FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FZ BIBLE 27/30 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 27/30 (tape 29):

Transcript of Taped Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 

5ACC-26 - 5405C04 

Number 29 of "Universes and the War between Theta and Mest" 
cassettes.


BE, DO, HAVE STRAIGHTWIRE

A lecture given on 4 May 1954


This is the 4th of May.

The procedure which I am going to tell you about this
morning is the interweaving procedure with Viewpoint
Straightwire. Now, it might appear to you when you first
test or try to do Viewpoint Straightwire that there isn't
anything else than that that you could do. I mean, it would
just seem that you've pretty well filled up everything in
all classifications, and so forth.

Well, there's one thing you haven't filled up. And you will
notice this on a case as you go along. Now, you could take
just viewpoint Straightwire, you know, and carry along with
it very nicely without too much difficulty. As a good
auditor, looking for other things in the case that might
possibly be speeded up or something like that all of a
sudden a demon steps out in front of the fellow or
something of the sort and this alarms him a great deal. And
he's so alarmed that he doesn't go on processing easily. He
keeps thinking about this. Well, you'd have sense enough,
of course, being a professional auditor, to duplicate the
demon several times.

You see, by duplication of this same thing several times
you actually raise his tolerance in viewing it. Which again
is immediately on the goal of this process, which is to
raise the tolerance of the individual.

You see, it's far more frightening to view fifteen or
twenty demons than one, actually, and you've just raised
his tolerance from one demon up to fifteen or twenty. So
that's right along the goal of processing - duplication of
such sudden automaticities, particularly frightening ones.

All right. Let's take the process itself, and there is a
very complete process here. But remember that this process
is inside space, since it's talking about a viewpoint. You
recognize that.

Actually, it gives the person tremendous tolerance of space
so as to go up into knowinguess. But it is inside space,
most of this process, and you're getting him to tolerate
things one after the other.

Now, there is a consideration which goes along with
anything and everything that we are doing which must be
taken into account. And that is the dynamic principle of
existence as announced in 1947. The dynamic principle of
existence is "Survive." Life is surviving. Those things
which we know of as life forms are, each and every one of
them, trying to survive. Whatever else they're trying to
do, they're trying to survive.

All right. What limitation does this have? Well, it doesn't
have any limitation at all when applied to life forms.
1947 dynamic principle of existence is just as true today
as it was in '47, as it was when the first book was issued
and now.

What happens is, the enlargement of beingness when it
exceeds the life form unfolds into a fan, you might say,
which gives you that curve - create, survive, destroy. But
when you have assumed that curve, you have stepped off the
dynamic principle of existence of a life form. You are now
dealing with something else.

Now, it'd be very, very easy to get poetic and call this
something like a god form. It would be truer than poetic,
actually. But when an individual's attention comes away
from executing the business of existence twenty-four hours
a day as a life form, it starts to come away from survive.
And only then comes away from survive, and develops, then,
into the curve of which survive is a part.

Now, the cycle of action of the MEST universe is the curve,
create-survive-destroy. However, a life form is at the
point "survive." That is all it is concentrated on.
Persist. It knows nothing else; there is no further reason
for it whatsoever. It has no additional rationale.

Now, how would we take this factor - being such a powerful
and embracive factor - how would we take this factor into
account with a process which was yet a very easy process?

Well, it would require that we had already understood the
human experience equivalence of space, energy and matter.
The equivalence in terms of human experience of space,
energy and matter are, in that order, be, have and do. I
refer you to Scientology 8-8008 which actually today is the
book which has more technical information in it than any
other single book. That book, 8-8008, is the book which
contains all the information accurately. And it contains a
great deal about be, have and do and universes, and so
forth. And it is a book that an auditor should have and
should understand entirely. Because I'm not going to cover
this morning why, in all of its ramifications, space in
human experience becomes beingness, why doingness in human
experience becomes energy, or energy in human experience
becomes doingness, and why time becomes havingness. And yet
that is the case. Be, do, have. You could... at first
glance you would say this is obviously space, energy and
matter.

Actually, in human experience we then get a sufficient
factor added to matter, you see, to get this thing called
time. And so you can just put it down for your everyday use
- it's just as true today as it ever was - that when you
talk about beingness in human experience (beingness), we
translate that over into the form of mechanics (universes)
as space. And if we want to solve a problem in space, we
solve a problem in beingness.

Of course, it's very easy to see how energy becomes
doingness, but it would be just a little more difficult to
see how time becomes havingness. And yet it does. We have
the old phenomenon of a case stuck on the time track. If
you want to unstick a case on the time track, all you have
to do is increase his havingness and you will unstick him
on the time track and that's that. It's very simple.

Time in human experience becomes havingness. That's really
all there is to it. And for further details on this and a
great deal more discussion, and so forth, as I say, I refer
you to Scientology 8-8008 which is the area where all this
material was developed and which, by the way, we're still
leaning on and working from. Scientology 8-8008 is not
something which has been developed and then abandoned or
bypassed or overridden. It is the mass of data which we are
using and we are depending on it consistently and continually.

Well, all right. It means, then, that in this process which
you have called Viewpoint Straightwire you are not
immediately handling time if you are handling viewpoints.
Now, there are other Straightwires that you could use which
would more clumsily represent havingness than the one I'm
going to give you. You could go out on the basis of a very
complicated basis, let me assure you, making space with
speech. You know, "Give me somebody you wouldn't mind
making a universe with speech," or something like that. I
mean, there are many ways it could be handled but they're
all relatively clumsy.

So let's go over onto a much more intimate and direct
problem here and find that we can use these principles of
be, do and have. So this is Be, Do and Have
Straightwire - Be, Do, Have Straightwire.

Now, survive translates easily into approval. Now, you will
say that's quite a gap there. It's not much of a gap. An
individual in this society survives in ratio to the amount
of approval he obtains. And he declines to the degree of
the amount of disapproval which comes his way, or the
amount he is ignored. If you think you could live as a body
in this society without approval or disapproval, try it
sometime. It's not possible.

Attention itself is the factor here which you can see fits
very easily into this. In other words, attention. An
individual survives actually as well as he is able to
maintain attention - you know, is able to give attention,
receive attention. 

Well, instead of attention let's say approval as a
condition of attention. And therefore we get this wisecrack
which you hear auditors making every once in a while, and
that is a license to survive. Every once in a while the HAS
hears this in the light of certificates. It's a very
peculiar thing, although auditors joke about these
certificates, and so forth, they themselves being somewhat
more enlightened - considerably more enlightened than the
public at large, you see - look at these things and they say,
"Why, good heavens. I mean, all of this paper. Heaven
sakes. All of these certificates from these various
organizations with which the HAS has understandings, and so
forth. I mean, good heavens, what could you do with all
this paper?"

Just go out and show it to the society. Try and do
something without it being plastered on the wall. That's
all. That's the answer.

For instance, a member of the Church had a small card
printed and, having already obtained his ordination and so
forth, thought no more about it, and the other day went
through a fire line. He went through a fire line, just like
that, and gave some emergency auditing to somebody who had
been suffocated in the fire and brought him out of it and
knocked out the trauma.

He just simply pulled a calling card out of his pocket
which said on it that he was a doctor of divinity. And the
firemen just opened up that fire line. Well, by golly, I
don't think they'd open up a fire line to a mayor! The one
thing they always let inside a fire line is a priest, a
chaplain, a minister. Or a newspaper reporter. We don't
have any particular cards on this, but if you want to
become a special correspondent sometime to the Journal of
Scientology, you're...

Now, being fairly well enlightened as a group and fairly
well liberated from many of these prejudices, it is often a
case whereby you have gapped away from the society. You
have left a bit of a chasm of understanding between you and
the society. Just because you yourself no longer find
certain things necessary, you sometimes are prone to assume
in the field of agreement that the society no longer finds
these things necessary.

Well, if you're going to do anything in this society or for
this society, you'll find out that it demands licenses to
survive. It demands them. And they better be good, accurate
ones, and easily checked back and founded on fact, and all
that sort of thing.

It probably means, in processing a preclear, the difference
between fifteen minutes of Opening Procedure, and ten or
twelve hours of "slug and apology" - just having a piece of
paper up on the wall which is beautifully engraved and says
you know your business. Somebody's granted you, evidently,
a license to survive. The preclear sees this, and he says,
"Why, this fellow knows his business. Of course, I'm as
good as well already."

You see, it's not an artificial thing. It is part of the
woof and warp of existence itself in the society, these
licenses to survive.

Well, all right. Survival translates - when we hit into the
field of attention strongly - translates into approval and
disapproval. And so we get a key phrase which applies to
any of the dynamics and which applies to be, have and do.
It's more euphonic to say be, have and do but it's not the
accurate scale because energy condenses into matter, you see?

There is this bridge there where, then, you will be able to
have a time sequence in a Straightwire process simply by
using this key phrase. Now, a model using part of the
phrase - or using the phrase itself- would go something
like this: "Give me something they will let you have. Now
tell me something or think of something that you will let
them have. Now something that people will let people have."
That's on time, and that's a direct process of time.

If you went ahead on viewpoints exclusively and tried to
use this other unwieldy concept of; well, making viewpoints
with effort, and so forth, you would find that you were
losing a little time in the case. You were losing a little
time because you were not very directly processing time.

So we interlard Viewpoint Straightwire with Be, Have and Do
Straightwire, and at no time do we ever confuse these two
processes. They are cousins. They're not brother and
sister. They're not the same process. They're cousins.
Because in Be, Have and Do Straightwire we get immediately
this factor of survival, approval. And we directly process
approval, just like that. And when we have processed
approval, we also process time. And we've gotten about the
highest echelon bridge there that you could build between a
free mind and a thoroughly condensed and mired down society.

Well, that is - and should be - the bridge between the auditor
and the preclear. He is somebody with a free view and a
very high tolerance level, communicating with somebody who
is, without his assistance, about to become a rock.

As you run this process, those individuals which are sold
on the idea of fame, who are sold on the idea of "endure
forever in the present form," when we process somebody who
is working on the computation "I mustn't change my mind
because any change at all would be a lessening of survival," 
we find that the case has a tendency to break in half and 
then into small pieces by the introduction of this particular 
Straightwire - Be, Do, Have Straightwire. I don't care which 
one you call it - Be, Have and Do; Be, Do and Have. It is 
really Beingness Processing, Action Processing and Time 
Processing all codified together into one process. So let's 
not lose sight of this process or its antecedents or the 
causes which lie within it and simply decide to (quote) 
"remedy havingness" while we are doing Viewpoint Straightwire. 
We're not doing the same thing at all. We are omitting - 
when we remedy this havingness - we are omitting the most 
significant point in Be, Have and Do Straightwire, which is 
of course survive, approval and attention connected to time.

All right. A full rundown on this process would be as
follows. Now, you notice that I am going to give you this
process as though Have came first and Do came second and Be
came last. And I'm doing that because that's the order you
had better run them on the case. Runs like this:

All right, you say to the preclear - you've asked him, 
now, questions, and so forth, you've used a little bit of
Viewpoint Straightwire on him, and maybe you've handled
four or five types of questions. Then you run this other
process in on him. You say, "Well, now what would..." And
here we can put the whole series of dynamics. I mean, it
gets big as far as a scheme, as the German... Oh, how a
German would love this - schema. Oh, gorgeous. "Now, what
would (dynamic; any one of the eight dynamics) let you
have? Okay, now what would you let (any one of the
dynamics) have?" That would be the formula for the whole
series.

And the practical purpose - the first question which you
would put to the preclear for practical purposes is, "Well,
what would they let you have?" This is murder. It's a
murderous question. And he's liable to pick up a time lag
on it that is something like the round trip from here to
the next galaxy.

Now, remember to ask him right after that - let's not let 
him get one - sided about this - "Now what would you let them
have?" And just processing in a very highly loose, general
fashion, those are really the first two questions you would
ask him. "Now, what'll they let you have?" You see that
nebulous, supernebulous "they." Well, that's a real good
case entrance for him. And "What would you let them have?"

Now, of course we just go down the line. "What would you
let yourself have?" "What would yourself let you have?"

"What would you let women have?" if he's a man. "What would
you let men have?" if he's a woman. "What would you let
groups have? What would groups let you have? What would
mankind let you have? What would you let mankind have? What
would animals let you have? What would you let animals
have?" And then, of course, "What would space let you
have?" Of course, the answer to that is nothing, the
doggone stuff. And so on, up through the parts of the
dynamic. And then, "What would spirits let you have? What
would you let spirits have?" And, of course, "What would
the Devil let you have?" That, by the way, is a very
artificial thing, to introduce God and the Devil every time
we say eighth dynamic. You know, the eighth dynamic does
not mean God and the Devil? Do you know that the eighth
dynamic is infinity turned upright. And all the eighth
dynamic is, is infinity. It's just the from-here-on-out 
aspect.

After we've finished up havingness, at the moment (that is
to say, got him over to a point where he's at least
stuttering, you see - I mean, you get him up that high; don't
leave him at a point where he's speechless), you would go
into, if you cared to - not necessary for you to do this at
this time - but the complete process is "What will (any
dynamic) let you do? What will you let (any dynamic) do?"

And of course, that works out, the first nebulous question,
"Well, what will they let you do? And what will you let
them do?" would be the first two questions you'd ask.

By the way, you'd ask each one of these questions over and
over and over. "What would you let them do? And something
else you'd let them do? And something else you'd let them
do? And something else you'd let them do? Now, what would
they let you do? And something else they'd let you do. And
something else." Every time he comes up with the answer.
And certainty interweaves in this too, you know - this
fellow's got to be certain they'd let him do that.

On havingness, for instance, I ran one preclear and found
out the only possible thing that they - this nebulous
they - would let him have was a runny nose. That's the 
only thing he could be certain they would let him have.

Well, anyway, we get the next bracket on this particular
type of Straightwire, and it, of course, is "What would
they let you be? What would you let them be?" The formula
being, "What would (any dynamic) let you be? What would you
let (any dynamic) be?"

And so we have there covered human experience. The most
important of these as the interweaving factor which is used
with Viewpoint Straightwire is, of course, havingness. You
see, beingness is an equivalent of space and you're already
processing with Viewpoint Straightwire a great deal of
space - space, space, space, space, space. So the missing
factor as you process this Straightwire would naturally be
havingness, which would be time. And we're processing that
in conjunction with the idea of approval. We're processing
time and approval with the same question. That's why this
acts like a bomb on a case. It is a terrible process. I
mean, this process is a terrible process rather than
otherwise. You can change the havingness level of a
person, though, with this process faster than any other
process with which I have any acquaintance. The havingness
level. His acceptance level. Because we have established a
new thing in his approval level. You have acceptance level,
and you know all about that. Well, now just have approval
level, and you will see what I mean about it.

This in terms of havingness, of course, would be a donor
level. "What would you give away?" Now, let's take that up
for a moment. Do you realize that every case that you run
into that's having a rough time can't give anything up? He
can't give up a single aberration, he can't give up
anything. And if you get a case that's in terrible condition, 
they will sit in your auditing room - a girl, for instance, 
gripping her purse, gripping her shoes, actually, with curled 
toes. Try and remove her coat so that she can be more comfortable. 
Oh, no you don't. Try and remove her hat. Get her to set her 
purse down alongside of the couch.

Now, I processed such a person once and was - oh, many,
many, many years ago - and was very struck by a single factor
which for years lingered as a little element in all the
computations that had to be accounted for. I persuaded this
girl to put her purse on my desk over eight feet from her.
I found out that was the one thing she couldn't do, so I
thought, "That's as good an entrance point as any other.
She's completely out of communication. We're having an
awful time here. There isn't anything we can process on
her." She couldn't run an engram or a lock or remember
anything of her past. "That purse is going to sit over
here on this desk." I just willed it as such, and that's
what's going to happen.

And I finally persuaded her, inch by inch, to get that
purse out of her perimeter of reach until she got it over
on the desk and went back. This is a very remarkable case
history. It's one of those that made a milestone. When she
got that purse over on the desk, and went back and sat down
on the couch, she all of a sudden broke down and cried.
Just heartbrokenly, bitterly, sobbed, became angry, became
very antagonistic, took a look at me and talked to me as a
normal human being.

And I looked at this as one of the most stunning
exhibitions of a broken psychosis I could imagine. So I
carefully observed everything which had taken place in the
session so that no wild factor was sitting there, and just
racked it up for future reference. Something in that room
at that time had made this girl well. I was not willing at
that time to assume it is a purse or anything of the sort.
Maybe the way I communicated to her, maybe the factor that
she felt she had finally succumbed to a man, if we granted
Freud any latitude; you know, she'd done something a man
told her to do. Many of these things could have been the point.

Well, that can be repeated today in the form of
Straightwire or in Opening Procedure to get the preclear
to give something up. Let somebody else have something,
though, rather than throw something away. Now, as soon as I
understood that finally, that it was not just throwing
something away that made a person well, it was giving
somebody something. She had finally been able to give into
somebody else's keeping something of her own. And this was
what broke the back of the case.

There are many interesting cases, but we're here not to
hear about those fabulous cases which Hubbard has done,
times when Hubbard has sat cross-legged trying to look
comfortable alongside of a fakir who was being very
comfortable on a bed of spikes, whereas Hubbard couldn't
even be comfortable on pavement with his legs crossed -
Americans don't sit well that way, you know. And we're not
here to reminisce and chew up a lot of theory and to make
something out of a theory. That, by the way, is part of the
scientific method. You always make something out of a
theory. We're not here to do any of those things. We're
simply here to learn and examine what appear to be the
basic fundamentals of existence and apply them as directly
as possible as processes.

Any one of these definitions, such as the definition for
communication, is a process.

Anything of the Chart of Attitudes, top and bottom scale,
could be made into a process. The thing for you to know is
definitions.

But we're not even really here to learn definitions. We're
here to make it possible for you to produce a new being. We
are not here for you to overhaul and patch up an old one.
The goal of Scientology today doesn't have anything to do
with repair crews.

That is a fine way, however, of attracting attention. And
it is one of the steps of liberation. An individual's
superiority to a machine or any object is demonstrated by
the fact that he can change its state. If he can change its
state for better or for worse, he's demonstrated his
superiority. This is so hard to do on a constructive,
creative side that man rather uniformly changes the state
of things by blowing them up. If you were to leave a house
unguarded some distance from other houses, and so forth,
you would come back sooner or later, maybe in one month,
maybe in two or three, but certainly sometime, you would
find that it had had its windows burst in and its boards
torn up, and so forth.

Nobody has come along and planted a new rose arbor. This
would be unheard of. In order to be fully conversant with
the business of existence, you have to assume a state of
mind where you at once could either plant a rose arbor
around a vacant house or knock the windows in. Matter of
free choice, just willingness to do so. If you went
compulsively out on either line, you would violate the 
most primary definition which we have.

Now, I'm going to talk to you about that primary definition
for a moment, since we've just talked about survive as
what life is doing. There's a theory called the theta-MEST
theory. And this theory... 

Oh, I just remembered something. The original statement of 
the theta- MEST theory was never published, never even put 
down in notes. But the original statement of it - and which 
I think I used later on once in a while - the first statement 
of it was a no-motion is impinged upon an all-motion. And 
these two things coming together combine into medium, erratic 
or controlled motions. That's the theta-MEST theory. Theta is 
the Greek word for thought, and it was necessary to define 
what thought was, since there were no real definitions for it.

And when we said MEST we were referring mainly to the
physical universe, which is a universe and was conceived
at that time to be chaos. Some very interesting subtheories
developed out of this. There's such a thing as enMEST,
which is MEST which has been organized and which has then
been enturbulated.

And then there's something called entheta. Now, you still
hear that word surviving. It is thought which was once
organized but which has been enturbulated - enturbulated
thought. And that means entheta. Just coined words.

But the original theory, theta-MEST theory, was actually a
no-motion acting upon an all-motion. And this was a better
dynamic description of what was going on than others, and
so it became very workable.

Now, this became refined sooner or later to a very exact
definition of this thing called theta.

Theta is, of course, just a letter in the Greek alphabet
which traditionally for the Greeks stood for thought. And
a further examination of this actually discovered that
something of this character, such an item as this, could be
best described as having no wavelength, having no mass,
having no location in space, and having no position in the
past, present or future. And that is a definition of a static.

And that is the first definition of a static which is known
to the field of physics. Now, that definition is not yet
known very widely to physics. Physicists here and there
pick it up and look at it and gag slightly because the
first thing they will tell you is "Why, of course there's
such a thing as a static. All a static is, is something
held in an equilibrium of forces." Oh, no, it's not.

You can disprove this to them immediately. You can say,
"All right. Set up a problem whereby something is in an
equilibrium of forces."

And they say, "Well, that ball sitting there on the table,
that's an equilibrium of forces. The table is pushing up
and the ball is pushing down, and so it's in an equi..."

You say, "Yes, and it happens to be moving at one thousand
miles an hour, just by reason of being on the surface of
the earth." Because any spot on the surface of the earth is
moving at a thousand miles an hour. There's seven other
directions that that 'static' which you have just pointed
out as being in an equilibrium of forces - seven other
directions it's traveling incident to its being part of a
solar system." That's all.

There blows up the physicist's static. And the actual
static has to be moved in under it. As soon as this is
done, by the way, the science of physics begins to clarify,
and clarifies enormously the second you define space.

Space is a viewpoint of dimension. And as soon as you say
that, why, the science of physics begins to be a science. I
don't mean to be snide and say the boys have been working
without a science, because they have had something which
worked finitely when applied within very rigid limits -
like fulcrums, balances, that sort of thing.

But they rode on out there toward an atom bomb and they
came to the end of their tether. They ran out of
definitions. Before they invented the atom bomb, somebody
should have taken a slight glance at the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, which in 1885 said that physics would make its
greatest advances when at last it had a definition for
space and a definition for time and, furthermore, that
these definitions were in the province of psychology and
did not properly belong in the field of physics, and said
that physics was waiting upon psychology in order to do
something.

And we got some character by the name of Wundt who in 1876
applied - or some such date - applied the scientific method, 
he said, to human behavior. Even William James remarks on
this factor that time and space are mental conditions and
problems. Every psychologist of note anywhere along the
line has remarked upon this factor, and every psychologist
of note or no note has completely ignored his chief
responsibility. And every physicist, every single
physicist, including Newton, and all the rest of the boys,
have fallen flat on their faces by not establishing the
basic conditions of what they were dealing with. They have
started from an unreasonable assumption. They've assumed
that somebody knew what space was, and have gone on from
there. And they've decided that somebody knew what a static
was, and they've gone on from there.

And of course they'd wind us up in trouble sooner or later
with a thing like an atom bomb. Naturally, they'd wind us
up in trouble because they didn't know where they were
proceeding. This is not an indictment, you understand, of
science at large. It's just hoping it will perish soon.
Because if this is the scientific method, to start with
unreasonable assumptions and never discover what your
definltions are before you proceed into a problem, then we
want nothing to do with a scientific method. And you
actually are then not following the scientific method,
because that is the scientific method.

You're really not dealing, then, in the field of science if
the field of science is what we have had in psychology and
physics. Because then we are not dealing with this. Because
we do this, and there are a new set of principles
established here. And the only thing you could call them, I
guess, would be a Scientological method, as unhandy as
Scientology becomes when you start to add suffixes to it.
That is, you make no assumptions without definitions. You
use no terms which are not defined. You relate all theory
to human experience or living experience. Relate all
theory to living experience. And if it doesn't add up in
the world of livingness, blow it up, throw it away. It's no
good.

And it does not permit a definition to be defined in terms
of its own parts. It doesn't permit, then, a definition to
be a number of descriptive words which are defined by each
other. It never permits a definition to be so established.

So let's look at that, let's look that over as the
conditions of a new methodology rather than an old
thinkingness. We are not dealing with anything called
logic. Logic is something that came up in the days of
Aristotle. It was codified very heavily in his day. We are
not dealing with this, as we know it, logic. We are dealing
with gradient scales of related facts. If that's logic, all
right, but we have had to redefine logic to use logic.
Gradient scales of related facts. And we are subjecting
ourselves, here, to a discipline so much more arduous than
the discipline of physics that if a physicist were to
examine it he would at first be rather appalled. He would
try to throw it back in your face, he would try to run
away, he would try to scoff at it, he'd probably try to say
there... it didn't come out of Cornell or something in
order to get rid of it. But he would never quite be able to
sit down to his drawing board or his test tube, or whatever
a physicist does these days, or his bicarbonate of soda.
Come to think about it, the physicist dealing with the
government probably sits down to his bicarbonate of soda
three times a day. That's probably what he does.

He'd never be able to get this... shake loose from these
assumptions. Now, I'm not talking now about our definltions
of things. I'm just talking about the discipline of
thinkingness in which Scientology exists. And believe me,
that is rarefied air.

That lays down a discipline which is superior to the
discipline of physics, vastly superior to the discipline of
chemistry and so different from anything related in the
past to the field of psychology that you can't relate the
two subjects. You cannot relate psychology and Scientology.
Somebody will come along and he'll say, "Well, uh ... oh,
yes. Well, the psychologists have known that for a long
time." You just be real perky. Just say, "Well, what have
psychologists known all this time?"

"Oh, uh... let's see. What did you just say?"

And you'll say, "Well, go ahead. What did psychologists
know all this time?"

"Well," he said, "just like you said a moment ago." Don't
echo it for him. Just leave him hanging there looking
embarrassed. Because this is their standard trick. And you
say, "Well, the mind" - let's get very basic, 1947 - "The 
mind is composed to resolve problems for the organism relating
to survival. Now, that would be the function of what we
call a brain," and anything..."

"Oh," he would say, "why, psychology has known that for a
long time."

Don't forget to do this trick to him. Don't let yourself
get plowed under and lose an argument in that fashion. Just
make nothing out of him fast. And you say, "All right. What
has psychology known for a long time?"

He'll say, "Oh, that."

And you say, "What did I just say?"

"Duuh."

Because that is the psychological method. Just echo
everything. That's all. If you read a fact in this place,
then multiply it into that place. And then collect it in
another place, and if somebody else has said it, then you
put it in another place, but then you cross-relate it in
another index and you file it somewhere else.

Then you conduct an experiment where you have presupposed
the result, tabulate the fact that you have found the
result, forget to put the result down and call it a
scientific method. You think I'm being sarcastic now. I
don't happen to be sarcastic. I'm being absolutely,
factually truthful.

This statement on the part of Mr. Wundt was a very, very
good statement. He said, "Now, I'm going to apply the
scientific method to the field of human behavior." But get
how different his discipline was from the discipline under
which you operate. Get how different these two disciplines are.

He did not impose upon himself, now, the necessity to
establish, define and state the scientific method. See? He
says, "I'm now going to apply the scientific method to the
field of human mind and behavior." Now, our discipline
would immediately necessitate that if we were going to do
this we'd have to look it over now and find everything
undefined in the problem, everything undefined, and we'd
define it. We'd find there was a word down there at the end
of one of the sentences, and we didn't know what the hell
it was. That would immediately, then, check us from jumping
off from that point until we'd established that word. You
see that?

Now, it was perfectly all right in the sloppy discipline of
1876 and 1955 - wherever psychology is operating - to simply
say, "Well, we apply the scientific method." The first
definition in print on the scientific method is long after
Professor Wundt. And it is long, long after people had used
it threadbare and is not an accurate or correct statement.

The scientific method which is used today was discussed
with the engineers at Bell Laboratories - Ma Bell - at
lunch hours, until they had finally decided what they were
doing. Here we let somebody decide what he was doing
instead of deciding what was so. And we found out that the
scientific method, in their understanding, was so-and-so
and so-and-so. But in discussing it for a few lunch hours
they had established a brand-new scientific method. They
had made a better definition out of it than had existed
before. And that scientific method which they then defined
ran this way:

They take a theory or a datum which predicts where new data
will be found, which when looked for will be found to exist
in fact. In other words, scientific method is a system of
prediction used by entering on this basis: Well, something
may be so. Now let's see if any data exists to demonstrate
it. Why, then, this theory has some validity and possibly
will predict some more data. Now we'll go look for that new
data and find out if it exists anyplace, and if that exists
this theory is getting pretty good. And we'll see if it
predicts some more data. And if it predicts some more
data, by golly, that's getting pretty good. And if it
doesn't predict all the data that we did find, then there's
something wrong with the theory, so we get a new theory.
See. And we refine the theory and go ahead from there.

Now, that actually is a refined statement of the scientific
method as of 1950. And if any invention is connected with
it, it is the engineers at Bell Labs. Now, you'll find
people who every once in a while will tell you, why, the
scientific method is all written up in - oh, there's a big
mention of it or something. You go look at that publication. 
Yes, yes, yeah. It's written up. Says "the scientific method," 
and then skips it.

In other words, the discipline in this field called science
did not match the word called science. The discipline did
not match the word called science. Because science means
truth. It is taken from the word scio - s-c-i-o - which is
"knowing in the fullest sense of the word." That's
quote-unquote. Scio means "knowing in the fullest sense of
the word."

And so there you have, of course - in knowingness - you have 
at once the combination of truth and knowledge. And if science
then was interested in truth and knowledge fully, they
never would have shilly-shallied up the line anyplace and
excused themselves one way or another lamely by saying
what? That the problem of the human mind was too complex to
solve. And you'll find that statement repeated over and
over, book after book, year after year, clear back to 1876.
Any unit which operates on the basis that its goal cannot
be achieved must be operating in an apathy.

Let's get that clearly, that any organization which
operates on the basis that its problem is unsolvable or its
goal cannot be achieved must perforce be operating in an
apathy. They assumed, before they ever started to solve the
problem, the problem could not be solved. And so we get to
the first and foremost discipline which we have in
Scientology, which was the first postulate on the track of
Dianetics and Scientology. And a very early postulate - 1932.

This whole work was done succeeding the postulate "The
problem of the human mind is sufficiently simple to be
solved." Now, that's the basic postulate on the line. Now
get this clearly: Of what importance in a preclear is this
thing called a basic postulate? You can see that, that a
preclear attaches enormous importance to the postulates he
makes. Isn't that true?

Well, get the whole field of psychology operating on the
postulate that they couldn't solve their problem. And now
do you want to classify Scientology and psychology?

The whole field of physics was operating on the postulate
that it couldn't solve its problems until psychology had
solved the problem. What kind of an apathy is this that
follows in succession to another apathy? So where was this
thing called the scientific method and where was science?

And the question can well be asked - not perfunctorily or
pompously, or anything of the sort - but for your own
orientation, the question could be asked, Was there any
science in this society? Or was it simply a system of trial
and error which had been dignified into a pomposity called
science? Now, that is something you can actually use to
split apart an enormous amount of preconceived information.
If you will just look at "What was psychology? What's
physics? What have they done with these things? Have they
reached any zenith? Is their methodology something which I
am using?"... If you can answer those questions, just by
answering them, just by seeing it clearly - not just
emotionally, but just by knowing this material, by looking
around in the world and seeing there's some truth in this
you immediately are higher up and further out on a road
that leads somewhere. And on that road there may be a point
called civilization. But no civilization can exist in the
absence of science.

No civilization can exist in the absence of a science of
mind, no civilization can exist in the absence of a
science of the physical universe. Both of which must be
based, to exist, upon reasonable, fully defined assumptions. 
You can't go wandering around in the dark and arrive at any 
civilization.

No, you arrive somewhere else when you start - let's be
colloquial about it - when you start kidding the society,
when you start kidding yourself and kidding the society,
that it has solved a great many things when it hasn't, that
it possesses an enormous amount of technology which it
doesn't. You wind up a society at the only place you can
wind it up - the end of the cycle of action of the MEST
universe: Destruction. And there is where the society
stops. And it stops without ever really having gotten started.

Because what is, what would a society be which was totally
dependent on other-determinism to consistently and
continually create its beingness - in other words,
dependent on just the whim of fate whether it lived or
died. You'd say that was a society which was in the field
of superstition. "Maybe luck will get us through." So we
must have been living in the dark ages of superstition all
the way along the line. And only believing that we weren't
simply because people said so loudly we weren't.

This has been called an enlightened age. And it is an age
which has found, born in this society, the tools of its
destruction. And if we in Scientology were entirely
muzzled, it would never have grasped the tools of
creation. Never.

This is the sole forward push on the field of creation.
That makes a sort of a sad "lonely one" sort of a complex,
doesn't it, for all of us? And nevertheless it's quite
true that this push is not something to make people's minds
better. It's not something that just makes people hopeful
or patches up some decayed or decrepit bodies. That isn't
what this business of Scientology is all about.

We have a bear by the tail, whether we like it or not. This
is the sole forward motion in the direction of a creative
beginning cycle of action for a society. Launched in the
teeth of a society which has as its highest accomplishment
the invention of its suicide weapon - the atom bomb. Its
highest accomplishment was the development of a gun with
which to blow out its brains.

Now, if you looked at a preclear and saw him in that state,
you would say, "Good heavens, what on Earth do we have here?"

Now, if we are true to what we are trying to do, and if we
gaze broadly at our goals, we find out that our goal is
not, then, a well preclear. That isn't our goal. Our goal is 
broader than that, and well preclears and startling results 
simply serve to attract a sufficient attention on the part 
of a society to slam home the data which they are missing 
and which they need desperately to put themselves back 
together again.

If we can make the society alert to the existence of a body
of knowledge which can keep its wheels turning by making
people well, voila, we'll make people well. But this is not
a basic goal. And any practitioner in Scientology who gets
pinned down to the belief that he is a practitioner in the
field of healing had better not forget what he's a
practitioner in the field of healing of. He's a practitioner
in the field of healing of a society.

And this is an awfully big chunk of responsibility. It's
real big. And it's not easily won, because if you've ever
tried to hold down somebody who's trying to take poison,
or a snake in his death throes, you'll get the idea of how
you can get kicked around by an organism whose
self-destruction you're trying to interrupt. You can get
kicked around violently. You don't have to expect to get
kicked around, but if you don't predict that you're sooner
or later, now and then, going to be booted around some,
that you're going to look like you lose as well as look
like you win, you're not predicting accurately.

The mission of a Scientologist is the application of the
definitions which he knows to the problems of civilization
as they may appear to him. The reason I talked to you
about that this last half hour is very, very important,
actually, to you. Because these two processes - Viewpoint
Straightwire; Be, Do and Have Straightwire - break the back
of any case that they're laid into. If they're done as
they're done, and if you have sufficient discipline in
yourself to recognize how much technology lies behind this
and what that technology is good for. And if you know that,
these processes will work for you very easily.

Therapeutic Scientology, on this May the 4th, 1954, is a
solved problem. Now, you find that out, and then you'll
know why I talked to you about you having to practice the
role of healer to a society, because a preclear is too easy.

Thank you.

(end of lecture)

_


