Student's Name ____________
Course Date _______________
This is SCIENTOLOGY, the overall study which embraces DIANETICS, the science of human thought.
A student of this course, with reasonable intelligence and attention should be able to possess himself of the basic data of though and mind operation in a few weeks and to enable himself and his fellows to reach higher goals of civilization than have ever before been attained.
1. Theta, operating in the physical universe, can be said to do two things: it can be said to BE, and it can be said to receive and record impressions of the physical universe. A mind, then, can be said to be made up of an initial and constantly reiterated decision to BE, plus many recorded impressions of the physical universe which are used in controlling the physical universe. This description, however, though useful, is misleading when applied to a living human being, since the mind of a living human being is apparently made up of more than one BEING and, consequently, of more than one set of recorded impressions.
2. The beings which make up the mind of a human being are here called ENTITIES. They may be thought of as separate persons with separate past lives and memories3. We may begin our enumeration and description of the entities which make up the human mind with that entity which is least surprising, the somatic entity. The somatic entity is that being which carries on the evolution of an organism, following the genetic line. The somatic entity would include under its command all the epicenters of the organism. The somatic entity would be independent of the protoplasmic line, the undying organic line without which no organism but the simplest is brought into existence but it would follow the course of that endless flow of organic life closely in most cases. We might suppose that a certain somatic entity might be named Smith in many succeeding organisms.
It is interesting to speculate upon the relationship between the somatic entity and the protoplasmic line. Probably the closest approach which can be made at this writing is that the somatic entity is like an individual running along a road, expertly rolling a great many hoops. He would be the captain of a company of little life organisms, the cells, and particularly the reproductive cells, of the body. Other somatic entities might be supposed to stand by the side of the road, waiting for some of these hoops to become detached by procreation, and expecting to take charge of them and roll them when they became detached from the hoops of the first entity. There might be a group of Smith entities which had charge of the Smith line so long as there were enough Smith hoops to go around, or who called in help from elsewhere or split themselves when too many Smith hoops were created by procreation.
These hoops would, of course, have a certain amount of forward motion of their own. They would contain enough theta to continue their life briefly as cells, but their organization into more complete organisms would depend upon the guiding hand of the somatic entity. If left to themselves, they would soon slow and fall (the death of the cell.) If left to themselves as groups (human beings) they would slow down and break up (the death of the more complex organism.)
The somatic entity might be supposed to be quite similar for an animal and a human being. The difference would be only that the somatic entity of the human being would be "bigger" and would have more work to do.
Those incidents which are run by pre-clears, the Boo-Hoo, the mytosis, the helper, etc, which are on the genetic line, are part of the memory of the somatic entity. 4. There are three or four other classes of entities making up the mind, besides the somatic entity. The somatic entity is far from being in command of the mind, although like any other entity it may take command under the proper circumstances.
5. The entity which is superior in the mind is called the theta being or THETAN. The thetan is the true "I" of the individual. It is the being which would be in command of the mind of an individual who had become completely self-determined. The thetan, however, is not in command even most of the time for most people.
6. How does the thetan lose command? It is a simple matter of postulating non-survival7. The thetan apparently co-exists with an entity which is almost its equal, but not quite. This entity may be called the PARTNER.
8. Any entity may take over the whole of the organism and may exist as the whole organism but each entity has a position of its own, where it may be considered to act, customarily.
9. The Thetan occupies the head, facing forward.
10. The Partner occupies the head, facing backwards.
11. The next entity is the RIGHT INSIDE or RIGHT INBOARD entity.
12. The next entity is the LEFT INSIDE or LEFT INBOARD entity.
13. The next is the STOMACH entity.
14. Two more are the LEFT OUTSIDE or LEFT OUTBOARD entity and the RIGHT-OUTSIDE or RIGHT OUTBOARD entity.
15. Last in rank is the faithful SOMATIC entity.
16. Now the question arises, if the somatic entity is the only one which is intimately connected with the genetic line of the organism, when do the other entities join the organism? The most accurate answer which can be given at this time is that the thetan and the other principal entities join the organism just before birth. The two outboard entitles, however, seem to be added after birth, although not much evidence has been examined on that subject at this writing.
17. Besides the thetan and the partner and these principle entities and the somatic entity, there may be a number of second-rate entities, called the IDLE ENTITIES.
These join the organism at the invitation of some entity. They appear to be gathered up by the entity for the purpose of life continuum. If the individual, under the command of a particular entity, performs an overt act, killing someone, he may as that entity invite some entity of the victim to join his organism and be a part of his organism. This invitation would be for the purpose of continuing the life of the victim and "proving" that no overt act has been performed after all.
Idle entities are characterized by a certain decadence. They have apparently not enough force left in them to make them capable of running an organism, and so they drift about at the beck and call of other entities.
18. Any of the principle entities may have another organism, or MEST body, besides the one which is the individual in question. As we have seen in the previous demonstrations, an entity may have a body on another planet.
19. Therefore, we have two kinds of sharing: one organism may be inhabited by many entities; and one entity may inhabit more than one organism.
20. Any entity which inhabits an organism is capable of producing a somatic in that organism. This should indicate the futility of embarking upon an auditing procedure of running out somatics, to the exclusion of thought, emotion and effort. Somatics can be run out, but there is an almost infinite number of them, since each entity may have millions, to be over-conservative.
21. Different entities respond to different auditors. For this reason, a case which is being audited by one auditor, say a man, may turn into a very different case when being audited by another auditor, say a woman. If the auditor understands why this happens, he can do something to correct it.
22. Sometimes the auditor will find himself auditing an incident in which the pre-clear is "out of valence" The pre-clear is an observer, watching the organism go through the experience. What is happening is that the auditor is auditing an entity which was aware of the experience but was not in command of the organism during the experience. This entity will have some charge on the experience as an observer and may be audited as an observer. The main charge will be on the entity which was in command, but that charge may have put that entity to "sleep", leaving some other entity in command. Auditing the observer through the incident will usually wake up the former command entity in the incident, and then the main charge may be run.
23. Second and third year students will readily recognize the same old phenomena with which they are so familiar being explained more profitably in the light of new phenomena turned up by later research. In all these theories as they develop, the mind remains the same. We are just getting a better and better picture of it as we go along. And as the picture improves, so do results.
24. Many of the phenomena which have been observed and then evaluated by former theories have now to be reevaluated by this new theory. Some of them are the File Clerk, Valence, Circuits.
25. If the auditor asks the pre-clear to give the first answer which occurs to him in terms of yes-or-no, or a number or a name at the snap of the auditor's fingers, the preclear may give information which he has been otherwise unable to give. This phenomenon has been called the File Clerk phenomenon. Later research and theory suggests that "File Clerk" answers are solutions to problems which are being offered by the thetan, which is operating at a reduced level of awareness but which still retains enough awareness to overrule the commanding entity now and then, particularly when directly addressed by the auditor.
26. A circuit is a theoretical item, described as a portion of the mind, compartmented by a postulate which is enforced by pain, acting as another person within the mind. (An even earlier definition substituted "phrase" for "postulate", but since a phrase is only a counter-effort unless accompanied by a postulate, the presence of the postulate was understood.) This definition has now been improved upon. It has been improved upon so much that the word circuit is not longer a necessary word in the vocabulary of the auditor. A circuit may now be considered an entity ("a portion of the mind… compartmented… acting as another person within the mind…") which is out of present time (under the influence of a postulate which is enforced by pain.) An entity which is out of present time. The new definition simplifies the old, clarifies it, and renders the word "circuit" obsolete.
27. Some entities are out of present time, When they take command of the organism or conflict with the entity which is in command, the postulates which are keeping them out of present time and which are present in the incidents in which they are caught are entered into the thinking of the organism.
When an entity which is psychotic, because it is out of present time, takes command of the organism, the organism becomes psychotic. The thetan retires for the duration and we say that the "I" of this individual has disappeared.
28. A valence is a mimicry of another person. There is much in common between the vaudeville performer who imitates Lionel Barrymore and the individual who has assumed the identity of his deceased grandfather. The main difference is that the vaudeville performer has assumed the identity of Lionel Barrymore for a few moments, knowingly, for the purpose of entertaining an audience, and the other individual has assumed the identity of his deceased grandfather during a period of years (or even centuries) "unknowingly" for the purpose of continuing the life of his grandfather in order to prove that the overt act which he committed against his grandfather did not really happen, since grandfather is not really dead. This mimicry will be carried out by one of the individual's entities.
29. A valence is, then, only a mimicry. An individual would no longer be said to be "out of his own valence" when his thetan was not in command, since the idea of entities relieves the word valence of double duty. (Formerly, "valence" meant both the mimicry and the entity which was doing the mimicry, a doubling which caused some confusion.) The individual does not mimic himself, he IS himself. Valence becomes purely and simply mimicry. Various of the individual's entities mimic various other persons. He shifts his valence by shifting entities. Or, if he is a vaudeville performer, he shifts valence by deciding to mimic first one person and then another.
30. This subject of valence, in reference to the actor, has long been of high interest to many people. Just what does an actor do when he "becomes his part"? Why do some actors walk onto the stage or before the camera, do their part well and convincingly, and then walk off and immediately drop the character which they have assumed? Why do others "throw themselves into their parts" so deeply that sometimes traces of the character which they have played stick to them ever afterwards. We say of one actor, "Jones can play any part you give him. He is a good workman." We say of another, "Elsie is a great actress. She becomes the character. She lives her part." We say of another, "Ever since Jukes played the Corsican Bandit he wears a sword, even around the house." What makes these differences? We may, perhaps, come closer to an explanation at this writing than anyone has come before. We may say that Jones assumed identities consciously, like a vaudeville performer, and casts them off as quickly. He is good at mimicry. He has his facsimiles well under control. Elsie, on the other hand, may not have her facsimiles so well under control. Her "greatness" may come from putting an entity in command which has a valence or which IS a character much like the one she is supposed to play. This entity may continue in command throughout the production, changing Elsie's personality considerably for that period. After the production, she may say to herself, "Well, I'm through with that character! Whew! What a relief! At times I really felt that I was Lucretia Borgia! And she may succeed in getting her thetan or some other entity back into command. Poor Jukes, however, has given command to some entity in order to take advantage of the personality of that entity or of some valence of which that entity is capable, and then he has been unable to get that entity out of the driver's seat. He wears a sword around the house. Many actors do this. Sometimes it is a great success.
31. The goal of the auditor is to restore complete self-determinism to the thetan.
32. All entities other than the thetan have been brought into the "family circle" by the thetan or by entities which were brought in by the thetan. The thetan has agreed to have these entities. If full self-determinism is restored to the thetan, he will no longer have to have these entities.
33. When the auditor is auditing a pre-clear of whom a certain entity is in command, the auditor, is, in effect, auditing that entity.
34. The auditor may choose which entity he wishes to audit.
35. The purpose of the auditor in auditing an entity other than the thetan is to clear the way for auditing the thetan.
36. If another entity is in command, the auditor may have to bring that entity to present time before he can get very far with the thetan. This procedure will produce the effect of bringing the pre-clear from a more or less psychotic frame of mind to comparative rationality.
37. Some entities will have elsewhere bodies which will have to be abandoned.
38. If an entity is stuck in an incident, this entity can be freed by running the incident in the ordinary way, with thought, emotion and effort. If the entity is too low in awareness to go through the incident, the thetan, working with the auditor, may be able to push this entity through the incident in spite of itself.
39. Successful and unsuccessful self-auditing may be decided by this one factor: what is the intention toward the individual of the entity which is doing the auditing? What does this entity wish to accomplish? If it is the thetan which has learned to audit, some very good results may be obtained. But if it is some aberrated entity, who has been controlled and controlled and controlled until the only goal left for him is to control and enslave whatever organism falls into his clutches, the auditing results may be horrendous.
40. Any case which does not run easily for an auditor is most likely not under the command of the thetan. Other entities will have to be gotten out of the way before the case will run easily. It is not necessary to clear these entities. It is necessary to bring them to present time and help the thetan to take over their control of the organism.
41. Some cases used to be called "out of valence" This meant that they were not "themselves". We would say now, of such a case, that one entity had been in command at one time, and now another entity was in command. The auditor is, perforce, auditing the entity which is now in command. If he tries to run the pre-clear through an incident which occurred when the former entity was in command, he will discover that the pre-clear recalls this incident as though he were only an observer --- which is just what this entity was.
42. The auditor has to know which entity he is auditing in order to know what he is doing. Accuracy in knowing which entity is being audited will depend, in most cases, upon the use of an E-meter. The added view into the mind which the E-Meter gives the auditor will make it much easier to know to whom he is listening.
43. In what used to be called "perceptic shut-off", the entity which is being audited is either stuck on the track or else it just did not experience the incident which the auditor is trying to run. The incident was experienced by some other entity.
44. An individual, for this reason, might well be on his way toward self-determinism and still have poor recall on some incident which had happened to another entity. In order to find the data on that incident, the auditor would have to ask the entity which had experienced it.
45. An amnesia case may be suspected of operating on a data bank (memory) which is not from the present life.
46. In a homosexual, an entity of the opposite sex is in command.
47. Theta is creative. It can make new things. The rule which we have all heard so many times, that imagination is merely a recombining of old experiences, does not hold, evidently. The power of theta to create extends much deeper into the MEST universe than our former educators would have had us believe, It may be possible to give some estimate of the depth of this creativity in subsequent writing. As the relationship between theta and MEST is examined, the borderline between them becomes harder to find, and theta emerges more and more as CAUSE. It begins to look as though theta may be the cause not only of the organization of MEST but also of the very existence of MEST. Even this subject is within the second echelon of knowledge. We may suppose that the question "What is the cause of theta?" lies within the third echelon.
48. EXPERIENCE is a sort of MEST substitute for KNOWING, which is a function of theta. We have seen how some quick-thinking individuals can learn an operation so rapidly that they appear to have known it all along, while others may experience the same operation many times and still make mistakes in it. These differences between individuals are very great, even as we observe them in daily life. There is no reason to suppose, however, that these great differences account for more than a very narrow band of the spectrum of KNOWING. At the upper end of this spectrum, experience may be something which is just not necessary, or is necessary to such a slight degree that it could hardly be called experience.
49. If this idea of the importance of experience is a valid one, then the value of facsimiles is also altered. The computation of courses of action by comparison of facsimiles comes under the heading of experience to a larger degree. Possible, an individual who KNOWS (who is at the upper end of the spectrum of KNOWING) would consider any facsimiles which he had bothered to keep as mere relics of something he had decided for the moment to call "past", and possibly he would not compute any courses of action from facsimiles but would merely look at present time and KNOW what course to follow.
It may be that the intellectual processes which we have come to regard as the highest possible activity of the beings which we are, admirable as these processes may seem to us, are merely aberrations and perversions of the true state of KNOWING. (This is not a new idea, of course, and many will recognize it from antiquity, It may be, however, that we have come to a point where we can do something about this idea.)
AUD: How old are you?
P.C. Ages.
AUD: Is it worse than ages? How about trillions of years? Or millions?
P.C. Three or four trillion years old.
AUD: Were you originally just one entity?
P.C. Yes.
AUD: (Begins to plot the theta time-track of the preclear on a blackboard.) What did you think of? (There has been a drop on the E-Meter.)
P.C. Some ancient buildings.
AUD: Are these in the theta universe or the MEST universe? (Watching meter) Between lives? Or before there were any between-lives? Is that where you live? In this planetary system?
P.C. Very far away. I get an impression of a very bright star.
AUD: How long ago was this?
P.C. Eight million years.
AUD: What happened there? Did things blow up? Is that whole civilization blowing up? Were you a slave?
P.C. No.
AUD: Was that a point of high charge on your track? What happened to you there that was bad?
P.C. I just killed everybody.
AUD: Why? Was it a dull afternoon or something? Was there any cause for it than that? That's all right. That's the way we used to be.
P.C. I did something. I did an experiment, and the whole place blew up.
AUD: Get a good clear recall; get the clearest moment in that. Is there another moment that is real to you? Any part of that cycle?
P.C. A very tall man.
AUD: Is he real to you? How is your communication with this very tall man? Does he like you?
P.C. No.
AUD: Was that the trouble?
P.C. No, I just did something I shouldn't have done. I was fooling around with something I shouldn't have been.
AUD: Was this man related to you?
P.C. No. He was just the head of it. Not a ruler. Just in charge of the laboratory.
AUD: Do you like chemistry sets?
P.C. Oh, no.
AUD: Does your theta being (thetan) need education?
P.C. No.
AUD: How does it feel to be educated?
P.C. Not necessary.... the education.
AUD: Okay. Well, we have here, then, an incident that is a minor overt act on the fourth dynamic-would you say that it was the fourth dynamic?
P.C. Definitely.
AUD: Have you ever been put together with some other souls?
P.C. Yes.
AUD: When?
P.C. I did a damn fool thing, I Was curious. I don't get any visio. I was curious and cut off my nose to spite my face.
AUD: How long ago was it?
P.C. A long time ago.
AUD: What did you do, volunteer?
P.C. No. Somebody told me that I'd better watch out.
AUD: And you were curious?
P.C. I wanted to find out what would happen.
AUD: Is this after the civilization blew up?
P.C. A long time after.
51. This demonstration, though fragmentary, shows a little about procedure In establishing the time track of the thetan. The auditor is looking for overt acts and for a time when other entities were added to the thetan. The pre-clear has said at the beginning the thetan was alone.
1. Is a mind's memory limited to one sequence of past lives? Explain.
2. Can any organism exist independent of the protoplasmic line?
3. When can a somatic entity take control of the mind? What is its rank?
4. What past phenomena must be re-evaluated in the light of new theories ?
5. What is meant by auditing an observing entity?