FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FZ BIBLE 26/30 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 26/30 (tape 28):

Transcript of Taped Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 

5ACC-25 - 5405C03 

Number 28 of "Universes and the War between Theta and Mest" 
cassettes.

[Also included in the Essentials of Auditing cassettes of 1981
and proofed against that version as well as against the unvierses
cassettes - no differences]


VIEWPOINT STRAIGHTWIRE

A lecture given on 3 May 1954


And this is a lecture on viewpoint Straightwire, a process
which is very simple, very easy to use and has continuous
advances.

This process is not mixed with other processes; it's not
part of any Standard Operating Procedure; it's not part of
anything that you would do ordinarily; it doesn't
particularly apply to one case level or another case level.
It is an independent process which in itself is very simple
to administer. It can be, I suppose, self-audited, but I
wouldn't advise it offhand.

The formula of this process is: all those definitions and
Axioms, arrangements and scales of Scientology should be
used in such a way as to bring about a greater tolerance of
such viewpoints on the part of the preclear. That's a
formula. That means that any scale there is - any arrangement
of fundamentals in thinkingness, beingness - could be so
given in a Straight-wire that it would bring about a higher
state of tolerance on the part of the preclear.

To make this more intelligible, you should understand what
a great many preclears are doing and why an auditor
occasionally has trouble with one preclear more than
another preclear. A great many preclears are being
processed solely and entirely because they are unable to
bring themselves to tolerate an enormous number of
viewpoints, and being unable to tolerate these viewpoints
they desire processing so that they can fall away from them
and not have to observe them. And the auditor is auditing
somebody who is in full retreat, and Scientology is being
used to aid and abet the retreat. By taking the charge off
of an engram, the auditor at once gives the preclear
something in the way of a change of viewpoint, in that he
erases something so the preclear doesn't have to view it
anymore.

Well, as you can see, this is a weak direction - he erases
something so the preclear doesn't have to view it. In other
words, what the auditor is doing is to some degree holding
in question the ability of the preclear to tolerate viewpoints.

Time itself may very well be caused by an intolerance of
past viewpoints. A person doesn't want viewpoints in the
past, and so at a uniform rate he abandons past viewpoints.
And when he no longer is following this uniform rate but is
abandoning them faster than the uniform rate, he starts to
jam in terms of time and becomes obsessed about time,
becomes very hectic, begins to rush time, push hard against
the events of the day, feels that he doesn't have enough
time to accomplish everything he's supposed to accomplish.
And this falls off on a very rapid curve to a point where
an individual will simply sit around idle, fully cognizant
of the fact that he doesn't have enough time to do anything
and so doesn't do anything, but knows he should be doing
something but can't do anything because he doesn't have
enough time.

This is idiocy itself, but is the state in which you find a
great many preclears. Time is a single arbitrary which
entered into life, is well worth investigating on the part
of an auditor.

Now, an unwillingness to tolerate viewpoints will cause a
jam in time. The fewer viewpoints which an individual will
tolerate, the greater his occlusion and the worse his
general state of beingness is. As I said, an auditor can
remedy this in various ways. He can erase locks and
engrams, and by erasing them make it possible for the
individual to tolerate the view he finds in his own bank.
Or, an individual can be so processed, as in
exteriorization, that he can be caused to go around and
look at various things and find they're not so bad.

Now let's just take the mean between these two and realize
that a person who doesn't exteriorize is a person who does
not want an exteriorized viewpoint: he does not feel he can
tolerate an exteriorized viewpoint. He may have many
reasons for this, but one of the main reasons he will give,
of course, is that somebody may steal his body and so
forth. In other words, here you have a tremendously
valuable viewpoint which he's liable to lose if he
exteriorizes.

But, viewpoints then must be scarce, viewpoints are
obviously too valuable to be used, and this comes about by
viewpoints becoming intolerable.

Let's take somebody standing watching his family being
butchered by soldiers or something of the sort - Indians or
other wild people. And he would go along afterwards so
intolerant of this viewpoint that he would fixate on it.
It's the fact that he refuses to tolerate the viewpoint
which makes him fixate on it.

Now, the reason for this lies in the various agree-disagree
scales in the Doctorate lectures: the fact that if you want
anything in this universe, you can't have it; if you don't
want it, you're going to get it. This is an inversion, and
when this inversion comes about, an individual finds
himself overwhelmed each time on whatever his own
determinism is. If he starts to desire something, he will
find out immediately that he can't have it. Actually, he
himself will take steps to make sure that he can't have it.

The point is that you have an inversion: when he wants
something to flow in, it flows out; when he wants something
to flow out, it flows in.

Now, there's nothing more pathetic than watching a
psychotic try to give up any material object. I processed a
psychotic just on this basis: trying to make them give me
or give up or throw away one possession, such as an old
Kleenex or almost anything - just try to make them give it
up. No, no, they just won't do it. The material object is
there, they clutch it to them, and I swear that if you
handed them an adder, wide-mouthed and fully-fanged, they
would clutch it to their bosom. Anything that comes in,
they immediately seize, and that's that.

Now, you as an auditor are trying to make somebody give up
something. In essence, you give up a compulsive viewpoint.
Well, every time you ask them to give up something, they're
liable to hold it closer.

Now, there are many processes - there are a great many
processes. There's all the Standard Operating Procedures,
and oddly enough in good hands they all work. There's
Universe Processing; there's Advanced Course Procedure;
there's Creative Processing, on and on and on and on; the
tremendous, tremendous amount of technique which can be
applied with good sense to a preclear.

There's enormous numbers of Straightwire. There's old-time
Straight-wire, the most basic Straightwire there is, which
by the way is better than Freudian analysis. It's a marked
advance on Freudian analysis, the first Straightwire we
ever had, which... We notice that the preclear is afraid of
cats, so we say, "All right. Now, let's recall a time when
you were afraid of cats." "Now, let's recall somebody who
was afraid of cats." "Now, let's find a time when somebody
said you were like this person." That was, to some degree,
its formula. 

Just Straightwire, and you sprung apart these valences very
gently. However, it required a great deal of good sense on
the part of an auditor. An auditor now and then would
become a Straightwire expert and by just asking such
searching questions and causing the individual to recall
certain things, he would bring about a great deal of relief
on the case.

Why did the relief take place? The individual has been
going along in the full belief that he could not tolerate a
certain viewpoint. And the auditor has come along and
demonstrated to him that the viewpoint was in the past and
therefore is tolerable. There's, in essence, the
fundamentals of such Straightwire. You get key-outs on this
type of Straightwire.

Well, there's that process which is: get the individual in
present time so he isn't looking at the past. That's a goal
of a great many processes. Another one is: wipe out the
past so he won't have to look at it or experience it.

We have in Viewpoint Straightwire a very, very new type of
thinking in this. This is a new type of thinking. This is
not to be confused with what we have been doing for the...
lo, these many years. It hasn't any connection with it. You
should think of this as something entirely different,
because it has an entirely different goal than any process
you ve ever done on a preclear. It takes the benefit of
exteriorization and reduces it to Straightwire. We get an
individual to race around the universe and look at things,
observe things, experience things. That's Grand Tour and
that sort of drill, and reduces it right down to
Straightwire which is done interiorized or exteriorized.
One simply goes on the basis that the preclear is in the
state he is in, because he is not tolerating many
viewpoints. And the entire goal of the process is to bring
him to a point where he will tolerate viewpoints. That's
all there is to the process. The key wording of the process
is, "... you wouldn't mind."

All right, let's give an example of this. Why do I announce
this as something important, something new, something that
is very useful to you and so forth? That's because, as I
told you a few days ago in a lecture, there are many
varieties of viewpoint. If we were to take knowingness and
squash it, we would find we were first getting into space,
which would be perception. We have to "perceive to know."
Now, if we condense that, we find out that we have to get
"emote to know." The person has to emote. We squash
perception and we get into "emotion to know." Now, if we
squash down and condense even further emotion, we get
effort; and if we condense effort even further, we get
thinkingness; and if we condense and package thinkingness,
we get symbols (as an example of this, what is a word but a
package of thought); and if we were to condense symbols, we
would get actually the wider definition of a symbol - we
would get animals.

It's very strange, when you think about it. You're probably
thinking about it in terms of a viewpoint of a body, if you
don't see that clearly. But the definition of a symbol is a
mass with meaning which is mobile. And that is a symbol.
And of course that is an animal, too. An animal has certain
form which gives him certain meaning, and he is mobile.

And if you see that thinkingness condenses, then, into
form, you will understand art, just in so many words - a 
very simple thing. You have thinkingness condensing into
symbols, in other words, ideas are condensing into actually
solid objects. And when these are mobile, we have these
symbols, and when these symbols are observed, they are
found to line themselves up with other symbols and take and
associate - associate with one and another and take things
from one another - and you get eating.

That's a big band we're covering in there. That's the whole
business from "I have an idea about a form, in this space
and matter, and I'm going to get it all together, and I'm
going to make this mass together." Well, the second we've
done that, something has been created. Now, don't expect
that thing which has been created to create anything,
because it won't. So, it is a thing which isn't creating
and therefore must subsist on an interchange of energy, and
we get eating.

Now we take eating and condense it down - that is to say,
let's make food scarce and let's make it very hard to
get - and we got a condensation, you might say, which
completely escapes time itself. And you go outside of time
and get sex - that is to say, the outside of present time and
you get future time, which is sex. An individual goes right
straight off the time track between eating and sex, and
there's nothing will float on a time track like a sexual
engram. They just float all over the time track; they don't
nail down at all; they're very mobile. Believe me.

And the individual, in eating, starts to slide out of
present time by this token alone - and most people are
terribly worried how are they going to eat tomorrow. And
when they reduce this down to the reductio ad gastronomy,
you get to a point where "I can't solve the problem of
eating tomorrow, so, therefore, I'd better just leave it
all up to somebody else and slide in on the genetic
protoplasm line and go up the line a little bit and get a
form and be another form." That's the best way to solve
eating, is just to live tomorrow. And maybe tomorrow there
will be more food.

This is by the way, such a thoroughly easy thing to
perceive that a simple test will demonstrate this. Now,
let's take a look at those countries of the world which
breed faster and harder than other countries of the world.
And we find India and China. And we find that these two
countries have the greatest food scarcity. Now, we could
say, "Well look, they have the greatest food scarcity
because they keep breeding people and that eats up all
their food." No, no, it's the other way to: They eat up 
all their food and so they breed like mad.

And this can be tested with an animal. If you starve an
animal, an animal will procreate faster. If you were, for
instance, to give any family of Homo sapiens a carbohydrate
diet, with a very, very low protein diet... And by the way,
this would be, you'd say, terribly unconducive to the
production of, well, estrogen, androgen. It's true, it
would be very unproductive to it, but if you give them a
high carbohydrate and very low protein diet, the next thing
you know, they'll start to get very anxious about breeding.
You're telling them in essence, right where they can
understand it - in their stomachs - that they are unable to
obtain enough food today and so must eat tomorrow.
Therefore, you get countries of the Western hemisphere,
which are very heavily starch-dieted, and you'll find out
that these countries are the most anxious about breeding
and about tomorrow. Why, no reason to stand around and
prove this for hours - it's just the Know to Sex Scale and
you get condensed knowingness. "I don't know how I'm going
to get along today, so therefore I'd better breed like mad
and appear tomorrow and maybe I'll know then" is about the
last ditch.

Well, if you notice this, death must come in this band
above sex. And the person presupposes his own death, to
indulge in the protoplasm line. See that? And so we get
people like Schopenhauer and The Will and The Idea and so
forth, closely associating sex and death. And we get
certain animals and insects and so on, which so closely
associate sex and death that they accomplish death when
they accomplish sex.

People always - particularly fear merchants who come
along - they always like to tell you about the black widow
spider. I don't know why the black widow spider is such an
attractive beast to some people, but its apparently so. I
notice that it exists mainly in California - Southern
California. Lots of black widows down there. And most
California girls, if you get into any kind of a discussion
on the second dynamic at all, will sooner or later inform
you that the female black widow spider eats its mate after
consummation of the sexual act. I don't know why this is,
but well, it's probably Californians. Anyway, the main
thing is here is, actually, when you go down this scale -
although it doesn't belong on the scale - you'll find death
just before sex. In other words, it goes: Know, Look,
Emote, Effort, Think, Symbol, Eat, Death, Sex. See, only
Death doesn't belong there. But just shows you where this
mechanism comes in.

Now, beingness might also be on this scale somewhere.
Beingness might be on this scale, and if it were, you would
have a tendancy to look for it up toward the top. But the
truth of the matter is it's all up and down the scale. And
there is no beingness like that beingness at Symbols. And
you'll find most of the human race having been made into a
form, that is, a mass which is mobile, has meaning - a mass
with meaning which is mobile (that's a body, that's a word
in a dictionary, that's a flag flying above a building, it
can be moved around and so forth). You'll find out that
they indulge very, very heavily in being symbols.

Well, you'll find people around being sexual objects too.
So that this scale sort of interlocks on beingness. A
fellow could be some effort and actually we don't find
beingness up at the top of the scale at all, we find it
down there pretty low on the scale. So when an individual
has gotten to a point where he has to be something, he's
practically out the bottom.

Now, that controverts to some slight degree something I
said many, many weeks ago on this. But if you remember many
weeks ago, I said beingness didn't belong on this scale.
Beingness is an activity or a condition and you might as
well throw it onto the scale. So I just threw it onto the
scale and didn't discuss it further. Further discussion
examination would have to put beingness at least at
Symbols. A person becomes things at that level. So if you
find a preclear madly being his name, where is he?

All right, now let's look this thing over even further and
find out that there's - I told you the other day - some
different kinds of viewpoints. Well, there's something you
might call a "know point" - k-n-o-w point. That would be
senior to a viewpoint, wouldn't it? An individual wouldn't
have any dependency on space or mass or anything else, he'd
simply know where he was.

Now, there'd be a viewpoint, which is a perception point,
which would consist of look and smell and talk and hear,
and all sorts of things could be thrown in under this
category of viewpoint. But ordinarily we simply mean at
that level of the scale, looking. But you can throw all the
rest of the perceptions in at that level of the scale.

Now, we go down a little bit, and we would get something
called an "emotion point." It would be that point from
which a person emotes and at which he is emoted.

And then there would be something else called an "effort
point." And the "effort point" would be that area from
which a person exerted effort and that area into which a
person received effort.

And we'd go down a little bit more than that and we'd find
we had a "thinking point." And there, of course, we get
figure-figure-figure. The person is thinking there, not
looking.

And we go down a little bit further than this, and we get
into - from a "thinking point," - we just get a "symbol
point." And there, really, properly, we get words.

And below that we get an "eating point," and below that we
get a "sex point."

If you considered each one of these below Know as an effort
to make space, a great deal of human behavior would make
sense to you.

Let's take an individual trying to make space with words.
He's simply trying to make space with words. Words don't
make good space, and so an individual who tries to make
space with words sooner or later gets in bad condition.

Now, let's look at another one, much lower than that, and a
person who's trying to make space with eating - of course
that's inverted, isn't it?

And then there's the person who is trying to make space
with sex. And boy, that's really inverted. That goes both
ways from the middle.

Of course, part of the eating scale... the lowest part of
the eating scale is excreta and urine. And people will try
to make space with that. Dogs are always trying to make
space, for instance, that way.

Now, then there are people who try to make space with
effort. This is the use of force. This is Genghis Khan
riding out and slaughtering a bunch of people - he's trying
to make space. You notice the space had to exist before he
could ride out anyplace.

And we go up a little higher, and maybe you've known
somebody who tried to make space with emotion.

And we go up a little higher and we get the way you do make
space, which is by looking. Actually you make space by
knowing. If you just knew there was some space, there would
be some space. That would be about all there was to that,
so it's so simple.

Now, that's an effective way to go about it. And looking is
another effective way to go about it.

And when we get down to emotion, boy, that's getting real
ineffective. People who try to make space with emotion
don't get very far. And that's literally, actually,
figuratively, any other way you want to look at it, they
just don't get very far. You can't make much space with
emotion. It's too condensed and it kicks back and so forth.

And then there's the individual who makes space by working
hard or by pushing hard or by exerting force. In other
words, there's quite a little bit of band there, you see,
to the effort band. And you'll find out they don't get very
far either, but they get less far than people who try to
make space with emotion.

And now, we get into the thinking band. And people who try
to make space with thinking, boy, that is about the
awfullest activity anybody could engage in, is trying to
make space with thinking.

And of course we get down to making space with symbols.
This is a nation trying to fly its flag all over the world
and so forth. And, it doesn't make much space.

Then we of course go into eating. And an individual by
offering things to be eaten, such as a cattleman - you 
know, he offers things to be eaten - he's inaking space 
with cattle. And a fat man, of course, is trying to make 
space with food, so on.

Now, when we get down into sex, of course, if an individual
could breed fast enough and far enough and that sort of
thing, why, he'd wind up with all kinds of space, he
thinks. And of course he winds up with no space. This is
the most condensed activity you can get into, sex. If you
want to see somebody's bank all short-circuited and
jammed, it's certainly short-circuited and jammed on sex.
But remember, we're looking at a gradient scale that runs
from Sex right straight on up through to Know. And anybody
comes along and tells you sex is the only aberration there
is, laugh at him. Say, "Yes, that was how we entered the
problem. We found out that people were loopy on the subject
of sex, so then we examined the problem. And having
examined the problem for many, many years, discovered that
sex was part of a gradient scale of human experience, which
is an activity of trying to make space."

And people try to make space in various ways. And when they
get down too low, why, on the sexual scale, they're
abandoning life. When they get into sex they're abandoning
present time life and trying to get some future going on
the track, and that throws them all around the place,
because sex is really a cave-in. It's the effort to have an
experience externally. You know, pull an experience in.

Well, if you look at this band up and down, you'll see that
it inverts here or there. So, it gives you the doggonedest,
most enormous number of Straight-wire questions, when
codified correctly, that you'd ever want to ask anybody.
The basic questions would reduce this thing, first from
just the standpoint of viewpoint of the whole scale.

And there's where you'll catch your preclear most ably. You
just take viewpoint of the scale: viewpoint of sex, you see
and viewpoint of effort and so forth. And you would ask a
question like this: You'd say, "All right, let's give me
some effort you wouldn't mind observing," "... type of
effort you wouldn't mind observing," "... a type of sex
you wouldn't mind observing," "... sexual activity you
wouldn't mind looking at," and so on and so on and so on
and so on. You know, ... some eating you wouldn't mind
watching," "... some emotion you wouldn't mind observing"
- just as quiet and mild as that.

Now, the systematic questions, as you go into the line,
would run like this: "Now, give me something you wouldn't
mind knowing," "...something you wouldn't mind looking
at," "... an emotion which you wouldn't mind observing,"
"... some effort which you wouldn't mind observing," now
"...some thinking which you wouldn't mind observing," and
now "... some symbols which you wouldn't mind seeing," and
"... some eating which you wouldn't mind inspecting," and
"... some sex you wouldn't mind looking at." 

Well, that's the simplest way to phrase these questions.
But as we go on from there, of course, these questions can
get much more complicated, because we simply interweave
every single part of Scientology and get the individual to
pick out some kind of a viewpoint by gradient scale which
he wouldn't mind observing or wouldn't mind experiencing.

Now, as we go on a little further from this, we find out "... 
some effort you wouldn't mind engaging in," "... some
effort you wouldn't mind having leveled against you," "... 
some thinking you wouldn't mind doing, " "... some things 
you wouldn't mind thinking about," (better question)
"... some things about you, you wouldn't mind people
thinking," and so forth. In other words, you throw him into
the centers of those viewpoints. As what? First as cause
and then as effect. Which is, of course, then obeying the
entire communication chain - C to E being the definition of
communication: cause, distance, effect.

So, "Give me some people you wouldn't mind looking at you."
And you'll finally get him down to "Give me some things,
now, you wouldn't mind eating," and "... some things you
wouldn't mind being eaten by." You see, cause to effect.
Let's get the action involved in it.

But how complicated would you have to be with this
Straightwire? Well, you wouldn't have to be very
complicated. You can actually take the first lineup which I
gave you, and just play that over and over and over and
over and over, and you'll clear up the fellow's bank and
turn on his sonic and visio. That's not an idle promise,
for I've been working with this process. And at first, when
I was using the process, it was so complicated that I
rather despaired of an auditor using it, since it took
into consideration the many considerations of the
preclear. And finally just broke it down to a point of
where it no longer took into consideration any of the
considerations of the preclear, and so it became a simple
enough process to put out and a process which could be used
to advantage.

Now, you go over and over and over this, and the whole
object of it would be to bring the preclear into a higher
tolerance of viewpoints and, of course, this will
eventually fish him out into having some space. You
accomplish all the goals there are just by that highly
permissive quiet approach. Now, if you don't think this
will turn on some somatics, you're quite mistaken. If you
don't think it won't turn on some aberrations, you're also
mistaken. It's liable to turn on some very, very vicious
ones. Because your preclear will immediately determine that
you are asking him these questions in order to beat him
into apathy, and his first acceptance of any viewpoints
will be an apathetic acceptance. He will suddenly conceive
that you're just asking him, "All right, I'll give up and
abandon all the fight every place. And all right, so I will
look at my mother. All right, I don't mind looking at my
mother. I don't mind looking at my mother punishing me."
You're pushing him right straight through the tone band.

Now, an auditor using this process shouldn't kick the
bottom out from the preclear. And if he tries to press the
preclear too hard and push him around too hard, he'll
really produce this apathetic reaction. You're inviting the
preclear to look at things which he ordinarily would find
intolerable. And you're just going in there a little deeper
and a little further and a little further and a little
further, and you're just inviting him to do this and to do
that and to look at this and do that.

And your goal is... Without directing his attention toward
any specific thing (that's the one thing you leave alone
with this process - don't direct his attention to anything
specific; let him pick up what he picks up, good, bad or
indifferent), why, you will find him eventually looking a
red-hot electronic or an atom bomb in the teeth and saying,
"Yep. Yeah, viewpoint of my town being wiped out by an atom
bomb. Yep. Yep. Yeah, yeah, that's pretty bad, to be
radioactively burned that bad. Yeah, I guess I could
experience that." You just search a little further,
occasionally, and ask him, "Well, how would you like to
experience such a thing?"

And he'll say, "Oh, no-no-no."

Now, you'll find out that he will run into one which isn't
on this scale - a viewpoint of aberration. People try to
make space with aberration. And he will run into this
sooner or later and tend to fixate on people who have made
a lot of space with aberration. Particularly if this fellow
is an auditor, he's liable to fixate on aberration and look
constantly and continually for aberration rather than to
realize that 99 percent of living consists of nonaberrated
conduct. It's the fact that a culture gets stuck on the
remaining one percent which invites a person to plumb only
into that one percent. But if he does, he's overlooking the
bulk of living.

Just because you were part of a culture which had a taboo
against touching banyan trees, would be no reason for you
then to exclusively process the touching of banyan trees.
Do you see that? If you went into the Mugwumps in Lower
Catatonia, you wouldn't find very many customs which made
good sense to you. So you would consider all these customs
as aberrated customs, and you would be very likely prone to
process out these strange, weird and fantastic customs. And
these would demand your interest to such a degree that you
would overlook the fact that even the Mugwumps are doing a
lot of things which are a lot of fun, and which they enjoy
doing, and so forth. In other words, if an auditor looks at
aberration only as a part of conduct, he is not really
clearing up the life of the individual at all. You want to
get his attention off of aberration rather than to get it
on it.

But people make space with aberrations. And an auditor
tends to fixate on such people because those people
evidently can make space, and certainly have made space in
the past when there was no remedy for their aberration.
They said, "Boy, is it safe to be aberrated! There's no
cure for it."

Now, you've done a terrible thing. You've come along and
told the fellow that he isn't safe being aberrated anymore,
you're going to cure him. Of course, his primary impulse,
if he really realized what he was doing, would be to knock
you off. You're spoiling his game entirely.

All right, as we go over this Straightwire, we find out
that many other items could be added into it. An auditor
could use the ARC triangle. "Who could you like?" "What
wouldn't you mind agreeing with?" "What could you agree
with right here?" "What could disagree with you?" Just
that. And you would get the reality and the affinity sides
of the communication triangle.

Now, you could get fancier than that. You could get up to a
point of "Who wouldn't you mind hating you?" "Who wouldn't
you mind hating?" Because hate and so forth is usually a
nonacceptable viewpoint.

But as soon as you start going out terribly wide with this
and including all the other elements that you can think of
and so on, it gives you quite a repertoire. But you had
better not get too complicated because it'll stop
producing results for you out there in about the third or
fourth echelon. So you stick along with the ARC triangle,
the Know to Sex Scale and primary principles such as
duplication. "What wouldn't you mind duplicating?" "Let's
look around and find something you wouldn't mind
duplicating at the moment." And stick close to home, in
other words, with such things as the dynamics.

Now, let's take this whole thing and run it against the
dynamics. And we discover that we have a... In any one of
the Know to Sex Scale, we have eight dynamics at every
level. We have the effort of sex and the effort of God at
the Effort band. You see, the complexities of life are made
up from the fact that you have eight dynamics at each level
of the Know to Sex Scale. See, there's knowing about sex,
there's knowing about spirits, there's knowing about...
This is all in the knowingness band. It doesn't
necessarily... know about these things doesn't take you
into the dip on further condensation - you simply know about
these things, that's all. Perfectly at liberty to know
about anything you want to know about. There isn't anything
damaging about knowing.

And then we go into Look, and of course you can look at
anything on the eight dynamics - so you've got eight dynamics
there at Look. But remember that Look includes lots of
perceptions, other perceptions, even though sound dives
down to Symbols, see? Sound, hearing, the transfer
communication of symbols goes way on down the bottom of the
band there. Nevertheless, actually, it belongs in the
field of perception which is at Look, see? Hear. Look,
hear - these things go together.

The hardest thing there is to turn on in a case -
lookingness turns on long before sonic, and sonic is the
hardest thing there is to turn on in a case - because an
individual will turn it off. So, we mustn't neglect in this
Straightwire process such things as sound. All right, "What
wouldn't you mind listening to?" "What sound wouldn't you
mind making?" "What sound would it be all right for you to
make?" so forth. "What sound would it be all right for you
to hear right now?" And you pursue that course of
questioning for a while, and you will find an individual's
ears will hurt and pop and snap and various things will
occur, and sonic is liable to turn on.

But of course, if you haven't hit the rest of the band, his
sonic won't turn on. You see, you've got a lot of things
there he's afraid of looking at and afraid of hearing. He's
also afraid of other people hearing things. "What would it
be all right for other people to hear?" So we could spread
this all out onto a bracket, couldn't we? We, in other
words, play this thing almost any way. There's almost an
infinity of questions here.

We get emotion - of course, there's an emotional level from
the first to the eighth dynamic. And quite in addition to
that, there are about eight very, very specific emotions.
So we've got eight dynamics for each emotional scale. Look
how this plots out for Straightwire questions.

And we've got effort for all eight dynamics, and we've got
all kinds and types of effort. We have the force - ideas of
force. We have electronic, we have mechanical effort - you
know, there's lots of them.

And the same way about thinking. There's all kinds of
thinking. There's mathematical thinking, there's intuitive
thinking and there's spontaneous thinking and telepathic
thinking, and you could get very complicated if you want to.

Well, the funny part of it is, is that's what your
preclear's brain is going to do the second you start asking
him simple questions. See, he'll start racking around all
over the place. And what you're looking at here is, if you
plot these eight dynamics at every level on the Know to Sex
Scale and then plot the eight dynamics on each corner of
the ARC triangle, and if you were actually to arrange the
Know to Sex Scale as a triangular column (you know, Know to
Sex at each corner of the column, and that triangle, bottom
or top, were the ARC triangle), you see there - did you get
that picture?

Let's take ARC at the bottom - pretty condensed - and we take
it and apply it to sex, see? And then we have agreement and
disagreement about sex. And then we have - over on another
corner, why, we have liking and other emotional reactions
toward sex. And then we have at the other corner sexual
communication. So that at each point there we could take
the Know to Sex Scale totally in communication, Know to Sex
Scale totally as it comes down the line in terms of
affinity and the Know to Sex Scale totally in the form of
reality, which is agreement. And we would have the
nicest-looking column there you ever wanted to see. It's
the ARC triangle gone solid on us, and we plot it in chunks
on the Know to Sex Scale vertically. See, we just got a
stack of triangles - a vertical stack of triangles - and
they're all lying there flat. You see that?

Well, by the time we've pushed this around and drawn it
around a few times and worked it around, we find out that,
my golly, we're working with a jigsaw puzzle now which can
be plotted almost in any direction that comes up with
practically the same answers. And it interweaves and
interlocks. And these interweaves and interlocks and
interrelationships are the basics of the complications
known as life and human behavior and animal behavior and
any other kind of behavior. (Going to write a book sometime
on behavior along all of the eight dynamics.)

It gets very interesting when you get to the eighth
dynamic, you have God behavior. Then you have to, of
course, take into account all kinds of things, such as what
is the acceptance level of God, and so forth. It gets very
amusing after a while when you start plotting out behavior,
but you could get awfully complicated in this line. You
could sit down and you could write ten fifteen-million-word
books without any trouble whatsoever, tracing out numerous
examples and so forth.

Well, it's so easy to get complicated, that why don't you
leave that up to your preclear? And why don't you stay with
these great simplicities, such as the corners of the
triangle and the Know to Sex Scale. And you find out he's
studiously avoiding the third dynamic, why, you take note
of it sooner or later and ask him, well, what's something
about groups he could agree with or he wouldn't mind
experiencing; what kind of a group would he mind
experiencing - something like that.

Just steer him a little bit, because he can get complicated
enough. And your whole goal is a very simple goal. That's
to give this individual some tolerance of viewpoints. Try
to make him tolerate viewpoints, wider and wider, more and
more of them, and he will start changing his mind. And that
is the first thing that processing ought to do, is change a
preclear's mind - process doesn't change a preclear's mind,
it isn't any good at all. And that's one thing this process
does, with rapidity! You say, "Now, let's... Some kind of
effort you wouldn't mind looking at."

"Oh, effort. Oh-ah-oooh. Ohh, effort. Um... effort? What
do you mean by effort?"

"Oh, well, you know, just effort. Putting... Somebody
putting out some energy and so forth."

"Woo-oo, let's see." You get this kind of a reaction;
you're liable to get a long communication lag. And then all
of a sudden the individual happily thinks, "Ha! A dancer. I
wouldn't mind watching a dancer. That's right, I wouldn't
mind watching a dancer." Yeah, he's real certain now, he
just wouldn't mind that at all. He has suddenly realized
that effort was part of art. You've made him change his
mind about effort, to that degree that now he recognizes
that effort is an essential part of existence, not
something you would ignore all the time.

The next thing you know, he will say, well, he wouldn't
mind his mother doing housework - wouldn't mind watching his
mother doing housework. And he'll think about all the
complaining that he listened to when he was a little kid
and he all of a sudden reevaluates this whole thing: "It
served her right! Yeah, anybody that unhappy about
something or other ought to close terminals with it."

Then he realizes that he himself has kept areas, even if
they were only a summer camp and so forth, certainly clean
and burnished bright - and maybe a compartment on a ship when
he was in the service or something like that - he's kept that
all duded up, and he's worked hard at this sort of thing
and he begins to wonder a little bit just what the devil
his mother was talking about. It was a small house, there
was only a couple of kids, there wasn't too much work to do
and all he ever heard about was how hard she worked. And
now he's scratching his head wondering how this could come
about.

Well, he's liable to hit one of these tracks of association
and want to soliloquize for the next eight hours. You are
not interested in consideration, you are interested in
looking at and that's all you're interested in - you're
interested in looking at. You want him to tolerate
viewpoints. You don't give a damn for his opinion about a
viewpoint. Because every time he starts to give you a bunch
of considerations and stretch it all out and explain to you
this and explain to you that, without suddenly damming his
communication line but by expertly detouring him, get him
to look at something else. Because there's... You don't
want him in the think band. You just landed him in the
thinkingness band. Instead of looking, now he's perfectly
willing to think. And do you know, that he could probably
go on thinking for the next 76 trillion years without
getting anyplace with it. And that's a solemn and horrible
fact, that thinkingness doesn't happen to wind up in solutions.

Thinkingness is based upon the fact that a person doesn't
know, so he has to think about it. The solution depends
upon the fact of his postulating that he does know, and
then he knows. You see, in order to do thinking, you have
to assume that you have to go through some kind of a
process in order to arrive at an answer.

Now, there's another horrible thing that happens about
preclears, is, you see, they have to have assumed an
inability - assumed that they had an inability - before 
they have it.

Now look how this blocks processing. They have to assume
that they can't do so and so in order to have it remedied.
And you leave them parked there - I've gone into this several
times, we didn't have a process which easily remedied it - 
but an individual has to assume he's sick before he can
make up his mind to get well. The reason he's sick,
basically, is in the postulate band. He's had to make a
postulate that he's sick before he can make up his mind to
get well. Now, if your preclear has had to make up his mind
that he's aberrated before he can get sane, he's still
riding on the postulate that he's aberrated. But he's still
better off having made the postulate that he's aberrated so
that he can get over his aberrations, than to coast along
gibbering like an idiot for years and years telling
everybody how sane he is. You see, he'd be crossed up there
in universes - something of the sort.

Well, what does this do... this process do for universes?
We have the three kinds of universes: the other fellow's
universe, the preclear's universe and the physical
universe. And what does it do for these universes?

Well, any universe is essentially existent in the space
created by looking-ness. See, any universe exists from the
center of lookingness. So that if we speak of Mama's
universe, it's the point from which Mama is looking - see,
if we think of Mama's universe.

Now, we could take a terrific number of factors here that
would complicate this universe, such as what does Mama
say? What are her postulates, and so forth? And we get the
space with the postulates. You see that? First she has to
have some space, one way or the other, and then she has to
put some postulates in there to have a universe. The basic
definition of a complete universe would be some space
which is tenanted by postulates. Postulates, of course,
might wind up in forms of various kinds, might wind up in
various conditions.

Now, you can ask yourself some day, why is it you see this
MEST universe so well? And if you look around, you will
discover that there are many people around who are so
thoroughly interiorized into Mama's universe or somebody
else's universe that they actually see Mama's engrams. And
you don't have to go very far to investigate this. You take
a preclear who is very badly interiorized into some other
person's universe than his own, they will see that other
person's pictures and not their own. Now, get that.

The fact that Mama made a postulate produced a visibility.
Mama said, "There are snakes," and this individual then
very easily gets pictures of snakes. But he himself can
say, in trying to put up mock-ups, "There are flagpoles,"
and he doesn't get a mock-up of a flagpole. Curious, huh?

If Mama had said there are flagpoles, he would be able to
see flagpoles. You see that? He must be running on somebody
else's postulates than his own. So the manifestation of
super-, super-, supervisibility, which is not the
individual's super-, super-, supervisibility - you know, the
individual, doesn't... when he puts up a mock-up he doesn't
get this much visibility on it. You know, he has terrific
visibility on mock-ups somebody else has put up, you know,
like Mama's statements and so forth. You are looking at a
condition there of living in somebody else's created space.

Now, what would you think of somebody who could look out
here and see a factory chimney with great ease and yet
couldn't mock one up of his own? You would suspect him of
being in another universe, wouldn't you? Well, whose
universe is he in? He's in the physical universe, that's
the universe he's in. Its postulates are so strong and
impressed upon him so strongly, that its reality is much
greater than his own reality. Therefore we used to talk
about - and in the book 8-8008, talk about - agreement with 
the physical universe. You can agree with it or disagree 
with it, but as long as its postulates outweigh your own
postulates, you're going to have difficulty.

Now, there's a lot of complexity here that we needn't even
look at. And that complexity, however, that we do need to
look at - the part of it we do need to look at - is this: 
Look, an individual is in the physical universe and then 
he's reinteriorized, you might say, into somebody else's
universe, such as Mama's. And Mama's pictures are very
bright to him, but his own mockups don't exist. Oh, boy.

Now, the common denominator of universes declares for him
that the physical universe is right there, you know? There
is the physical universe. There it is. But he is not even
in it. He has been in it and has to some degree... Well,
you see, he was in his own universe, and then he got into
the physical universe, and now he went into his last wife's
universe and his mother's universe and he's in those
universes. Well man, there's no telling what kind of a
mock-up this individual is liable to get, if he gets any at
all. Everything is kind of other-determined. If he gets any
pictures, they're probably in a nightmare. He's running on
somebody's declared statement that he resists all the time,
and he goes to sleep and his resistance cuts down; the next
thing you know he's in a full-armed play about something or
other.

Well, when your individual is departed from the physical
universe into Mama's universe, and so forth, on down the
line, you've got this kind of a backtrack to walk with your
preclear. He's got to get out of his mama's universe and
into the physical universe.

Now, the only way he ever gets into a universe is by
refusing to tolerate its viewpoints. If he refuses to look,
he pins himself in the universe with his own energy and
turns off the visio. There's two necessary steps here. He
interiorizes by resisting - he goes into the universe by
resisting the universe. A viewpoint he doesn't want is the
one he gets. You see that? Because he's the only person
really capable of putting out energy. So he has granted an
other-determinism and, having granted this other-determinism, 
it backfires on him.

Now, let's look at this physical universe out here and
discover that an individual has as much perception in it
and of it as he will tolerate its viewpoints. And you're
not going to get anybody out of Mama's universe, really, or
out of the physical universe, until they can tolerate a
viewpoint or an effort point or a sex point of any part of
the whole darn universe. And when they will tolerate any
point in it - any view, any effort - either as cause or as
effect, they are then capable of withdrawing from that
universe. Until they can tolerate all the various
viewpoints of that universe, they can't withdraw from it.

So your preclear is going to think at first that you're
just pushing him into apathy, because you're asking him to
tolerate things. If he knows anything, it's this: that if
he tolerates those viewpoints, it'll finish him. And that's
the funny part of it: It is only by refusing to tolerate
them that he gets finished.

So, the course and direction of this processing is to bring
about the greatest possible tolerance for the greatest
possible number of viewpoints.

Okay.

(end of lecture)

_


