FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FZ BIBLE 8/30 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 8/30 (tape 8):

Transcript of Taped Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 

5ACC-7 - 5404C07 

Number 8 of "Universes and the War between
Theta and Mest" cassettes.

UNIVERSE: BASIC DEFINITIONS

A lecture give on 7 April 1954


And this is April the 7th, 1954.

I want to talk to you about some of the basic definitions
of Scientology. If you will look in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica as early, I think, as the ninth edition,
certainly in the eleventh and thirteenth editions, you will
find an article on time and space. This article is quite
important. I do not know who wrote that article. I shall
look it up, because it is the wisest observation I know of
in the field of physics or psychology.

The article states, in so many words, that space and time
are a matter for the psychologist, not for the physicist.
It states that in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Evidently,
that statement has been in existence since 1875, 1880,
somewhere in that vicinity.

People a little bit earlier on the track had a tendency to
be a little bit smarter about things, in that they weren't
so pinned down by a series of arbitraries and agreements.
And the person who wrote that actually stuck a crowbar into
the entire problem of existence. Of course, he left it
sticking there. He didn't pull on it or push on it or do
anything else about it. He simply made the statement that
time and space are a problem for the psychologist, not for
the physicist.

The physicist has adequately, if unknowingly, embraced
this. He has not defined time or space, except in terms of
energy and matter. The physicist has started in with an
unreasonable assumption that somebody knows what time and
space are or that they actually exist, and then he
continues to work with them. This would of course bring
about, inevitably, a failure in the field of physics. And
that failure has come about very markedly since the laws of
physics, as such, have been going by the boards for some
little time, ever since the first atom bomb was put together.

The finite physics, you might say, are still true. The laws
of fulcrums and balances and that sort of thing are still
true. But many of the upper-range material has suffered
very markedly and very considerably.

But regardless of whether physics is right or wrong, or
whether it has departed here and there, it is... becomes
quite obvious that somebody neglected a duty which had
already been pointed out. And the people who neglected
that duty were the psychologists. Here were people studying
in universities, working, priding themselves, writing
books, doing all sorts of things for a half a century
without once embracing the most vital problem before them
and not even knowing that the problem existed. This is a
crime of omission. Therefore, that is a failed field. It'll
even be a failed word in another two or three decades.
People will be saying, "Psychology, what was that?" Why?
Because its primary duty to this universe and to thought at
large, of course, was to organize the necessities, the
necessary data for the resolution of problems relating to
the mind. By definition; this was what it was supposed to
do. And no matter what any psychologist cares to tell you,
he's failed.

He was in existence in the late part of the nineteenth
century. There was his opportunity. Time and space - had he
resolved time and space he would have resolved the field of
psychology and we wouldn't have had a half a century of
buffoonery with rats.

Therefore, I am a little bit angry with psychology because
I walked onto the stage as a nuclear physicist in 1932
wanting to know something about the mind. And here were
some of the largest and best endowed departments of the
greatest universities of the world, pretending they knew
something about the mind, knowing nothing. Knowing nothing
but their own shallow pomposity, to be very, very brutal.
Little men with big heads. They caused me more trouble than
I care to be caused. Simply because I asked this single
solitary problem: "What is the smallest energy unit?"

Well, the smallest energy unit must therefore be something
related to thought. Why? Because here we have individuals
of a finite size walking around thinking. And these people
are remembering and they are remembering with pictures. If
they are remembering with pictures and if these pictures
seem to have a considerable dimension to them, then we must
be dealing with a size of energy which I know nothing
about. And in the interests of studying energy let us see
if we can discover what is this small unit of energy.

So I walked over to these psychology departments and I
found out they didn't even know the human mind ran on
energy. They had no idea about the human mind seeing
pictures. In other words, in a few hours of observation in
a physics laboratory it had been possible to exceed the
entire investigation of psychology.

Well, this was remarkable. What business does a nuclear
physicist have, in the first place, investigating in the
field of psychology? Obviously that should be investigated.
Somebody should have observed something. And he sits down
at a laboratory bench and he looks over the problem and he
says, "Well, now, let's see. Pictures? Let's see if these
fellows around here... Say Joe, when you think of
something, do you see a picture?"

"Yeah," Joe says.

"Well now, that's funny. Let's see, what's the size of your
head? What's the length of a neuron? Hm."

Now, columns and columns of figures. "How many neurons in
the body? There is ten to the twenty-first power binary
digits. That's a big number. Now, let's see. How many
memories. Well, let's see. How many memories do you have,
Joe? Let's see what you can remember." Agnes and Bill and
other people in the laboratory. "What can you remember?"
"Oh, so-and-so and so-and-so."

"Holy cats!" More and more and more and more. "Well, let's
see. How many perceptions are there in that? Holy cats!
There must be about... You must be seeing, feeling,
hearing. Whee! Well, you must be doing at least twelve or
fifteen various recordings. Hey, there's twelve or fifteen
various recordings for each one of these memories and time
is flicking at the rate of one over c, so therefore... Say,
you know, you haven't got enough brain capacity if every
neuron you have has shot holes in it where you have a
hundred memories stored in each shot bole and so forth
and... Hey! Hey, hey, hey. You know you can't possibly
remember anything earlier than three months ago because you
don't have enough energy storage. And furthermore, I don't
know of an energy this small. Well, we've got to do
something about this."

And I go over to the psychology department and find out I
was already about five hundred years ahead of them with
just that set of questions. And I was upset mostly because
they were so mean.

"What are you doing fooling around about the human mind? We
don't study the human mind anyway. That isn't the problem
of psychology."

"Well, what is the problem of psychology?"

"Well, observe uh... Well, it's not the human mind."

I said, "Well, what are you guys supposed to be doing over
here?" So I dropped by the president's office and found out
what their - huh! - what their budget was. It was bigger than
the physics department. This was upsetting.

You know, that was the first time I found out that there
were an awful lot of problems that weren't solved, because
I'd been brought up to believe it was a nice, modern,
scientific - world. Nice big, beautiful, shiny world where
everybody had everything licked and Mama and Papa knew best
and so forth. It was a very orderly world I was brought up
in. I was not brought up in a very psychotic agitated
atmosphere. And people were very nice to me.

My father was a naval officer, shipped around various
places. Well thought of. It was a calm world. I didn't have
any business worrying about this sort of a problem, because
it wasn't a personal problem. Whether people went mad or
stayed sane was very, very little to me. It meant really
nothing. And I figured everything in the world's all nailed
down.

Well, here's the very problem of thinkingness itself with
which we are dealing continually in the field of science,
not nailed down - not even vaguely nailed down. Nobody even
adventuring to solve it. Well, how can you go anyplace in
the field of physics if you don't know the smallest unit of
energy? How small can energy get?

Here was a stumbler. Here was a big idea there - sitting
there, of "There must be more in the field of physics than
we know about. And if there is so much more in the field of
physics than we know about we must be studying one tiny
little piece of the spectrum." Therefore, what is the field
of physics? It has demonstrated that the human mind
evidently uses and stores energy smaller than anything we
know about.

Well, I went around in circles for a while and threw the
whole problem in the ashcan and went on with my studies in
an orderly fashion. Perfectly happy to observe Brownian
movements and other things.

And I had, however, a little more background on it.
Commander Thompson had studied with Freud and he was a
good friend of mine and he talked to me a great deal about
having psychoanalysis. So I went back and reviewed a bunch
of the stuff which he'd talked to me about and studied it
over again. Hopeful, you see, that there was some clue there.

Well, there wasn't any clue there. This was not... this
was not the sort of orderly thinking which can be embraced
by a solid science like physics. And... because physics may
have a great many things wrong with it, but it does have
this: it of necessity continues to be reasonable. It
insists on workability. It won't take wild shots and
theories just on their face value. These things have to
work. And that is the one thing which physics can
contribute. Things have to work in the real universe. You
either get an effect or you don't. You can't guess that you
get an effect, you see. An engineer building a tunnel
can't just guess that he's built a tunnel. When the train
goes through the thing, it will either go through a tunnel
or hit a solid mountain. And it's not healthy to hit solid
mountains with trains. You get fired for having such
things happen.

So the point is, is here we have a test of workability,
which of course is a whole methodology of thought.

Well, I went over to a fellow over at Saint Elizabeth's,
William Allen White. I talked to him for a little while and
I became... He was very reasonable fellow, nice guy.
He'd been a friend of mine before this, by the way, and a
very, very nice fellow. And we were having a very informal
discussion this way and that, and he was unfortunate enough
however to throw me a few tidbits which tended to put me in
my place about the field of the human mind, you see. So I
sat down and proved to him that the human mind couldn't
possibly remember anything. Demonstrated it to him
conclusively. And he looked at this and the man went almost
white. He was a very brilliant man. He had no difficulty
in assimilating this material. But he had just been
presented with the fact that if the mind does run on
energy, if it is contained in the body, if neurons do
think, if people do remember, if there's life at all, the
human brain has very little to do with it.

Well, of course I might very well have upset the man more
than necessary because this is not necessarily a horribly
world-shaking conclusion, but William Allen White chose to
consider it so. And here was the greatest man in his day,
on the subject of the human mind, being utterly confounded.
Why was he being confounded? He was looking at the
scientific methodology of physics suddenly applied to the
field of the mind. And of course, it's like taking a
bright, sharp, new sword that nobody knew was there and
just slicing everything up. It was a great shock. "Well,
you know," he said "if you care to," he said, "you go on
with this." He said, "It's out of my depth already." He
says, "You realize nobody in medicine is trained in
mathematics. Nobody is trained in physics, logic, geometry,
energy, any one of these things." And he said, "What you've
got in front of you there seems to prove that the research
of the mind itself belongs in the field of mathematics,
energy, geometry, not in the field of philosophy and
speculation." Quite interesting. He gave up the ghost. I
don't think he ever did much more research after that either.

But it wasn't until 1938 that I had any kind of an inkling
of what was going on. In 1938 I found out there was
something wrong with hypnotism.

Now, I'd been in the East when I was a kid and all these
various good parlor tricks were very amusing. And I'd
watched hypnotism of the Indian sort work and work
beautifully. And Western hypnotism is quite different and
not anywhere near as effective. But I found out that we had
and were working with a variable.

Now, any time you show a physical scientist a variable
which is wild and unpredictable, he'll dive for it.
Something is moving, and he's going to stop it moving,
believe me! And here you have a variable - hypnotism which 
is fantastic.

Some people can be hypnotized. And when hypnotized and
given suggestions, they get well. Some people can be
hypnotized and when given suggestions which are calculated
to make them well, get ill. Some people can be hypnotized
and never come out of it. Some people can be hypnotized
hardly at all. And some people are definitely negative on
hypnotism.

Say, this is an interesting thing, isn't it? I mean, this
thing called hypnotism which is one modus operandi
producing all these various results on person after
person, different results from person to person.

Well, so I went out and I hypnotized a lot of people - using
Indian hypnotism, not using Western hypnotism. And I found
out that when you are plumbing for the subconscious, or
something of this sort, with hypnotism, you have to beware,
because you can give the fellow more delusions in a minute
than you can pull out in an hour. See, what do you do? You
pour it to him on suggestions and this sort of thing and,
golly, these things will stick, they'll last. Hypnotism
isn't this delicate, easy to work, harmless, little tool.
It's dynamite!

Well, this was very confusing to me that we'd have a
variable of this character. And again I went to the books
of the philosophers and the psychologists to see if I
couldn't find out something about hypnotism. And I went to
some hypnotists to see if I couldn't find out about
hypnotism and so forth. And nobody knew hypnotism. Nobody
knew why hypnotism worked, what mechanics were involved
with hypnotism, what was the ultimate effect of hypnotism,
if there was any therapeutic value in hypnotism. Holy cats!
I've hit another blank field.

And you know by this time I began... I'm rather prone to
being somewhat cocky and overbearingly self-assertive
sometimes, but I had the feeling - the feeling that I very
definitely - that I was living in a very stupid world. Here
was something as well known as hypnotism and here were
fields which were advertisedly expert in the field of the
mind - which hypnotism affects - and they didn't know
anything about hypnotism or what it did. Oh no!

Well, up to that time I was actually doing a backslide on
the time track, really. Because I had been born into this
century feeling, you know, that this was nice, bright, new
and modern, and every time I took a deeper look I found out
that we were just a little bit further into the dark ages.

Why, certainly, you can't go around tailoring up tremendous
weapons of enormous caliber and so forth and putting it
into people's hands this way and that, if you don't know
how these people work and if you can't predict what they'll
do with them. Because there was where I finally divided
company with the people building atom bombs. Right there.

We can build an atom bomb. There is no question about the
control of this here atom bomb. "You push this here button
here and it goes boom! If you don't push the button it
doesn't go boom!" You see, that's real simple. But there is
nothing about the control of the atom bomb which is
puzzling. If you take an atom bomb and lay it down on its
target with its controls pulled, it of course will explode.
But if you laid it on its targets without its controls
pulled, it wouldn't explode even though you laid it on its
target. And its perfect control here. When you put it in a
place it'll stay there. When you move it, it moves. Is
there any trouble here with the control of the atom bomb?
Not a doggone bit.

The control of the atom is not even vaguely a problem. But
by golly, the control of the men who punch the buttons to
control the atom - that's the problem. And nobody had even
bothered to solve it. How could you tell whether the
president or the dictator of the country was responsible or
not? By experience? Well, this was not a good test since
the individual could be engaged in an automobile accident
or a divorce or something and immediately after this
incident be quite insane, no matter what his past record
was. See that?

So what's this business about the control of the atom bomb?
It certainly has to do with the control of the mind. Well,
my fellows, we're having a very interesting time building
atom bombs - very interesting time. To do what with them? To
put them in the hands of things which are evidently totally
out of control. I mean, let's take .45 pistols, load them,
cock them and stand down here on the corner and hand them
to three- and four-year-old kids.

Looked to me like nuclear physicists had stepped in ahead
of itself a long way. The physical sciences had advanced
markedly and had achieved considerable goals, and what we
call the humanities had not advanced at all. It had been
standing still or going backwards. They were going
backwards, really, because we had come up to a point where
nobody would even admit the existence of a human soul.
Once upon a time people at least could have a human soul,
you see. But in modern science when you're dead you're
dead, and that's all you are, dead. So I find, for
instance, that in the field of the humanities - let's take
the Encyclopaedia Britannica again - you will find the
articles on the humanities are, in the early editions of
the encyclopedia, long and informative. And in modern
editions you'll find them absent or very brief And so, the
humanities were losing. Well, they were losing because you
couldn't predict what people were going to do with weapons.

Here was Hotchkiss. Great guy, Hotchkiss. He invented a
weapon to make war so horrible that nobody would fight it.
Do you know the number of machine guns used in World War II?

There's a fellow by the name of Nobel who was going to
invent an explosive so horrible that nobody would dare
wage war. He now gives Peace Prizes for the best
suggestions as to how not to use nitroglycerin and
dynamite. Here is this continuous failure of the mind in
the face of the encroaching sciences. Well, enough of that.

Hypnotism said that there was a big, big variable here, and
I went ahead and studied hypnotism. I couldn't find a lot
of things that were supposed to be there. The main thing
that was supposed to be there was a censor. Did you ever
hear of the censor? Well, I don't know. That's Freud in
Mama's valence, I guess.

But here we have the censor. The censor is supposed to
stand up there and when you think, "Gee, what a nice
looking babe," its supposed to say, "Dut-dut-dut-dut-dut-dut." 
That's the mission of the censor. I don't know. I never 
managed to find this item. I found the pineal inside the 
head, but not the censor. Anyway, it wasn't there.

All right, so we're going to look now for the unconscious
mind. We don't find any unconscious mind; we find a lot of
unconsciousness. Well, all right. Well, let's look for the
subconscious mind then. Okay, let's look around real good.
Let's find these horrible barbaric thoughts, and so forth,
and these hidden impulses and influences, and so forth.
There's no such mind present.

But we did find a tremendous flood of hidden orders. Orders
which evidently had no easily established source. A person
was evidently being subjected to a continuous bombardment
of commands, which he had no choice about, of which he was
only vaguely aware. Now, you'd say, "Well, that must be
coming from this thing called the subconscious mind." Well,
what an easy way to throw a problem away. Let's just give
it a name and say, "That's solved," and go on to the next
problem. This is monkey research - give it a name and go on.

We were investigating something we'd captured from the
Germans. And it has a whirligig on the top of it, and it
has a lot of tubes, and it has a lot of connections, and it
has a sort of an end to it that goes bong, bong, bong,
bong. We don't know what it is. It might be something
that... Maybe they've invented a death ray, who knows? I
mean, they got a... found a wave that would paralyze people
or... Who knows what the devil Buck Rogers equipment the
Germans might have thought up, because Lord knows, we were
thinking up enough. And so you say to yourself, "Well, all
right, we will call it a Dongerbat and put it over on that
shelf. Well, that problem is solved." Well, this was the
way the humanities were conducting investigation. Let's
give it a name, put it on the shelf and skip it. Well, this
death ray, as we will. .. might facetiously call it, that
we captured from the Germans is pretty analogous to
something that would be around the human being all the time
which would be saying, "Do this, do that. Kill your wife.
Go jump in the bay. Cut your throat. Oh, you're no good.
You know that. You'd better - What the devil is this all about?

Well, if we assumed that it was a mind, a separate mind,
that we would call a subconscious mind, we would be
validating and giving a lot of power to some hidden
livingness. In other words, we might as well say there's a
live beast that walks around everybody giving him various
orders. Well, that's... let's all go back to 1620 and burn
witches in Salem, saying everybody has one of these things
that haunts him all the time and tells him to do things
which are contrary to his survival.

Oh, no. Sorry, but that one won't go. Let's look a little
bit further and find out what the devil this is. There is a
bombardment of orders. There is, obviously. People are
working on impulses and they're obeying things that are not
of their own choice. Let's take a look and find out what it
is. And we found out that it was sheets of energy on which
were engraved perceptions of past incidents, including the
pain. Sheets of energy. Today we call them facsimiles.
They're actual sheets of energy - as actual as anything else
is actual in terms of energy. And this plate of energy is
capable of exerting pain against the individual. Um-hm.

Okay, if it can exert pain against him then in some fashion
or another it can also exert command power against him. Are
there ideas in these things? You bet there are. There are
full phrases, ideas, everything that you can think of in
one of these sheets of energy. Originally called the engram
because the worst part of it, the worst kind of this sheet
of energy is that one received under terrific duress. Well,
now, the individual takes a picture of moments of great
stress. The body, the person in resisting the great stress
with energy, unwittingly takes a picture of it.

Now, let's look at that a little stronger. And let's say
you were sitting here and you had some kind of a beam
arrangement in your hand which actually could hold back a
wall or something. And you saw that wall start to move in
on you. You would take this beam arrangement and try to
hold the wall up. What would result? Let's say the wall
fell down. Well, all right, but you've still got a beam
there. And by throwing out this vast mass of energy in an
effort to hold the wall up, you actually took a picture of
the wall. You unwittingly took a picture of the wall and
every part of the wall. And because you exerted that much
effort and afterwards didn't want to have the wall at all,
you said, "Well, that picture is not mine and I haven't
anything to do with it." Only you made it.

Well, that is the anatomy of the facsimile. That is how it
is made. Also the wall starts to fall away from you and you
want the wall. You're liable to put a big bunch of energy
on the other side of the wall to try to hold it up, see and
that's an inpull. And the wall falls down anyway and the
picture hits you splat! You say, "Something has hit me I
don't have anything to do with." You see that? Well, what's
that picture contain? That picture contains the total
impression of the other side of the wall. It's a picture.
It's just as much as a picture as though you'd made a
plaster cast, where plaster would be the energy. See this?

Well, hypnotism throws these things into violent
restimulation by changing the person's viewpoint of time.
It gives him the idea that he's not here in present time.
It can push him elsewhere. And his elsewheres are all
contained in these pictures. So we have a facsimile bank.

Let's say here was somebody living who had taken a thousand
of these pictures and he's got the walls plated with them.
And you go over and you move him in front of one of these
pictures and reduce his awareness and you say, "That's it
fella. There you are." Well, he looks at the picture and
says, "Yes, so I am. I'm in 19... 1939" or something like
that, you see. This is when he tried to hold the wall from
falling down or tried to keep two cars from coming together
in 1939. And because they're on his wavelength and so
forth, he can look at them and they'll match up and he will
actually feel again the pain he felt when those two cars
hit each other.

How does he do this? Because he used energy in order to
prevent something from happening and made thereby and
therewith a complete picture, even a moving picture, in
that he made a sequence of pictures, you see. And having
made these pictures he has in them, of course, everything
that was present in the scene, simply because he was
resisting the scene.

Now, let's take somebody who burns his finger on a stove.
He comes along and he puts his finger on the hot stove and
he pulls it off again. Well, the moment he pulls it off he
is of course pulling hard. He tries to push his hand away
from a hot stove. He carries a hot piece of stove on his
finger for some little time. See?

This is real remarkable how he would do this and the proof
of it is, can you do anything about a burn or about an
automobile accident which has happened in the past? Yes,
you can. You can simply - to get him to duplicate what he
refused to duplicate in the past. And when he duplicates it
again, it of course blows up, because he stops resisting
it. And because there isn't anything there his resistance
alone was all that kept it in restimulation.

So, as a net result, somebody burns his finger on a stove,
you actually have him apply hot stoves to his finger for a
while and apply burned fingers to his hand for a while. You
know, just mock them up and put them there, energy
pictures. Put some more there and some more there and some
more there, and all of a sudden boof! and the burn heals up
right away. I've seen a burn which should have gone into a
second degree burn heal up in a matter of about half an
hour, blisters gone and everything else, just on the
application of this principle.

Well, these are the pictures which give forth the commands.
When an individual looks at them, they start to dissolve or
go into action. See? He chips away some of them. And when
he chips away some of them, the energy hits him anew, he
resists it anew and he builds up a picture of the picture.
See? So you start to look around at the engram bank and you
pick up pains, commands, voices, crashes, heat, saline
solutions, anything, everything that was resisted in the
past, anything. When you look at it again it goes into
restimulation.

Now, worse than that, a person gets so confused after a
while about doing this that when he looks around the room
and sees a picture of a wall, this of course makes him
duplicate with a picture of the wall which he had before, a
wall which he tried to keep from falling down. So he looks
at the wall and gets a pain. But, of course, that wall is
not hitting him, it's not hurting him. Oh, yes it is. He'll
tell you, if you really made him spot it. No, it's not that
wall. It's another wall. He's made a slight mistake. He's
unwilling to duplicate this exact wall. He's using some
old picture. See, he picked up the old picture and says,
"Look, communication. All right, I can echo this wall. I
can make an exact duplicate of this wall. I'll pick up this
facsimile, this old energy sheet and hold it up in front
of the wall and we will get a perfect duplicate." Only we
don't. And there is the mechanism, you might say, of
restimulation and engrams.

This came out of... directly really, out of a study of
hypnotism and a study of the mind and general observation.
How many things can you do to these pictures? Well, boy,
you can do an awful lot of these things.

You'll find out a long time ago that somebody in psychology
wrote a book called Eidetic Recall. It shows the searching
observational quality of a mole who is very dead.

There are at least fifty-five perceptions in these energy
pictures. At least fifty-five perceptions. That's an awful
lot of perceptions. When you look up in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, which I was just praising before, you find out
that there are five. There aren't five; there's fifty-five.

There's all sorts of interesting perceptions. They say,
"Well, the perceptions of the individual are sight,
hearing, smell, touch and organic sensation." Well, let's
just throw the dictionary away and take the vocabulary of a
babu and say, "Now, this is the English language."

You're just not going to get there on that basis, because
it wouldn't explain... You see, if they'd really looked
and taken a look at lookingness, they would have found
there was heat in these things. Thermal. One of the most
important things in them - thermal. How do you suppose a kid
gets a fever?

What is fever? What's pain? Well, pain of course is just a
stored conflict of sensations which are so conflicting that
it's impossible to differentiate, and so an individual just
backs up off of them. This is pain. As far as fever is
concerned, it's simply a thermal. A fellow's got a lot of
hot pictures, that's all.

In processing somebody... I had a medical doctor - he saw 
his opportunity to wreck a preclear, so he really dived in. 
I was processing a preclear and the preclear was just doing
fine - running an engram and just doing fine. And all of a
sudden the medical doctor walked over and said, "Let me
take his temperature." So, I said all right. And the doctor
took his temperature and found out that he was running a
temperature of 104 and said, "This man will have to go to
bed immediately. I just can't permit this to go on."

And I said, "You can't permit this to go on. Sit down in
that chair." And in a few minutes, having run out the
engram, the preclear's temperature was 98.6. And this
doctor sat there stunned! He had seen a 104 degree
temperature turned on and turned off by artificial means,
which is to say just a guy talking to another guy.

And he finally told me the next day, "You couldn't do it
again." So he had a temperature of 104 very shortly, very
immediately. And I let him go to bed. Next day, when he was
feeling a little bit better and wasn't coughing quite so
hard and so forth, I said, "Well, it's a good idea when
you're running an engram to run them out, all the way out."
He never forgot the lesson. He became obsessed on running
the engrams all the way out.

Well, here's your... here's a quick look at the anatomy of
this mind. Now, how many interpretations have been given
this? Of course, what we're giving it is a mechanical
interpretation. Don't lose sight of that. But it's a very,
very good interpretation, in that you can see what somebody
else can see. You don't have to have seven opinions on
somebody else's seven opinions. And the main test of it is
can you make somebody well? Yes, you can.

Now, if we just had that and we were just studying that
mechanism, why, we'd be all right. We'd be a couple
thousand years ahead of the crowd. We would. Just the
anatomy of pictures and how you erase them and how you take
care of the preclear and bring him back up the line. But
there'd be a lot of cases we couldn't clip. Be a lot of
cases we couldn't do anything for, simply because their
pictures are so smashed in and so disarranged that they can
no longer differentiate between one picture and another
picture.

So picture therapy, you might say - as you would've called
Dianetics - picture therapy is not universally applicable. 
It hits at the outside probably 50 percent. Of course, that's
pretty good. But that's not good enough. Because in the
first place we're not really trying for just a broad
psychotherapy. We're not really trying for that. We're
trying for a lot of other things. We're trying for a
greater freedom. We're trying for some test of rationality
which would be sufficient as to know... let you know,
whether or not an atom bomb would be safe in a president's
hands or not. We're trying for a lot of things.

So picture therapy - let's make them well; we can turn off
chronic somatics and so forth - this is not a total
effectiveness. Now, we've got to go on someplace else.

Well, the years went along and wars went along and a lot of
things happened, but most important of these things was
the realization that there was something very, very haywire
with time - something very, very wrong with time. There is no
physicist's definition for time. "Time is rate of change of
particles in space," which is the same as saying "Time is
time." You're actually defining it by itself. You're
saying rate of change. Rate is something that includes the
word time. When you define rate you find out you've said
the same thing again. It's not an adequate definition, so
therefore, if we're to go on in the field of physics at
all, we certainly have to go back and pick up the other
thing the Encyclopaedia Britannica said, which was simply
this: Time and space are the problem of a psychologist.
Okay, if they're a problem of a psychologist we'd better go
into this.

Well, I started defining time, fooling around with time,
trying to do something about it, and ran into the fact that
there was a barrier on its definition. One first had to
know what space was. Well, this was a shocker, having to
know what space was. This is too much. Because here I found
Newton and the rest of the boys so silent. Oh, the
oppressive, doomlike silence entirely through the field of
philosophy and physics and everything else on what space
is. What's space?

"Well, sure. We know what space is. It's around us all the
time. It's big cubes or something, isn't it?" Oh, yeah?
Because space behaves in a crazy fashion. The second you
begin to exceed the speed of light, space starts doing
peculiar things. Space isn't a constant. The moment you
walked into nuclear physics, any earlier concept of space
ceased to be adequate, because space is... it just goes
to pieces.

Speed of light, the second you go above the speed of light,
of course, you - if you're using MEST universe waves, you go
above the speed of perception. So if you go above the
speed of perception, why, naturally, inevitably space is
going to go by the boards. You see that? The second that
you exceed the speed of perception you're going to exceed
space. Lord knows what'll happen. It's not predictable
then, simply because there aren't adequate postulates to
cover this situation. Adequate postulates, not adequate
definitions, it finally works out.

A fellow hasn't made up his mind what he ought to have
happen now after he's going the speed of light. Now, what
should he have happen? He'd have to make a brand-new series
of postulates. He'd find out, however, that they would
stick - these new postulates. He could do whatever he wanted
with these new postulates, because he's not in an
agreed-upon field, even vaguely. He's not even vaguely
limited. The second you exceed the speed of a photon, you
naturally exceed the agreement of space. So you could make
any kind of a new postulate you want to.

If you're depending upon photons to tell you that the
dimension is there, you know, if you're going to see with
photons, why, then you exceed the speed of light and your
definition of space is just up to you. Make up your
mind. What's it going to be? "Space above the speed of light
is octagonally quadruped." Anything you want.

Of course, there's nothing sounds sillier than a physicist
trying to theorize when he gets above the speed of light,
naturally, because he depends utterly for his vision and
perception upon photons. And depending utterly upon
photons, naturally - voila, we have no space above that speed
of space. What's the speed of light? The speed of space.

Now, let's not be very deep and complex; let's find out if
there's anything else missing around here besides the
definition of space. Yes, there sure is. There are two
other things which are mis-defined and one of those things
is a very simple thing - a static.

What is a static? Well, a static is something that's
motionless, of course. Oh my! Are we going to be this
theoretical? What do you mean theoretical? A static is
something which is in an equilibrium of forces. Now, every
once in a while here you're going to meet an engineer or
somebody, and he's going to say... you're going to say,
"Static," and he's going to say, "Yes, a static," and all
of a sudden give you a terrible argument. Why is he going
to give you an argument? Because he's going to say, "Well,
look, you see that package there? That's a static. It's in
an equilibrium of forces. What do you mean we didn't have
this definition for a static? That's equilibrium force.
That's there, it's motionless."

Oh, yes, by what theoretical means do we consider that
package motionless? By its own definitions that package is
traveling in eight directions. One direction alone it's
traveling at a thousand miles an hour through space. That's
the speed of the Earth. It's not in an equilibrium of
forces then; it's traveling in one direction alone, one
thousand miles an hour. And then there's the speed of the... 
the orbital speed besides the rotational speed. And
then there's the speed of the solar system itself and...
Oh, boy. There are more speeds. There are eight speeds just
because of Earth and the solar system that this thing is
taking. This is in about the maddest state of motion you
ever heard of anything being in, by physical definition.

In other words, there is no such thing as something in an
equilibrium of forces, except a theoretical thing. You
couldn't have anything on this Earth in an equilibrium of
forces, so therefore that is a limited definition. And it's
not an adequate definition. So if it's not an adequate
definition for heaven's sakes what is a static? Well, a
static would have to be something which was not located in
space, which had no mass, which had no wavelength and had
no position in time. In other words, let's reduce it all
the way down. The second I'd reduced it all the way down, I
found I had a definition for zero, and I never realized it
before but the real wild variable in this universe is zero.

Your mathematician happily slaps zero into all of his
equations. Your arithmetic teacher stands up there and
handles zero just as though she was handling something that
was as secure and sound as the Empire State Building.
Everybody is saying, "This good, old, solid friend of ours,
zero." And yet they knew in algebra that whenever they
divided by zero or multiplied by zero, everything went to
hell. They know this, and yet they're saying, "There's zero."

Well, your boy working quantum mechanics down in the
laboratory, every time he puts a zero in an equation he
introduces into it a wild variable and this alone, really,
is enough to account for all the bugger factors you have to
use to get quantum mechanics to balance. Zero - it's a wild
variable. What do you mean a wild variable? Zero's zero.
Well, we'll have to define zero. The first time we get a
definition for zero.

Now, we're at the threshold of mathematics and physics.
With that definition of zero, we're standing there with
mathematics and physics grouped together for the first
time. And we find out that zero, to be zero, couldn't have
an... See, we already had a static. Well, we found that we
were defining zero. All right, it couldn't have a position - 
couldn't have a position in space - because it would
be a qualified zero then. It would have... The second you
gave it a location you would say, "The zero at... Hollywood
and Vine." See? That would be a qualified zero. Well, we'd
have to say, "The zero at Hollywood and Vine when," to
really qualify the zero, and then "At Hollywood and Vine
when, but a zero of what."

In other words, every time you put a zero into a
mathematical equation you would have to add a paragraph
onto it to say a zero of what, where and at what time.

Your teacher of arithmetic does this all the time. She
says, "Two apples subtracted from two apples give you
zero." But it's understood, you see, zero apples. Well, of
course that's not real good. That's very, very theoretical.
You say, "Zero apples where?" "Well, on the blackboard."
Ha! She's answered all of the qualifications for having put
down zero to keep it from being a wild variable. But the
second it's allowed to float without adequate definition -
she said a zero of apples on the blackboard right now - all
right, qualified. But did she put down "A zero of apples
right now on the blackboard," or ever mention this to her
class? No, she does not. She said, "That's zero. That's
good old solid zero, you see. It looks like an egg stood on
end."

And that's just where mathematics laid an egg. They had no
definition for zero. Zero would have to be without a place
in time, without a connotation of condition or quantity.
That is to say it couldn't be a zero of something to have
an absolute zero. You'd just have a zero. Not a zero of
apples or a zero of this and that. And a time - you couldn't
have any time in it.

Because you see the second you allow one of these
conditions to exist then it becomes variable. It becomes
variable because you have permitted to sit, in that zero,
an inarticulate condition. You know, two minus two equals
zero. That's not good enough. I'm saying this of course the
sound waves of it are right here but it's not a zero of
anything. So, we divide by zero we can get zero equals one.
We can get zero equals this, zero equals that. It's one of
the most confounding problems of the mathematician.

A zero has to be without position in space, without
position in any space, without a location in time, must
contain no actual or understood mass and no actual or
understood wavelength. And that's zero. No mass, no
wavelength, no time, no location in space, and we've got
zero. The second we permit one of these things to exist in
it as a condition we no longer have zero. We have an
understood somethingness which happens to be absent at the
moment and thus which we have to mention. And there is
where mathematics had been falling on their faces.
Mathematics only work very finitely, see. They're easily
exceeded.

All right. What other thing would we have to know to solve
this? Well, we'd have to know a little bit more about
space. Now, we've got a zero. For the first time we've got
a zero. We've got a nothingness. What is nothingness? It's
without time. And boy, you'd better know this. Without
time. No past, present or future. This nothingness has no
past, present or future. It has no location in space; it
has no wavelength; it has no mass. See? Zero. And we're
looking right straight into the teeth of what life is. It
is something which is not located in space, which has no
real position in time, which has no inherent wavelength and
which has no mass. That's life. And that's why it's
incomprehensible and can never be equated by earlier
formulations. Because everybody was locating it someplace
and then forgetting that they had located it anywhere.

They were attributing energies and masses to it and then
never saying they were contributing masses or energy to it,
but that the energies and the masses were the thing.

So we have the answer to the smallest wavelength of
thought, don't we? That's a long communication lag, I'm
ashamed of it - twenty-five years. I asked a question in
1932 and I get it answered about twenty-three, twenty-four
years later. But that's because the answer was so darned
obvious. It's the obvious answer that's always the useful
one. An individual could not be something composed of
energy, object, so forth. We've got space nailed down right
there.

If life does not have to have a position in space, to be a
life, of course we are looking at what space is - which is
what it is: a viewpoint of dimension. Here is something
without wavelength, without energy, without mass, which can
yet assume that there is a dimension. And assuming that
there is a dimension it can then utilize energy and perceive.

It's remarkable. That tells you why an individual, when
he's exteriorized, can be in this room and be on Mars,
bing, bing. He isn't in this room and he isn't on Mars.
There is no mass or energy moving from this room to Mars
and back here again, see? There isn't any energy motion.
And all he's got to do is just assume a new viewpoint.
Bang, bang.

Every time he assumes a new viewpoint he can have a new
space too and if you get somebody beautifully exteriorized,
why, he can assume viewpoints of eighteen planets that
aren't there. The only difference is he's got to know he's
assuming the viewpoint that is different than other
people's viewpoint, when he assumes one that's different
than other people's viewpoints. He can see a much more
beautiful universe than this universe right here, simply by
assuming its existence and taking a viewpoint of it. He
assumes it exists and looks at it. So it's there.

And out of this horrible mass of data called physics and
psychology and the rest of it, we get down to the most
simple simplicity there is, which is the fact that life
does not have mass... Boy, know this please. Don't ever
make a mistake on this. Life does not have wavelength. It
does not have mass. It has no position in time. It has no
location in space. Because time, space, energy, mass are
all conditional postulates which units of life have agreed
on with units of Iife. And so we got a universe.

Every one of these things is conditional to the ability of
life to make a postulate and make it stick. Viewpoint of
dimension. When you first entered the MEST universe it
looked like a vast and terrific secret. There was some
enormous secret connected with the MEST universe. Here it
was. And yet what was easier. Somebody told you about the
MEST universe. You had to assume that somebody was telling
you about something in the first place. And he told you,
communicated to you about the MEST universe or you
communicated to yourself about the MEST universe. And the
next thing you knew, you were able to bridge a gap and
communicate with some other unit or some other
individual-unit of life or individual - about what they were
seeing in the MEST universe. You'll find out the first
entrance engram into the MEST universe is a tremendous
argument concerning the MEST universe itself - in which you 
lose!

If you hadn't lost that argument you wouldn't be looking at
it now. You see that? You never would have seen it at all.
What an interesting trick. You had to buy somebody else's
viewpoint before you could view it. In other words, we're
dealing then with problems in universes. There's your
universe and everybody else's universe and there's the MEST
universe and other universes. But the first condition of
the universe is that one have a viewpoint and assume there
is a dimension.

So this problem wraps itself up pretty tight. The pat
phrase that resolves all this is "Where are viewpoints
safe?" In other words, "Where are viewpoints ... " - my own
or others; it doesn't matter. "Where are these viewpoints
surviving that I can do nothing about?" Because as long as
other viewpoints survive that you can do nothing about,
there's going to be space you can do nothing about and
therefore objects that you can do nothing about and energy
you can do nothing about and everything is safe because
you're no longer dangerous to anything. Their space. That's
why a kid runs away from home, runs away from Mama and Papa
and so forth. It's their space, their viewpoints. Just a
viewpoint is enough to have space, to have a universe. So
we split up these universes.

How do you tear these universes apart and straighten the
preclear out and square the whole problem up all the way
down the line, including physics and the atom bomb? It's
"Where are viewpoints safe?" And you, of course, will blow
up space in all directions till an individual can make and
tailor space or agree with it and disagree with it at will.
And all you're trying to return to the preclear is to be
able to do it at will, not on somebody else's will.

(end of lecture)
_


