the point entirely. If you read the first book again you
will find out that the individual clears out of his track
the reasons why he can't be responsible and self-determined
for his own destiny. Now, there is the essence of it. They
just said, "Well, look, we're not responsible and it
doesn't matter what we do, and we're just victims of
engrams, and here we go." And then they, of course, hewed
to this.

Now, you'll find many people who studied Scientology under
the name of Dianetics many years ago are still in
Dianetics. Well, this is why they're in Dianetics. You
can't budge them out of it. You could give them faster
results and everything else, but to take any kind of a
faster process would necessitate that they would accept
this proposition: that a man has some control over his own
destiny. They'd have to accept the proposition that a man
can to some degree control his own destiny. If they can't
accept that then they have to go on saying, "Well, we're
all the victims of engrams. We're the victim." Any preclear
who comes in and sits down in an auditing chair could have
hung over his head in letters of fire as the motto of his
existence, "I am the victim."

That's the trouble with him, if you want to single out
single troubles and so forth. He thinks of himself as a
victim, therefore he is not any longer dangerous to his
environment, the environment is dangerous to him. You have
to get him over this. You have to get him up to a point
where he can be dangerous to the environment too.

Well, of course, the society has this line booby-trapped.
It says, "Now, if you get too dangerous to this
environment, you destroy any property, if you push anybody
around, if you make your weight felt in any particular
direction, we're going to arrest you, throw you in jail,
throw you into electric chairs, excommunicate you, fire
you," any one of a various billion guises of nonsurvival
and destruction, and the end of you - if you become dangerous
to your environment.

They completely miss a certain point here: the person who
troubles the society is the criminal. And the criminal has
become so convinced that the environment is dangerous to
him that he irrationally strikes back. One of the first
things that the criminal will be found to have as a common
denominator is the fact that he can't work. He cannot put
out effort, he can't really thrust his way into the society
directly, so he has to carve his way into the society very
covertly. When you talk to a criminal you talk to a man who
is in a neurotic or worse state. He's really bad off.

Well, now when you take the average Homo sapiens who is not
a criminal at all and you push him back on up the line,
you'll find out that he'll start to get dangerous to his
environment; you bet he will. And he's liable to go around
and growl at people and snarl at people and be discourteous
for a few days. And then he'll push on up for it, and for
the first time he has the freedom to be courteous.

There's two causes for courtesy. One is to be in such
apathy that you can t do anything else, and the other one
is to be sufficiently strong so that you can afford the
luxury of it. And until people can afford the luxury of it,
you never see anything like courtesy. Instead of that you
see 1.1 on the Tone Scale.

Well, we then see that an effort on the part of a science
to return to people some of their responsibility would also
be an effort on the part of a science to return to people
some of their ability to destroy. Well, you can't return
to an individual some of his ability to destroy without
returning to him some of his ability to create. And you
can't return to him some of his ability to create without
returning some of his ability to destroy. This is
unfortunate. But the end goal of a police state is a flock
of pebbles, with a big rock with a star on it.

Well now, this may appeal - this may appeal - to certain
people, but the main difference between those people and me
is that I don't agree with them. It isn't necessary that
they are wrong; it's just that I don't agree with them. And
actually when you've examined the numbers of aches and
pains which turn up anyplace below 2.0 on the Tone Scale -
as a person goes on down into apathy, less and less
responsibility - you're not in favor of it either because
psychosomatic illness sets in when responsibility sets
out. Responsibility sets out when a person is no longer
capable of free action in the society.

A society is only progressive, productive so long as some
freedom exists in the society for the individual. When that
freedom deteriorates, vanishes, its point of vanishment is
marked by a total apathy.

Now, when this material, as I say, was released as
Dianetics became very popular and a great many people
thought that this was a good way to make some money or
something of the sort. Not auditors - they didn't
particularly think of it in terms of money. It was
business men who hung around the fringes of this. And
anytime you sell that many books, there's a great deal of
money involved on the thing. People who were not even
vaguely interested in the subject of course moved in
sideways on the subject with a ninth dynamic, "the buck."
And they played hob with the central goals of it.

But this was not quite unpredicted. It seemed fairly
obvious as soon as the book sales began to ride up at the
top of the best-seller column where they stayed for many
months; the point of people raiding the subject and so
forth seemed to be rather obvious. But that was why it was
put out under the name of Dianetics.

Now, in 1952 and certainly of the pilot projects of this,
the various growing pains were more or less experienced
and over and done with, and we had this data: We found out
that the medical doctor had neither interest in nor any
responsibility for psychosomatic medicine. He does not
consider himself to be responsible for psychosomatic
medicine, and he really has no great interest in
psychosomatic medicine. Only so far as the curing of
psychosomatic ills by drugs. If he could cure them by
drugs, he would be interested in them. But if he cannot
cure them by drugs he is not interested in them. This
became very apparent and will bear out even today. Medical
doctors don't change very fast.

So this rules out the medical doctor as any custodian of
material which deals with psychosomatic medicine. The
medical doctor obviously - having no interest in it, not
taking any responsibility for it - of course, can't be forced
to take responsibility for it. And so it just means that
somebody else has to pick up right there.

Leaving the medical doctor where he operates very
successfully and where he definitely belongs which is in
the field of emergency surgery, orthopedics - setting of
bones - definite work of that character and in the field of
obstetrics. And in the administration perhaps of drugs and
policing their use, which of course would include policing
the use of antibiotics. Perfectly logical to find a man
sitting there doing that because where he is effective,
that is what he is doing. But let's stop thinking of the
medical doctor as anything active in the line of
psychosomatic medicine. He is not active in this line, he
has no real interest in it.

In view of the fact that at least 70 percent of man's ills
are psychosomatic, this sort of means that man's ills are
not being cared for to the tune of 70 percent. So that's a
pretty big hole to find in a society isn't it? At least 70
percent of what's wrong with the society, medically, not
being cared for.

Well, so the medical doctor, of course, as the years go on
he will realize this, and he will fall away from it fairly
naturally because he has no interest in it. There is no
reason to fight medicine; just leave medicine holding what
it's holding.

It is, of course, rather embarrassing that medicine tries
to... the medical doctors' association - which is ...
doesn't, by the way, represent really the opinion of
medical doctors; the AMA - that this organization would
attempt to set itself up as a police of such things as
psychology, and so forth. Having no interest in it how they
would set themselves up as a police of psychosomatic
medicine, one finds it difficult to discover unless they
too are interested in the ninth dynamic, "the buck."

All right. There is a field, then, that apparently you
think should be interested in psychosomatic medicine which
is the field of psychiatry. Psychiatry, that's the
mind - psychosomatic medicine. No, these are not connected.
Psychiatry is only interested in the very, very neurotic
and the insane to the point where these individuals who are
in that condition, should be incarcerated. The
psychiatrist is almost totally interested in the sanitarium
case. He is no further than that. He is a sort of a police
force which uses force against those who would become
dangerous to the society by reason of their insanity or
their incapability. Their incapability is such that they
can't walk or they can't hold anything on their
stomachs - psychotically, you know; I mean they go throw up
all over everything or... and scream and set fire to things
and so forth.

Well, these are dangerous people to the society at large
and society has given into the hands of a few medical
doctors who have also been trained in the handling of
psychosis, which is to say: Where do you put the
straitjacket? Do you tie it on back or do you tie it on
front? Where do you connect the electrodes to the skull in
order to give them enough jolt to quiet them down. This is
the type of study this is. Well, that's the field of
psychiatry.

Now, I'm not overestimating this. I mean, I'm not being
funny about this. I'm not making cracks. This is actually
the... a summation of the field of the mind. Now, these
boys would also like you to believe that they did
something about psychosomatic medicine. But they're, of
course, just interested in that ninth dynamic out there. It
means more business, they can't do anything about it,
they're not really interested. If there's any money
connected with it they'd do something about it, but they don't.

And we have a small corps of people who were originally
trained by Sigmund Freud as the next group, and these are
the psychoanalysts. Pathetically enough, there are
practically no psychoanalysts left in the world. This is an
extinct species. There's the American Psychoanalytic
Association. You can read literature about it. You can go
into a town like New York and you can find some
psychoanalysts. You can, definitely. You go into San
Francisco, you could find some psychoanalysts around
someplace or another. But these people have absolutely no
agreement on what they're doing. From one psychoanalyst to
another, they are not practicing psychoanalysis. There is
no such thing as a practice or process called psychoanalysis.

In other words, what we have here are a bunch of isolated
little outposts that are sitting around trying to do
something about the human mind. Well, they're not really
interested in psychosomatic medicine either, because
they've discovered over the years that they can't do
anything about it. They really have. They would think a
number of times before they took on a case to do his
sinusitis up. They would trace this to something else, and
trace that to something else, and try to get the guy to
volunteer to be cured of lung fever or something. They
would shift this around one way or the other, trying to
avoid the ill.

These people are not numerous. The main reason for this is
there was never a fully authorized organization in the
United States which was dedicated to the promulgation of
the materials of Freud.

Well, so psychosomatic medicine or psychosomatic ills and
the processes of the mind and so forth don't seem to find
any harbor there, because they specialize almost totally in
the neurotic, and almost totally in sexual malpractice.
And this is their main interest.

Well, when we get into neurosis - all right, so they're a
bunch of people that are taking over neurosis. But we've
still not covered psychosomatic medicine, and we still
haven't covered such interesting problems as reaction time
and things like that. Or how do we make an individual a
better driver, or how do we rule out all the accident
prones there are in the city of Los Angeles. How do we set
up an examination so that the people going in for a
driver's license would immediately disclose themselves as
accident prones, and thus cut the accident rate of the city
down to maybe 1 or 2 percent of what it is now. You see,
that would be very worthwhile and is quite a visible goal,
but there isn't anybody dedicated to this proposition.

Now, you think I'm leaving out psychology. Psychology was
something, as near as I can find out, that was invented... 
It's a very difficult thing to trace psychology. It
doesn't have a finite route like Freudian analysis. But as
near as I can trace it's probably...What threw it into
view was William James and his work on the subject.

Now, psychology is not a process dedicated to the cure of
anything. It's not a process and it's not dedicated to the
cure or eradication of anything. It is the scientific
manifestation of the scientific method. It's a methodology
by which individuals have sought to observe and tabulate
data concerning the mind and behavior. Now, that doesn't
say it has a process, it doesn't say it's going to do
anything about it. It says it's going to study and amass
data about the mind and behavior. That's all they do.

The word has gotten into the language so that people talk -
"Well, I'll use psychology on him." Well, they might as
well say, "Well, I'll outsmart him." There is no such thing
as a finite psychology which runs on this and that. It just
means the modus operandi of the mind. It's a Greek and a
Latin word combined. We're, by the way, criticized for that
in Scientology because it's a Greek and a Latin word, and
yet what about geology and... Oh, my goodness nearly all of
the "ologies" including psychology are also similar splits.

Now, it's funny that everybody studies this in
universities. You'd say it's very funny that everybody
would study this thing called psychology. If psychology
does not have a goal of either freeing man or curing man
then why would everybody study psychology? Well, that's...
you've missed the point there. That's a total
identification. Psychology is something you study because
psychology is a study because psychology and study are the
same thing.

It's too simple to try to put across really. Of course, it
would be something that you sat and listened through in a
university for years and years and years. Because it is a
study; it isn't a subject. It's the accumulation and
amassing and testing of data related to behavior in the
mind. That's all. I mean, let's not go on any further than
that, we... not toward a goal, not toward a process. We're
not trying to find out something. Our aim is not the end
product of what makes man tick. It's just let's study.

And so they study. That's been going on now for half a
century. People have been studying. They amass data, more
data, more data and more data. They don't even have any
theories in psychology. There's nothing.

Dr. Moss there in Washington, DC, invented a series of ten
laws which demonstrated that the more juice you put across
a mouse line, why, the less the mouse would go down the
line. But - he tabulated this. But he was unfortunate in
tabulating it because I went around and I said, "Why are
you doing this?"

And he said, "Well, this is the way you study such things."
And I said, "Well, what are you studying?"

"Well, we're studying rats."

"No, no, no. What are you... what's your goal? Why are you
making these experiments?"

"Well, the behavior of rats, the behavior of life."

"Okay. Okay. Well, where's your experimental records here?"

"Oh, they're here; they're fine. There was a rat named
Oscar. And we put a female in the other cage and we starved
Oscar for five days, and finally after we'd starved him for
five days he was no longer interested in the female - he was
dead," and so forth and he gave me all these figures.

And I said, "Well, where's your data?" I was getting sort
of impatient by this time. "Where is your tabulated
experimental setup? How many ohms of resistance? How many
microamps? How many volts? For what period of time? For
what age of rat?" A whole new horizon had just opened for
Mr. Moss - Dr. Moss. After that I'm sure he had little
columns over there that he wrote ohms in. Of course he
didn't know an ohm from a gnome.

But here we have this enormous amount of work going
forward. Now, I'm not belittling these people; I'm just
wiping them out. Of all of the wasted time which man has
engaged in this capped the deal. A subject which had no
real goal.

Now, somebody came along not too long ago and invented
something called clinical psychology, and this was supposed
to be a practice on people. But again, this is not a
process and it does not have a goal. It's "Let's treat
people." Now, that is just a gesture - if an empty gesture,
it's still a gesture in the direction of psychosomatic
medicine. But there's nobody gotten there yet. Now, we've
taken all available branches of existence and we aren't
there yet, except one, religion.

Two thousand years ago they had a few miracles. They didn't
keep good case histories and so we don't know quite how
they were produced. Everybody has been trying since to try
to change people's minds that fast. We don't even know that
it was done swiftly because as I say we have no case
history. The experimental record was not maintained. If we
knew how many minutes Christ held his hands over somebody's
head we might have some kind of a vague idea of how to go
about it. Furthermore, did he hold the right hand or the
left hand? And was he standing up or sitting down.
Furthermore, how many ohms or amperes came out of his
fingers. I mean, experimental record.

Everybody goes around and says, "Well, now, you just have
faith in it." And I won't have any faith in an experimental
record unless I can read it. I'm just instructed funny. I'm
a perverse sort of a fellow in this respect. If everybody
keeps telling me, "Now, you've got to believe. You got to
believe it and you got to have faith in it. You got to have
faith in it," I'm apt to say about that time, "In what?"

"Well, it!" 

"What?"

"Well, in God."

"Where? I'll have faith in him, where is he?" And people
look at me and say I'm an atheist. I say, "Oh, no. You're
the atheist. You think you have to produce evidence of God
simply by bludgeoning people around until they believe in
him. Well, I can make you believe in kangaroos - that
kangaroos are following you up and down the street at all
times of the day simply by hounding you and telling you to
believe in the kangaroos." So it doesn't look to me like
we've proven anything about God. It looks to me like we've
proven that people can convince other people of things with
duress.

This again is not an experimental record and has nothing
whatsoever to do with psychosomatic medicine. Hasn't
anything to do with human behavior or improving reaction
time. In other words, it hasn't been any... everybody
evidently has just been avoiding this terribly. Modern
times, Mary Baker Eddy came forward and produced a most
significant work on this subject in an effort to
establish, without any clinical record - a very brave
attempt, by the way - trying to establish how did Christ
bring about these healings. And she, however, did not ask
with that divine doubt which every experimentalist must
contain within himself... He must always be ready to doubt,
not the other fellow's data, his own. When a fellow is no
longer willing to doubt, he stops investigating. He already
believes in something, he... or he has the answer.

And without any divine doubt, which is to say, "Let's go in
and just pummel our way through," we got a subject known
as Christian Science. Well, it's an interesting subject.
There's no doubt about Christian Science being an
interesting subject. Because as far as I know it's the
only attempt - I mean, broad attempt - to unravel this problem
of faith healing. Which is to say, still the problem of
healing. Whether it's faith healing or antibiotic healing,
we're still on the subject of healing. Somebody's trying to
study this.

But they're also studying, if they say healing, sickness,
and so that's still a modification. It's better if you just
say, "How do we make life better or more able or better,
functionally?"

Well, she studied this and in the absence of a great deal
of material, of course, had considerable difficulty. Now,
the biggest difficulties she had were oddly enough very,
very specific. They were in the field of the mind and
physics. And she walked in where Michael the Archangel
himself wouldn't tread. And in the first prayer - get this
- that Christian Science opens every service with, you have
the most colossal error you ever saw which would of
necessity bring about an apathetic and unhealthy mental
condition in its people. Perforce it contains the words
"All is infinite space, infinite mind."

Now, running a preclear or two you will discover that as
long as an individual believes a trap to have infinite
boundaries, he believes he cannot escape it. He's
finished. The second he finds out it has finite boundaries
the trap loses. In other words, if you thought you could
never get out of Phoenix because Phoenix went on forever in
all directions you would certainly become convinced that
you were just bogged down in Phoenix wouldn't you. Would
you? You never could get out of it because no matter how
far you traveled in all directions you still could not beat
the barrier called space. You'd still find Phoenix.
Therefore, you could never get out of Phoenix. Therefore,
Phoenix was the all and everything of all and everything.

See? Infinite space, huh! That's the only thing that keeps
anybody trapped in the MEST universe. They look around and
it apparently is so big that they claim it is infinite. But
even your better mathematicians today are talking about the
expanding universe. Say look if anything can expand it is
not yet infinite.

If there's anything true, it's certainly this: the MEST
universe has finite dimensions. Well, "Infinite space and
infinite mind." So, they went up on a rock, which they need
never have gone up on. I suppose somebody merely wrote this
in, or she wrote this in just as a wonderful sweep of the
hand or a flourish of the pen or a nice word. Utterly
untrue and calculated to booby-trap any science, any
effort. Maybe if they'd just left that out of Christian
Science, why, Christian Science all by itself would have
succeeded, if they hadn't hung everybody with "infinite
space and infinite mind."

You see how that could be, how that could ruin all
concerned? Let's tell somebody that he's in an infinite
engram. He's got to keep on running it, and he'll never be
finished with it, and he's in it. Boy, he'll start
worshiping that engram won't he. It won. Well, there's no
reason to make the MEST universe win. It is doing all right
with no help.

All right. And yet where are we today in the field of
reason? - you might say the healing of reason. Where would
you go to in the society? Let's take conditions as they
existed in 1945. Where would John Doe have gone in the
society to have had something happen to his reason to
better it? Let's say he'd been through a long and arduous
war. Let's say he'd been many - two years, maybe, a prisoner
of the enemy. He'd been starved; he was upset. He found out
that every time he heard something drop in the middle of
the night, or he heard an automobile horn at some far
distance, he would be shattered, he'd lie there and shake.
He'd find out that halfway through the night he might
awaken in a terribly nervous state, sweating, be unable to
do anything but walk around the block several times,
something like this and so on. And having to... that would
be all right if he didn't have anything else to do but sort
of look at these symptoms. But he had to go on living too.

Now, what would that man do? Who would he turn to in the
society? Who would he turn to? Would he turn to the medical
doctor? The medical doctor, turned to, would say, "Well, I
don't know. These B1 shots that we're giving you are not
too bad, you..."

The fellow say, "Yes, I feel fine for an hour," he says,
"but what about the rest of the twenty-three hours?"

"Well, have you ever been to church?" I'm not being funny
now. This was the reply of medical doctors in the services
and outside the services to service men.

Hm! This is funny isn't it? That man's asking what can we
do about this. Therefore, he must know inherently that the
condition is something that can have something done for it.
Just by the fact that he would seek help tells you that he
is postulating that there is a remedy. And where would he
go for this remedy? I say, the medical doctor - "B1. Go to
church. Why don't you go see somebody or other?"

The psychologists, the clinical psychologists, who were on
duty with the service or outside the service when
approached were only evasive, very evasive. They were men
full of great security which they never produced. They
would say to the individual, "Well... well, if we work
for several years at this we probably can do..." This is
psychoanalysts, also. "If we work at this for a year I'll
tell you whether or not you can do something about it."

The serviceman would say, 'All right. We'll work at it for
a year." He's willing.

Well, all right. Now... now we spend the first hour with the
psychoanalyst or clinical psychologist - we're trying to
find out where he's going to get the money to pay for four
one-hour periods per week at fifteen to twenty-five dollars
a period. That's sixty dollars a week minimum, to go on for
a year just to discover if something can be done for him.
Sixty a week? Well, I tell you, a fellow in that condition
can't earn sixty a week. He's doing darn well if he can
earn thirty.

You say the government will do something for these boys.
Ha-ha! The government didn't do anything for them. The
government couldn't and told them it couldn't. Well, in the
society or in the service, they received a dead-end answer
from psychology. In the field of analysis many doctors had
taken up what they called narcosynthesis. If you knock them
out deep enough and make them relive an experience, why,
sometime something happens. They neglect to tell you that
85 or 90 percent of the time they drive a guy completely
off his rockers with narcosynthesis.

One doctor told me... had the nerve to tell me in a
meeting one time, "You've said that something occurs which
is not for the best in the field of narcosynthesis. Well,
let me inform you that I've now been using it on
servicemen for two years, and I have yet to know the
derogatory or bad result."

And I said, "Why, doctor, you need glasses." And his
colleagues laughed a little bit. And I said, "Where are
your clinical records? I'll be down tomorrow to see them,"
as though I were a police force or something.

"Oh, well," he said, "these ... uh, hmm." he said, "these
have all been shipped back to the government."

I said, "Well, I'm sure we can get them back again. If
you've never had a derogatory comment on the subject of
narcosynthesis, I think that maybe we ought to review your
cases or something."

"Oh, they're dispersed all over the place."

"Oh, you mean there's no way to check back against your
word... we have to take your word that there's no harm in
narcosynthesis. You don't have a single clinical record,
then, that backs this up."

"Well, no, of course not."

"Why don't you sit down and we'll get on with the lecture."

Naturally the fellow had known it time and time again but
he said "Here's a gimmick, here's some way I can probe
into the mind somehow or another and dramatize that
attempted abortion which I've been carrying around all
these years, and nobody's going to take this dramatization
away from me." But it didn't do anything for the
serviceman. What would you have done as a serviceman in
1945 in this society to receive any relief for nervousness,
anxiety or anything of the sort? The answer is nothing.
There was no profession in 1945 which produced any relief
or any betterment in the field of psychosomatic illness,
nervousness or the human mind.

Now, that's an awfully flat, blunt statement, and I am not
really given to making statements that can't be backed up.
That's the truth. There was none in 1945. It's 1954 now.
We've just reversed those numbers, and there is one, and
that's the Scientologist. You can go to a Scientologist.

And so if you wake up sweating in the middle of the night,
the Scientologist can do something about it. He doesn't
have to work with this character for 189 hours to do
something about a symptom or a manifestation like that.
This is a big broad symptom. The fellow says, I've got. ..
my legs get so nervous, I get so tense, I can't see what
I'm doing, I'm just about to go mad." The Scientologist has
techniques which reduce this, almost immediately.

Interesting, isn't it? It looks like something must have
happened here, then, in the last twenty-five years. There
was nothing in 1945; there is something in 1954. Well,
that's the difference. Let's look at the facts of the case,
and let's not try to fight through, anymore, a bunch of fog
and haze that is thrown up in front of people. What are the
facts of the case? And the facts of the case are there was
nobody functioning in the society to bring about surcease
from sorrow. Nobody.

A lot of people were talking about it and getting paid for
it, but they weren't doing it. And now in Scientology we
have people who are doing it.

Now, this investigation covered the whole field of the
mind. It started out, actually, not in the field of nuclear
physics, but started out, really, in the field of Freudian
analysis. I was fortunate enough to be trained to some
degree by Commander Thompson, who had himself studied with
Sigmund Freud. And I was very young while this was going
on. The first time I ran into Freudian analysis I was
twelve years old. It's very amusing. But in banging around
the world, I never had much time to go to school. I never
went to high school. I took New York regents examinations
and went immediately into engineering school in college.

There were many years in there when most boys are pinned
down in classrooms when I wasn't. Well, I got quite
interested when I was twelve, mostly because I was
interested in Commander Thompson. And the years went along
and I knew Thompson again here and there, and I read books
that he sent me and so forth.

But in the interim I was in India, and I was struck with a
horrible fact. India has all the data and none of the
energy. The West has all the energy and none of the data.
Freud was a... being sort of in the Oriental Europe, you
might say, was more or less at a crossroads where the
superstitions of the East would mingle with the force and
efficiency of the West. He for the first time really
decided to do something about this if he could, and that is
what is remarkable about Freud. The decision to do
something about it, and the teaching that something could
be done about it was not introduced by Scientology, not by
a long way. It was introduced by Sigmund Freud. And if he
only introduced that fact, no matter how funny some of his
solutions may seem to us, remember that this was a new and
startling fact in a world which was totally unsympathetic.

He was a medical doctor. He gave up his entire medical
career. He was thrown out of medicine, bodily, for daring
to say that something could be done about the mind. Up to
that time the mind was something that belonged to the
priests and the witches. And Freud said it doesn't have to
belong to the priests and witches, it really should belong
to the field of medicine. And medicine sixty years after
still had refused to accept the responsibility for the mind.

So obviously they don't want it. Freud tried to put into
the field his own corps of practitioners. Unfortunately,
they would not even adhere to what he was doing. But if
they simply carried forward the message "Look, something
can be done about the human mind," they were doing their
bit, weren't they. They were paving the way. It was a long
and arduous way, and it was arduously paved.

But that was all that was accomplished in the first half of
the twentieth century. A number of people who kept saying,
"Look something can be done about the human mind. There are
buried inhibitions and so forth, and man isn't acting quite
right. And he, a... this material can be unburdened and
then a person will be free." They never unburdened it;
nobody ever got free. 

The usual number - 22 percent of people who get well on
anything, got well. And in spite of this tremendous
discouragement and so forth which must have been Freud's,
and which were his own people's discouragements... You
see, they left him because he didn't have anything, really,
to give them - beyond that message.

The fact remains that it was still a big open door in the
society. That's the first time it happened in this cycle of
progress here on Earth when somebody said, "Look, we can
do something about human behavior, the social order can be
altered."

They were saying this without proof and without foundation,
but they were saying it loud. And they were saying it very
literarily. Enlisted on Freud's side are practically all of
the writers of the first half of the twentieth century.
Sooner or later all of them came around using as
characterization mechanisms Freud's stream of consciousness
and other things. Freud has been tremendously widely
publicized by writers in literature. Therefore, the message
has gone forward into the Western world repeatedly over and
over and driven home many times, "The human mind is
something that can be understood. It's possible to
understand the human mind."

The public has been left up in the air to this degree: Yes,
they now realize that it's now possible for an expert with
enough letters after his name and enough authority to do
something about the mind. They've been totally sold on this
fact. But there hasn't been anybody doing anything about
the mind until now.

Now, that's interesting, isn't it? Now, if you went ahead
as a practitioner and damned Freud and damned the doctors
and damned this and caused a big war this way and that way,
you would not be following forward into the inevitable
consequence of this research and investigation. And that is
the inheritance of all pioneering work which has been done
in the direction of bettering the business of living. You
would just divorce it. Don't forget that religion has
bettered the business of living. Yes, it has. In a wild,
cruel and barbaric atmosphere religion has often brought
about a civilizing, rational hand. Whatever else it's done,
however many billion men it's killed in the name of the
Prince of Peace - we're not interested in this. We do
recognize the factor that religion has been a continuing
promise that something better could happen. It's been there
all these years. No reason to kick it in the teeth. If you
do you disconnect your communication line with the past.
Your communication line with the past and your
communication line with the public are identical. The
public is in the past. Its total social culture, everything
it has is a built-upon, derived, step-by-step procedure.

If you were to revolt, then, and choose out for your
randomity, religion, you certainly would be denying an
awful lot of people help wouldn't you. People know
religion can help them. They would go to look for help
along the cause and course of religion, wouldn't they? And
where would religion drop them? It would drop them into the
soup, of course. Well, it seems to be a very good joke that
without fighting religion people go along the line of
religion to be helped and they don't drop into the soup.
They drop into a better state of beingness.

And people go in along the line that there's something
there called Freudian analysis, and it can help people and
it does remarkable things for people. There's no reason to
take out Freudian analysis and use it for your randomity
either because you're blocking a new communication line. So
there's that communication line. Let them come to you for
help from Freudian analysis, and get it. That's
interesting. If they had come along for it ten years ago
they would have dropped into the soup. Why let them fall in
the soup?

And in the field of psychology they think somebody can do
something for them, and so forth. Well, there wouldn't be
any reason to fight psychology. Psychology was trying to
make a scientific study of something toward - no goal, but
people have an understanding that something like this was
going along. Well, people that go into that direction for
help include every student who ever enrolls in a psychology
course. They go to the university and enroll in a
psychology course normally because they or an immediate
member of their family need help. And where do they get
four years later? They drop into the soup, don't they? I
think that something else ought to be taught there in the
university - something that would give them that help maybe
in the first few months they were in school. That would be
an interesting thing wouldn't it? Well, why fight psychology?

Everywhere we look, as far as medicine is concerned,
medicine isn't even reaching along this line. And people
sometimes ask a doctor something about this, but not very
seriously. They have no faith or hope in the doctor, as far
as psychosomatic medicine is concerned. If you don't
believe that go around and ask your neighbors. They'll say,
"Urr-yeah. Well, we're not going to have any more
operations or anything like that. We've already bitten that
one, we... " so forth.

Now, that means that after twenty-five years of
investigation we sit here with some answers. They're
demonstrably answers; they produce results. Fantastic, but
it does; we produce results.

But remember we don't just sit here after twenty-five years
of investigation. We're sitting here after some forty-five
hundred years of modern civilization. Remember that. Now,
man has been going along that line the whole distance,
trying to get to some finite end where he could be better
off; where he could be free. You're now in a position to
make him better off and make him free. So you better take
ownership and responsibility for the whole line, and you
will then achieve your goals and the goals of Scientology.

He wants to see a psychologist? Okay, you're a
psychologist. He wants to see a psychoanalyst? Okay, you're
a psychoanalyst. He wants to see a minister? You're the
minister. And as far as the medical doctor is concerned, we
will some day license those.

As far as this goes, though, man today has been led to
believe something that isn't true: that these fields can
help him. Therefore, we had better play the very, very
dirty trick on those who didn't want to help him by letting
the gates open and letting those fields help him.

The best way to do that is by being all fields related to
psychosomatic medicine. We are the first answer, we're not
the first communication line. Remember that. We're the
first to have the answers, we're not the first to have the
communication line. So we'll have to use past communication
lines to apply our answers.

In the whole field of Scientology, a study of it from
beginning to end would reveal to you that there is really
nothing new in Scientology - really nothing new. There's an
enormous simplification, and the true facts that apply have
been sorted out from those that didn't apply. You will find
any line of Scientology in almost any philosophy that was
ever written. But there's a curve on them the way they were
written. They didn't work.

Well, don't try to specialize in being new; just try to
specialize in being effective. And in your studies of this,
the most effective works as we come along the line are, of
course, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health as
the first public book, the earliest book Scientology: A New
Science and Science of Survival and Issue 16-G and Issue
24-G of the Journal of Scientology, as well as the PABs and
then these innumerable lectures that are contained in the
lecture libraries.

There is the information. We have that information. The
most important parts of it are the writings which I have
just named to you. You should be familiar with those. If
you're familiar with those, you're actually familiar with
twenty-five years of research and investigation. There
isn't anything else or anything hidden or anything new or
strange or peculiar that's going to hit you in the eye that
isn't included in those works. It's there.

(end of lecture)



_


