There are those you know who — who know and there are those who know; there are those who know. And then there are no — those who don't care if they find out or not. And then there are those, you see, who — who better not find out.

Audience: Yeah.

Now, just ran a little process on you here which is a very, very interesting process, just to say goodbye to the figure-figure band.

As I say, it flattens on a preclear, individually audited, just exactly as I did it — putting it in the walls, making sure he puts it into the walls. It flat-tens in about three to five minutes. That is, the worst of the results and effects come off.

It's a genetic entity implant and is the higher harmonic of eating.

Did you ever run into a preclear who sort of digested his engrams? Did you? Did you ever run into one?

Well, I see that this phenomenon is not entirely unknown.

Now, the difficulties, the general difficulties which a preclear has are — stem really from curiosity. And this is a very high button, you see. And it's a fabulous thing, this curiosity. And one of the better and more understandable explanations of what a preclear is doing, who pulls in engrams on himself, is explained in that one button, "craving to know." Only his body pulls them in, he doesn't. A thetan would pull them in and look at them, a body pulls them in and digests them. Do you see that as a possible phenomenon?

In other words, an individual has to know about his past — "Mirhuhhh, if I don't find out . . ." see? No telling what will happen if he doesn't discover whether or not . . . Well, let's — let's not go Freudian because we're not talking about psychoanalysis.

Well, let's see, let me think of another example. Well, let's say, he — he has to know whether or not he was buried or married during his tonsillectomy. Some simple mental problem.

Well, what makes him so anxious? It's just that some thetan or other has played the trick on him of planting in him "craving to know." That's really all — all there is to it.

Because he doesn't crave to know anything, he merely craves to know. Got that?

And the funniest part of it is, is that any person simply does want to know things, but when he craves to know things, he can't learn! Because the second he starts to know something he gets sick! Do you understand?

He craves to know and somebody starts to oblige him and he said .. . Only he does it so fast, he doesn't realize there's a somatic involved. Follow me? He does it so fast he doesn't realize there's a somatic involved in it. Craving to know.

Therefore, a healthy desire to know is balked by a craving to know.

A person, a student who is craving to know something, never finds it out. Give you an example. Husband jealous of wife. Why? No evidence. But he still craves to know who she's been out with.

You see, he really doesn't care whether it — whether she's been out or not. It's just that he craves to know. And if he can't find out — buhahhhah, see? That is the jealousy somatic that so many of you have seen.

Now, somebody arrested, for instance suddenly, craves to know why he is being arrested; but again, this "why he is being arrested" is simply just the same manifestation all over again. You got it?

The case that doesn't have any — very good luck in processing is running this way. You audit out four or five incidents, he finds out about what he's doing. You see? He finds out about these hidden points in the time track and he gets them very smoothly down, and so forth. And you say, "Boy, now that man will feel better," we say. "Oh, that man will feel very much better."

Three, four days later, he's craving to know what happened before then. So we audit out a few more engrams and he finds out by the picture system what happened to him. He feels so relieved and then next week he's got to find out why his father married the girl. In other words, his curiosity has fallen down the line from simple interest and curiosity, into a somatic desire and this physical desire, this craving to know, gets him into jealousy, gets him into problems, problems, problems, problems, problems. He finally gets problems so that he'll have a craving to know about problems. And he has to have more problems so that he can know the answers to those because he knows that he has to have the answers to problems, because he craves to know the answers to problems. So naturally, he has to have problems in order to know about them.

I know that doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense.

But this is a congress on human problems, so I just thought we might as well take the first day and just dish this whole thing in. Do you see? Problems are the lower harmonic of curiosity and that's all they are. Now, they have other anatomies — problems fit into games. A person wants a game, wants problems.

But problems only cross up where an individual has to know the answer to the problem!

Now, let me assure you that a research man going on a "craving to know" never learns anything because he is made so impatient by this somatic that he never can stand still long enough to find out!

So that we get the view of somebody who takes test tubes and Bunsen burners and prefrontal lobes and other material objects and he keeps looking at these things, and he's just about to discover something, when he says, "I'll find out about that . . . No, we'll leave that up to Professor Upjohn." "Now, Professor Upjohn, why don't you do a connected series of three cases. That's plenty to establish it as the national remedy for this." And he doesn't ever find out.

It becomes painful to know, because he wants to know.

Knowingness can even be a blow. It's a very odd thing, that if you were to take a man and hit him very hard, he would get up believing he had found out something. Do you follow me? He would actually believe he'd discovered something. He'll have all sorts of rationale concerning this.

But let's say — let's say we were being Schutzstaffel or something of the — of another age and time, that seemed to specialize in this sort of thing; but their idea of "human rights" was to put somebody up to his neck in foul water for thirty days. That was human rights: the right to be tortured.

And the Schutzstaffel then — let us say would get this fellow and they would hit him and he would get up feeling he possibly might know some-thing, you see. And they didn't have to say anything, they just hit him! And then he might know something. And then they would just hit him and then he figured out, "You know, there's something I might know. Let's see. Why are they punishing me? I must be guilty of something. I do know something, I'm sure. It's just on the tip of my mind in some fashion that — " so on.

So, they get him out in the water and they hit him again! And they hit him again! And they hit him again! And they say — then after they have given him this regimen — they say to him "Confess!" And he, if he's really been handled and he was crazy in the first place, he now confesses. To what? To anything. Because he knows something and it's a great relief to him to give voice to somebody else. Do you understand that? That he knows something.

And the only thing his accusers will listen to is a confession of his own deeds which he never performed.

Now, I assure you that there's something quite peculiar about this. He doesn't confess because he wishes to escape further punishment — that is a rationale. He confesses because he believes he did it.

Now, how does he believe he did it? Well, he must know something. Obviously, they keep hitting him. It has nothing to do with the fact they're accusing him. They just keep hitting him. And every time they hit him, he's got the sensation of having received some information. And eventually he becomes the information he thinks he's receiving and he will actually remember having sabotaged the railroad cars or done something filthy like — oh, I don't know — thought a dirty thought about a general or something.

And he will come up and he will say, "Well, I did it."

How does this mechanism occur? It occurs in a very, very simple fashion, actually. Knowingness is a common denominator and so blows, food, anything else, would be either on a desire to know, which is curiosity, or knowingness itself. And these things play off one against the other and we get as a result of this a very tangled state of affairs. Because it might be in the first place that there's nothing to know. It just might be that there's nothing to know! It just might be that everything that there is to know has to be invented in the first place so you know about it. Do you follow me?

So, right along with "Craving to know," we get another button which isn't auditable particularly, called "Inventing something to know about."

A thetan, native state, not-knows anything about it, makes something, invents something to know about it, gives parts of the body internally all kinds of Latin names. And then says, "You see, I know something about this. Look at all this list of names." Well, that's idiotic, but he thinks he knows something about it.

You take a — oh, I don't know, a brain — a brain collector — one of these chaps — one of these chaps who makes a whole long list of things, and he says, "These things are psychosis. There's epiflavus; there's manic obulous; there's schizophrenia class one, class two, class three, class four and schizophrenia unclassified. Then there's legulla oblongata, schizophrenia paranoia — unclassified." You know?

Did you ever see some of the Germanic insanity classifications? They go page, after page, after page and at the end of that page after page after page, we get down to something very, very interesting indeed. We get "other types." And at — under these "other types" we find all the insane people that they pulled into the sanitarium. They have a very good system there — nobody ever uses it.

Well now, that system was imported into America from Germany, along with psychiatry some fifty years ago. And the system has not been changed materially, but it has been added to and added to and added to and added to until there are as many psychoses, pretendedly, as there are parts of the brain. And believe me, there are a lot of parts of the brain.

I look in a brain and I don't see very much, except some neurons that are going snap against the synapses. It's not a very complicated arrangement. It is not even very electrical, it is not even very helpful, but you wouldn't want sawdust in there. Brains don't do any thinking.

And what do you know. We have a lot to know about on the subject of insanity then, all of which is invented knowingness.

Now, somebody comes along, thinking about this, in this congress of human problems, and puts a bill down here through the United States Congress and enacts it into law, the first line of which says, "In view of the fact that 775,000 people are admitted every day into American mental institutions …" And a little further down, ". . . and in view of the fact that the better institutions cure 75 percent of those who are sent to them …" And a little further down, "We hereby demand and receive an appropriation to create better public relations for psychiatry . . ."

And only one association in the United States was permitted to use or to make a bid for any part of that money. And those facts that appeared in a bill before the United States Congress and were enacted into law are lies — complete utter falsehoods. And the individuals who put them in are guilty of fraudulent misappropriation of United States funds! That's theft!

Because 775,000 Americans aren't admitted every day into institutions! If that were true, how long would it take to put the whole country in?

Now, here could be something to know about. There really could be some-thing to know. That is to say, a being mocks up, let us say, a table, and he says, "You put things on it." And people say, "Well, we can agree to that. That's good. That's fine. That's useful."

And then somebody else comes along and invents a whole classification of tables by manufacturer. Well, this is useful, too. There are Chippendales and Steinways and other furniture makers who … I see we have some other pianists in the audience. And these people, of course, classifying those are simply classifying something that's real and actual. The table is real, it's solid. You've got something there, you can put things on it, you could take things off of it, you could build it in various ways, you can cover it with various cloths. It is something with which we can associate with, handle, feel — it's there. That's all.

Now, you could know about that. You could even have a catalog of the people who build tables and all of the types of tables, and this is all factual, because they did build them and there were various types.

But what would we think of somebody who came along after all this and made a totally completely phony classification on the subject of tables?

He said that tables were ordinarily used to dry shoes. He gave us thou-sands of uses all of which were assigned to tables. None of them were useful to tables. He gave us types of tables that were never built, never observed, never seen!

Well, we would say, that man — that man has no sense of utility or the fitness of things. Right?

Audience: Right.

What would you think of somebody who — great — gave numerous classifications of insanity which were not discovered in real life?

Do you know that you could keep on classifying insanity on and on and on and on until every slightest eccentricity was then classified as an insanity — every slightest eccentricity. The fact that somebody didn't always put his shoes on when he got out of bed, but walked around barefooted for twenty minutes. We could then finally say, "This is insanity!" couldn't we?

We keep adding to this classification, adding to it, adding to it, more and more insanity, more and more insanity, more and more types until we would have achieved this goal of every American in an institution.

Now, I ask you, would insanity be on the increase? Or would the classifications be on the increase?

Audience: Right.

In other words, it might not be true today at all that insanity is on the increase! It might be declining enormously — unless it was worth money to somebody to have it increase.

Now, I realize that it's a serious charge to say that any group has fraudulently obtained funds from the United States. And if I were not in possession of the bill, and if I had not had the exact appropriation located, if we had not found the money and had then thereafter seen the program in action, I would not tell you those facts. But that bill can be procured from the printing office down in Congress.

Male voice: What's the number?

The bill number? Forgotten at the moment. The copy of the bill, however, is in our files. They change numbers on bills every time they go from the House to the Senate and then to the printing office again. And then it's public law and it gets very confusing keeping track of them. So it's no sense trying to look for copies of bills — you merely look for "Appropriations — psychiatric." And you'll find that bill.

There have been other such bills. Bills and bills and bills and bills, all of which seem to have to do with increasing facilities, increasing payrolls and increasing insanity! Now that is important.

That is important to us here at this congress because we are the only people at this time in America who are doing anything for mental health! And we aren't considered even vaguely fit to be near insanity, and so we don't handle it. We don't want it actually. Our business happens to be in the field of ability.

But the fact is that we can do something about it! Then please answer the question: Why hasn't somebody stepped forward — because we've talked enough, we've written enough, we've demonstrated enough. Why hasn't some-body stepped forward and said, "Boys, if it is true that insanity is increasing at this alarming rate so that very soon we're going to have to put an electric wire fence all the way around America — here's a government institution — show us what you can do." We'd show them.

I've seen an old Dianeticist walk down the hall of an institution and leave — out of all the many people he addressed — two or three of them perfectly sane behind him. He just told them to come up to present time. Everybody he met in the institution, he'd say, "Hello. Come up to present time."

One girl came up to present time and gave a speech that night on how glad she was to be there. Factual — factual.

No, I wouldn't lead you astray or lay myself open to libel suits by giving you information on this very interesting subject.

But there is something to know about the mind: that it exists, that it has reality, that it has existence, that it follows certain rules and patterns. And that is only as true as we find those amongst us who have those pat-terns and who do follow that existence, and who do share with us an agreement upon the reality of this physical universe.

But if we invariably discover this to be the case, then there is something to know about the mind. And we can stop inventing things to know about it.

I'll give you an example of inventing something to know about the mind. "All insanity stems from childhood sexual peccadillos." You people can handle minds and making people more able. And have you ever found one preclear whose case and life resolved because you could eradicate some small sexual experience or guilt in his life? Have you ever?

Audience: No.

Has anybody found one?

Well, then, let me tell you something. You have handled amongst you thousands and thousands of people and, therefore, the datum couldn't possibly be real, could it?

Well, then what's it doing still being sold, at what expense, to the United States government? If it isn't there, why are they treating it? Unless, of course, they might have other fish to fry. But that we don't know — that we don't care about.

We can appreciate a man trying to hold a job just like we can appreciate a hog trying to lie in the food trough, if he holds that job only to keep other men from holding jobs as well.

So, it's very pertinent, this congress of human problems, to take up this thing called knowingness — very, very pertinent indeed. Because there is something to know about the mind — there is something to know.

Maybe man didn't know it a few years ago, but we certainly can demonstrate that it's there to know about. And that by knowing it, a great deal of return to sanity and ability can result. That, I think you will all agree on, don't you?

Audience: Yes!

Very well then. Isn't it time that we kissed goodbye to all this invented knowingness?

How we go about doing that happens to be the business of this congress, because it is the primary problem in our own lives and is a primary problem in the public life of our country.

What we do to discourage misappropriation of funds on misrepresentation of facts; what we do to swing forward a broad, effective program to bring into being a saner look at insanity, a saner look at neurosis — and more importantly and better and more intimately in our own activities — a better use of our ability to create higher abilities in man. Do you agree with me that that is a good enough reason to have a congress?

We have a great deal of technology. I suppose we have examined over ten thousand, certainly, separate phenomena in the mind, body and spirit since 1950. We have probably examined more per month than are taught in a university in four years. We have isolated the relative importances of these things and we have it down to a point now where we know what is important to handle, and what is unimportant to handle.

And the importance of a datum is of equal magnitude to the datum itself. If you don't know how important a datum is, there's no sense in knowing the datum at all.

We knew an awful lot of data in 1950, but we hadn't sorted out all of its importances.

It's very interesting to see an old-timer or a newcomer look in and say, "I thought this was a discovery of last month," and he finds it in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. It's very interesting and it would be very pleasant to take such a compliment of having been so far — farseeing.

The only difficulty is this: that I didn't know how important it was. But now, knowing Scientology later on, he does know how important it is. So, he does the evaluation of it and brings the importance out and sees that it was written before, and he says, "Ah-ha," he says, "Ahhh — Ron's pretty smart." And of course, I don't go around saying, "Well, luck off that . . ." I say, "Well, we do have certain insights."

But the selection of importances has occupied the greater proportion of our time doing this work. And we've got it narrowed down now to some very interesting importances — very interesting and very simple.

Now, to give you this information at the same time that I talk to you about using it, seems to me to be quite pat. It seems to me that's what I ought to be doing. Because I can't talk to you forever about the first dynamic if the third dynamic won't permit a first dynamic to exist. And if first dynamics won't permit third dynamics to exist, we will have a very, very unbalanced culture to say the least. You know what would happen if you had a society of cats. Every cat going around is "the only one." I dare say, there'd be some interesting randomity connected with observing such a society, but I seriously doubt that the society itself could handle any of its problems.

And do you know I sincerely believe that it has been necessary to make men who were able enough to handle the problems of the third dynamic before we could have solutions on the third dynamic, and I think we have done that.

I came back here to Washington — the people in the organization are bright, alert people. I look at your faces out there, they aren't the faces I looked at a few years ago. They're younger, more vital, more interested. You look at me — I should have been dead long ago. According to some people if only for the public security.

But we have answers. Then are we going to take these answers and file them under some professorial classification and say, "Well, we did a good job. And now that we've finished off the task of research, why should we do any-thing about it at all?" Are we going to do that?

Audience: No!

Well, if we're not going to do that, then I'm afraid that we have a little work ahead of us. I'm afraid there's an awful lot of game just over the horizon.

You see, you have to feel comfortable, in addition to your own ability, you have to feel comfortable about your ability to handle aberration in other people. You have to be comfortable about that.

You, yourself, have to feel a security in your handling of it before you would ever have a subjective reality on the fact that we were actually at end of research track.

Development — certainly — anything can be refined. Anything! Anything can be smoothed down. But I'm afraid we're over the major hump. And with that, we can look toward action.

What sort of action? Bombastic, irresponsible action of a kind that tears more things down than they build up?

No, I think our actions should be to prevent irresponsible action and place forward action which is comprehensible to people of whatever degree or social level.

But we will take all that up a few days hence before the congress is over. And right now I'm just talking to you about knowingness, and I wouldn't for a moment influence you.

Now, here we have an old friend — to show you where research has gone — here we have an old, old friend. It is a scale which is known as the Know — Mystery Scale.

You remember this scale?

Audience: Yes.

Of course you would. It's a scale. It's a degree of knowingness, actually, and it all comes together under the titles of something to know about. That's all the scale consists of. That's all the life there is.

Well, right under that scale we have a thing called "not-know," which you ordinarily know as "forget."

Now, a person knows everything there is to know and then he has to "not-know" something so he'll have some game. He'll have something to do — he'll have something to think about. So he "not-knows," or he forgets his past.

Some man who is the greatest authority in the world on sponges, let us say, quite frequently likes to forget the whole thing and become an absent-minded professor so that he can go and study about sponges all over again. It gives him something to do.

All right, forgettingness is, of course, in this.

But the next step we get down from there is a very old friend of ours known as "look."

What does look consist of? Look consists of all perceptions. Do you follow me? All perceptions. The principal four and the fifty others we discovered in the Foundation years ago. There are about fifty-four of these perceptions. Quite an amazing number of them. But they are a perception level of things. You see things, you hear things, you feel hot, cold, the sense of position — all of these things are perceptions of one kind or another.

But we have summed them up under look.

But down below this we have emote — emotion. So that below lookingness we have emotion. And below emotion, we have effort. So that an individual who cannot feel emotion does usually, generally feel only effort. He cries — only feels no grief. Because emotion is above his effort.

And down below this we have a thing called think, and that's what the brain is supposed to do. Figure-figure-figure-figure.

And below think, we have, of course, very rapidly here, symbols. And below symbols, we have eat. And below eat we have sex. And below sex we have mystery. An individual can be seen to go upwards, as he is processed, in terms of interest.

In other words, at first he's interested only in mysteries, and that's what we just audited, really, the bottom of all of what we audited there, "craving to know" is a mystery. Only a mystery could be so bad that you wouldn't even know there was anything to know about, or know that there was a mystery there, and that would be the mystery of so-called mysteries. And that's what we are talking about at that band.

Just above that we have sex. Just above that we have eat. Just above that we have symbols. Then we have think. And then we have effort.

But, you know, it takes — just shows you what auditing can do for a person, when I could stand up in front of this many people and say, "I've been wrong." It just shows you what auditing can do. I don't know that I'd do it.

But let us say — let us say I am "omitted." Oh, isn't that a lovely word. I don't have to be "wrong," I'm merely "omitted."

I didn't notice something as we sailed by. There's another part of this scale which tells the whole story of auditing — symbols, down here, and above it — solids. And those two things flank think.

And when one has sym — solids made into symbols, he thinks.

A symbol is anything that has mass, meaning and mobility. If you've got something with mass, meaning and mobility it's going to run into things and get dislocated one way or the other, and if you notice this you're liable to think about it. Do you see this?

So let's just magnify, for your own curiosity, this scale, and put it down on this basis.

Here we have our old friend, effort, which is to say forte main, strength, and so forth, and under effort we have solids, and under solids we have think, and just to keep us on the scale, we have, of course, below here symbols.

Well, that's quite amazing, since that gives us the anatomy of problems. This is a congress on human problems; there's the anatomy of them.

An individual trying to pass from effort upwards would have to go through the emotional band. In other words, he can't lift the table, so he cries — some such thing. Now, that's an inverted look.

Much better than that, after an individual can no longer feel apathy, he feels sort of thick, you know, he's sort of woody, you know, sort of dah!

And we go right down from there and we find this is part and parcel of it, as he goes down from simply feeling — tactile is the last perception to move out — he gets into solids, and it is just that solid there.

Well, the only knowingness left to him is a thinking and symbolization. He figure-figures. He doesn't ever quite arrive at any information. He wants to know about things all the time; he invents things to know about. But actually, here we have a level where he is "craving to know," because he "can't know," you see. He's below being able to know, so he just really "craves to know."

And down here we have inventions — to know about. He craves to know, so he invents a lot of things to know about — none of which are actual. Do you follow me clearly?

In other words, when an individual can no longer actively really know, he comes on down scale, he can't emote, he usually can't perceive — is passing. He gets into solids and he can't — follow this carefully — he cannot any longer tolerate solids, then where does he go? Figure-figure-figure.

And his solution is not a solid, but a symbol. Mathematics does this. Mathematics does not confront the bridge girders, mathematics confronts a piece of paper about bridge girders, doesn't it? But if the individual using the mathematics is actually capable of knowingness then the mathematics has some use.

If the individual who is using the mathematics does not have any knowingness, then he is not capable of any use. Don't you see? If he's not capable of knowing what he has just written down as symbols, then what good are the symbols?

So, suppose you then had people who just wrote down symbols and thought about them without ever knowing anything! Symbols — he thought about them, and thought about them, and they were symbols. And he thought a little bit more, so he wrote some more symbols, but he didn't know what they mean, so he thought about them. You see how this could be? And this is the basic problem. An individual who is at this band has problems in such legion that to solve any of his problems would be a great disfavor for the excellent reason that he can't tolerate a solution.

Now, hardly anybody, thinkingly speaking, can really well tolerate solutions. You try to run too many solutions on a person before you also give him the ability to have a few more problems, he's liable to become upset! You follow me? Making sense to you?

Audience: Yes.

Any way?

In other words, what I'm trying to tell you about is, that is the basic anatomy of human problems!

Human problems are that the individual cannot face the actuality of the problem — he can't face the mass anymore. He can no longer look at his wife, let us say, he can no longer look at his children, he can no longer really look at his car. These are all solids, you see.

But something is keeping him in the house, but he doesn't want to be there. There's only one thing left for him to do! That's think! Do you see that?

When they can no longer face solids, they think! Figure-figure-figure, think-think-think-think-think. Let's see. Let's see. And it drives them mad not to have something to think about. So they get symbols as substitutes for solids and getting these symbols in various juxtapositions so that they are incomprehensible, they then have something to think about. And this ordinarily passes for thinking.

I've just given you an example of that. Because they cannot face the actual fact of a psychotic, some practitioners are likely to think about psychosis, not look at it. Don't you see? They can't confront the solid, so they think about it in terms of symbols. And they wind up in thinking psychoses and neuroses that don't exist. And they become a problem. They themselves are now a problem as people, as a practice, because they're not solving anything, they're not doing anything, they're just running via. They write down some more symbols, and they think about these symbols, and then they write down another book, and so on, and they never look at this at all. Do I make my point?

Audience: Yes.

They just never look at a solid at all, so how the devil could they know anything about the subject if there was no way, whatsoever, for them to communicate with the subject itself?

Supposing they couldn't tolerate solids at all! Supposing nothing in the world could be solid to them. They couldn't look at a person. A person is pretty solid. They couldn't look at a — at any time, they couldn't look at the actual instruments with which they were dealing, they could just think about looking. And this is one of the more curious things you ever saw.

You say to some fellow, "How are your children?" If he can't look at his children, you will see him go, "Well — uh — I think they're all right. Uh — they're doing fine. I think." See?

In other words, a person who can no longer confront the object he is supposed to know about can no longer know about it! If one cannot confront the object one is trying to know about, he will never know about it!

So, the first mechanism necessary to know about a subject, the first mechanism to know about a subject is: Is it? The first thing you'd have to know about a subject: Is it? Does it exist?

There's no sense in knowing all there is to know about the Rocky Mountain ibex if there are no Rocky Mountain ibex and never have been.

Then one comes into a dream world, a complete fantasy. So therefore his problems and his worries have nothing to do with the actual masses or objects with which he's surrounded.

A person with marital problems cannot confront the objects connected with marriage! So he has problems about them, and thinks about them, and that is all! He never looks!

You could say then that a man who has major overwhelming and over-powering problems is in — unable to confront the objects which are the subjects of those problems! Do you follow me?

Audience: Yes.

This gets very plain then, doesn't it?

Audience: Yes.

In other words, an individual who has problems with cars can't look at a car. And you'll find this is true in society. You'll see some old rattletrap bucketing along one way or the other. Well, maybe it's just running on a wish and a prayer because the guy can't afford anything else.

Now, there is another manifestation entirely. A car is going along, and its wheels are kind of going this-a-way and that way, it's going dah-dah-dah and no money problem really involved, or maybe there is, but you say to the fellow, "How are you getting along with your car?"

"Oh, the thing won't start."

"Oh, it won't start?"

"Oh, in addition to everything else, it won't start."

You say, "Well, well, what are we going to do with this thing? What are we going to do with this thing?"

He'd say, "I don't know."

The car is sitting there, see.

"Yeah, I don't know. I wonder why it won't start? That's all right, don't tell me, I'll think of it in a month. I wonder why the car won't start? I wonder if it wasn't the — oh, I don't know, it might have been the type of gasoline, it might not have been, dah, dah … Let's see, who used that car last week? Oh, I've forgotten, but I bet it was that person that used the car last week must have done something to the car to make it start …"

And he's liable to walk right off from the car and start complaining to people about the person who used the car last week, and trying to find out who it was. The car didn't start because he didn't turn on the ignition key! Why didn't he turn on the ignition key? Because he can't look at the car.

I did this one day myself in a very interesting way. I dismantled the little ignition system because I couldn't get it to work and put it back together again at considerable cost and effort and time. We wanted to use the vehicle and I put the little ignition system back together again, and so forth and noticed that a battery terminal wasn't connected. There wasn't any sense in taking the ignition system to pieces. It didn't have any juice through the wires.

And we were at that time running the motto, "Look, don't think." We knew that, but we didn't know how important that was going to be to Scientology. And me, I just really, actually had not looked all the way around on the circuit and noticed that the battery terminal was disconnected.

We all do things like that whether we're in a hurry or otherwise. Well, don't confuse that with an inability to look at a battery — an inability to look at an ignition system. An individual will take them all to pieces and strew them all over the floor and you'll never get them back together again. He has to create a new problem, don't you see.

He creates a new problem every time he attempts to solve the old one! And he creates the new problems which are worse than the problems that they solve. Once upon a time we used to call this the "principle of the introduction of an arbitrary." And that's just how they did it, that's all. That explains how they did it. This explains what they're doing.

An individual who can no longer confront the mass thing with which he is dealing will have problems with it — and that is the totality of human aberration. There isn't anything more to it than that. I'm sorry, I'd love to be complicated.

The funny part of it is, that an individual's confronting of solids must contain his looking and participating in the solidity. In other words, he must be willing to make that solid before he can perceive that it is solid. When he depends on something to be solid which is not very solid to him, it eventually sort of disappears.

In other words, he goes all around the world depending on everything to be solid and he never makes anything solid. He has placed a childish faith in things — we won't say what — in the creation of these things. He doesn't think that he himself had any part in their manufacture, and so he says, "Well, here's all of these objects, and they're all solid, I see."

Look! If he doesn't make them solid, they won't stay that way! And they become thinner, and thinner, and thinner to him.

Now, they become as solid to other people as they make them solid, or don't make them solid. But he goes around depending on other people to make the wall solid so he can look at it. Do you see how that is? And do you know after a while he won't see it, because it isn't solid to him?

In order to have a solid wall, you've got to make one. It isn't enough to just suppose it's going to stay solid for the rest of time. It won't.

So something else enters into here. A person who no longer creates, will have problems. And a person who no longer creates solids, will be in grave trouble if he goes on fooling with solids.

So the answer to problems broadly is, you might say, causative solids. I just coined that for you, it's not a technical term. It's much too fancy for Dianetics and Scientology — causative solids.

In other words, the individual falls away from life because he got into a sort of a parasitic frame of mind of expecting everybody to make everything solid for him. Everybody was going to make the whole universe solid for him. Everybody was going to make everything solid for him. And all he had to do was look at it or weigh it, or rap on it. And he will go downhill until he himself reenters and consciously plays the game of "I'm a thetan that can make nothing solid and I am making it solid and it is solid because I now perceive it is solid." Have you got the game?

Audience: Yes.

That's the game he plays. When he no longer plays the game, the game does not continue to be played, and he won't have anything solid. That's all. When you stop playing a game, you're — you're not playing the game, the game is playing you.

And when the game starts to play you, you get into this situation, and you never come up scale above that.

Human problems consist of a refusal to observe human conditions. That's all.

Except that an individual who refuses to participate in a forward constructive attitude toward life refrains thereafter from living. If a person cannot participate in life, he can't live as we know livingness.

All you have to do to get back in the game is just play the game. And we've been six years trying to find out what game we were playing, and it's a very simple game.

It's the game of "make it solid, look how solid it is." And that's about all the game there is.

And when you run solids, the figure-figures all drop out. When you run the figure-figures, you make no real progress in the case at all. No real progress.

So, although Dianetics appears to be revived, it is simply this — we have now a mirror image of Dianetics. We used to run the thoughts and problems of the engram, we now run the engram off the thoughts and problems and they vanish. You understand there is a difference?

And that's all really I have to tell you technically, and I guess that's — that's about that, and you go on and get your Personal Efficiency Course and then settle down and have a lazy tomorrow and — practically nothing to do. I have very little to tell you beyond that. Yeah, that's about it.

You know, I detected there's somebody in the audience that doesn't believe me!

Well, I am very glad you are here for many reasons, because you are my friends, and because I'm glad to be home, and because there's a lot of information to give you. And there is an awful lot of help in putting things to rights and into action that I need from you. And I need that very much.

And as these next three days roll along, why, you'll find out what it is.

Just now, we're overtime. I will see you all tomorrow at one o'clock.

Good night.