Continuing on, now, with this anatomy of Creative Processing, I hope you understand when I say "structure" that I mean something which is conceived out of a postulate. And which is only an item, and which becomes an item simply because — an agreement that it is an item.

So in order to go over structure we have to, to a large degree, go over the anatomy of an object. And the anatomy of an object would also include the anatomy of an energy.

You see — let's take a lightning bolt. You don't ordinarily consider a lightning bolt an object. And yet, a lightning bolt, compressed, would make an object. See, that's your matter — evolution of matter. Evolution of matter is from "be" down to "have." So actually you're still dealing in function. But unless you consider this in terms of structure, you're liable to miss the boat on what you ask your preclear to do with what.

All right. Now, the first part of this talk, mainly about objects. Let's now break down objects. And, of course, we break them down into the eight dynamics. The eight dynamics are the easiest way to break down objects known.

If you say "object" and still mean "doingness with an object," you have the manifestations of energy which again make objects. So we're talking about this whole range of beingness and havingness, really, when we talk about an object. An object can't exist without space. Without intention of an object, or something of the sort, there is no point in energy. Energy goes down and makes an object.

So now, when we take these, however, we can simply take these on the lower level. And that's why I consistently use the word object as connected with structure. Because you could draw up a catalog of objects. A complete catalog of objects would give you, really, a complete catalog of time. The best way to draw this up would be on the eight dynamics.

There's the first dynamic. The first dynamic is divided into four objects. It's divided up into the thetan — the thetan considers himself an object, rightly or wrongly. He has time, and he considers himself an identity, and so on. And that is the primary characteristic of an object: it has identity. So if you have — if you have an identity, you have an object. That's what identity is. All right. Now, take this thetan — he's one.

The next thing is the thetan's standard memory bank, or the accumulation of energies which have formed into ridges and rigid structures as memories - facsimiles — around him. That's an object — the standard memory banks of the thetan.

Now we've got what the thetan considers to be the reactive memory bank, and that gets all mixed up with his bank. And the reactive memory bank is, of course, the memory bank of the GE. That's the reactive mind and the somatic mind, according to the first book. But they form up into a bank, which is an object, again, and that is the GE.

Now we have the GE as an object. Well, the GE would consider himself an object, too. He's an identity. He exists in space (he thinks), and he exists in certain relations and conditions in the MEST universe.

And now we have a structural thing which has its own laws monitored by a GE, which is the human body. Now, that is an object again. So when we start creating and destroying bodies, let's not forget that a body has four parts.

Now, the Freudian approach to existence was to have an ego and an alter ego. And the alter ego was everything a fellow was connected with. Well, he was actually not knowing or not using a gradient scale. He was not prepared to take a look at the interdependency of objects and the connection the preclear had with that. But that's what you're studying — the interdependency of objects — when you study the eight dynamics; you're studying this interdependency. So, when we have mock-ups of the preclear, it isn't just the preclear's body.

Now, his body breaks up into "then bodies" and "will be bodies." (Any object, you see, breaks down into those categories.) And his memory banks break down into those categories as an object. And he himself breaks down in those categories as an object. And the GE breaks down into those categories as an object. And if you just start processing the functional, the performance — that is, that cycle of the organism from create to destroy — you start processing the first dynamic, remember to process this first dynamic as having four parts. And you will then be able to take this preclear to pieces, really, and get him functioning where he ought to be functioning.

Now, we'll just break down the universe into the next part: second dynamic. And we can break down all universes into these parts. But we don't have to break down other universes into these parts. Differences can exist. But here's your second dynamic. Your second dynamic has to do with sex. Now, this is very aberrative because he wants to be an effect of-sex. He wants that sensation, which is to say he wants the energy. And it is one of the higher levels of desire, is sex. So therefore he wants sensation in the field of sex. And sensation is an energy. And sensation is communication. And so, as an energy, the desire of sex is an object. It's just a chunk of energy. And you will find it stored that way in the banks. It's just an object. It's a desire — sex. All right, there we have that portion of this.

Now, let's look over sex and let's take it in its various subdivisions. Let's completely wipe out of our minds the idea of healthy sex, good sex, normal sex, bad sex and other aberrative pieces of the moral code, and let's just look at it as sensation — sensation. Now, sex divides into the various characteristics of — what do you know — the eight dynamics. Yeah, the eight dynamics. But here's where you get male–female designation. And the first time you get male–female designation on all the eight dynamics, and where you should treat them on a male–female category and where they tie in so terribly with whether a person is a man or a woman, is on the second dynamic. So we have second dynamic object — eight dynamics, male–female. You can draw this as a graph.

You see, you get the second dynamic — eight dynamics are its component parts. You got the first dynamic. For the eight dynamics are a component part of the first dynamic. The eight dynamics are a component part of each one of the subdivisions of the four I gave you for the first dynamic. You see? This thing just breaks down. It's just like one of these wheels within wheels within wheels within wheels, and you could do yourself a lot of little roulette wheels or something of the sort, and sit there and spin them, and you would get function and structure and everything else coming up, and questions would appear on this thing. Very easy to make — it's just a little philosophic machine — that's what it is.

All right. But don't forget this about the second dynamic. And the only reason I'm punching this heavily on the second dynamic is very few people realize the sensation of sex is very often present on the subject of God. That's fascinating. It's very fascinating. You'll find someone who's been terribly religious this way and terribly religious that way, and you can't solve this. I mean, it just keeps coming up, one way. And you want to know what do we mock up? What do we mock up? Or we're doing an assessment, which is — this is very vital for assessment, all this data. We've got this person on the E-Meter and we say, "All right. Now, sex."

Whoom! Bang!

And you say, "All right. Now . . ." we name it off, "animals and boys and girls and babies and young people and old people and parents and . . ." — anything you want to name in the way of an object in connection with sex. And all of a sudden, this machine should do a dive. And what do you know, it doesn't dive. It isn't libido because of Mama and it isn't libido because of Papa and it isn't this because of that and it isn't this . . . The package of sensation doesn't lie in any of those departments as aberrative, till all of a sudden we find out there's a tremendous sexual urge about Jesus Christ. Well, he's a man, isn't he? And he keeps hanging up there and he's wounded, isn't he? And all that sort of thing. And we'll find this person's primary sexual centering is on the crucifix.

Unless you just throw aside your barriers and so forth with regard to this sort of thing, you're liable not to hit some of these preclears. I mean, this is very easy: sexual urge on the part of the crucifix.

And we trace this back down to the preclear in the fourteenth century was in love with a choirboy or something. It doesn't matter what we trace it down to. The point is that this person is all wound up on the second dynamic, let's say, and we have to take it in terms of objects, so we take all possible objects of all eight dynamics on the subject of sex.

Now, it wouldn't seem — that's — the reason I'm punching it- is because it wouldn't seem immediately logical to you. It isn't logical. It exists, which is probably a better proof. Now, therefore, the second dynamic apparently has — division one is sensation.

People have been hammering at me to get sex as an act differentiated from sex as children. I've never quite been able to see why this was, because the truth of the matter is that the creation of one's own universe gives one the sensation of creation and can have far more joy in creation than the creation of children through the sexual act. There's an urge in that direction, but it's the urge toward creation, it is not the urge toward just one sex or something of the sort. This urge toward creation gets all wound up in an act, which is no more and no less than an energy flow. So again, we're doing with an energy flow.

Why does this person want this energy? You'll have to solve that, you see? Why does he want this energy? Why does he keep holding on to these objects? (And we'll go into that later today, on the desirability of the object.) And you're going to have to punch around and you'll find you'll solve this case much faster in trying to find out why this person has to have this energy. And when you find out why he has to have this energy, you've got an object. Not what the energy is doing to him or why other people make him .. .

It should strike you as rather strange that a slave will stay alive although whipped and beaten and in chains. That's completely irrational. Why should he stay alive? Well, he has to just — the condition is, it must be that he desires an object. Even though he's beaten, everything else, he still has hope for an object and he's still holding on to an object. He's still holding on to sensation — something of the sort.

Now, get the idea — emotion, as such, is an energy flow. And this slave could say, "I am holding on to it because of love of." And he's immediately told you there is a very desirable sector known as — to him — as love. And that is not an esoteric postulate, it's an energy flow. It's an object. It's an object — a manifestation of. An object is just a manifestation of energy. And you're going to work with a gradient scale, you might as well work with a gradient scale.

This person who goes around all the time and says, "Love, love, love, love, and it all must break down to love. And it's got to be love this way, and it's because everybody loves each other and so on," and he finds that there's a terrific desirability in this energy. And you're going to ask him to run an engram? No! He might hit on some love someplace and he might get rid of that. And unless he's willing to recognize that he can create and that he can handle and he can destroy any energy, he's not going to be able to part with his objects.

So you see, you've got to hit him where it hurts. What's he want to hold on to? That's what you want to know, rather than what he wants to get rid of. Sure, he'll tell you ad nauseam what he wants to get rid of. But that is, when I say "something he will not create or destroy" — sure, he can create or destroy anything. Except an energy flow known as — to him — as so-and-so. This — he couldn't do it. No, no. There's something on that board.

All right. We break down the second dynamic — break down this second dynamic into all dynamics. And remember that ARC, as such, is an energy. And remember that your aberrated preclear treats energy as an object. But a thought is an object to an aberrated preclear. And that's why we keep using this word object. All right.

ARC. What's he got to have? The truth of the matter is that you could handle him two ways. You could show him that this thing existed so there is some reason for him to keep on living. You could actually punch it up and increase his desire to live, because it's because this seems to be scarce to him that he finds it worthless to live. He's on Earth always for some reason or other. He is alive for some reason or other. There's something keeping him going — something. And it is the lack of that something which has dished him in. You call this an object.

You'll find some people came down here because they heard there were a lot of bodies and that bodies had a lot of fine sexual sensations or something of the sort. Oh, unlimited, unlimited! Salesmen came through and spread some literature around. And the next thing you know, a fellow comes down here and he runs slam-bang into the Catholic Church, or something of the sort. It's not so good. Sex is evil. He never heard about this before. That's just making an object scarce, you see?

It's been a terrible, terrible problem — terrible problem, by the way — is trying to make things scarce enough so people would work for them. Then you could impose control and slavery. The way you get control and slavery is to make something scarce that people want. Then they have to work for it.

Your criminal is in complete disagreement with this. He believes he's still in his own universe and he thinks, "You don't have to work to eat. You know darn well all you do is go out and take it." That doesn't mean he's particularly high-toned. He's usually quite an aberrated boy. Because he's aberrated on this level: He knows very well that there doesn't have to be any time imposition between the creation of the space and the energy, and the acquisition of the object. He knows that's true — he's in his own universe, isn't he? I mean, it's all his. He made it all, didn't he? He's sitting on one of the roughest delusions of all to sit on: He's never found out it was another universe.

Now here, then, let's go up into the third dynamic. And let's find out what do we have in the third dynamic in terms of objects. Well, the first thing we have in the terms of the third dynamic in terms of objects is an individual. The third dynamic is composed of individuals. So, if we haven't got bodies solved, we're not likely to solve the third dynamic, because the third dynamic here on Earth is composed of bodies; and it's all an interlocked problem. But the third dynamic may be valuable again to your preclear, tremendously valuable, because it offers an opportunity to.

He may have lots of computations on this one way or the other. But you'll just say "groups" to him: "Could you create or destroy a group?" Sure, he'll create one; he'll destroy one. Fine. Of course, it flickered all the time and he ran away from it to destroy it, and a lot of other things come . . . But you didn't ask that, you just said, "Give me, crea, oh well, we got the third dynamic all buttoned up."

Now, let's take various kinds of groups. There are the groups which appeal to this and the groups which appeal to that and the groups which appeal to something or other. There is the group which appeal to your sense of wanting police: that's called a government. There is the group which will recruit audiences. There is the group into which you can fit yourself on social contacts. There is the group which is preventing something else from happening to you. And then there's belonging to a group because it has something — that would be a society of buying or something of the sort, the cooperative purchasing — lots of these kinds of groups. Or there is the group you belong to because it takes care of your soul or something, and you don't have to worry about it anymore. And there's the group absorbing responsibility in terms of objects.

All right. We get group buildings, group bodies, group people and, again, what? Group thetans. And the meter goes zooonnng! No! He doesn't like any group of thetans. N-o-o-o! No! No, definitely not! That's . . . And all of a sudden we find out that's why he won't get out of his body. He knows doggone well if he takes his status and role again as a thetan, he's done for. Why? Because thetans are stronger than him. Well, how does he know this? Because they told him so. And then you overhaul a little further — because he told them so. And- he wanted to convince them they were, so that then he could show up how strong he was, because they were so strong, or something of the sort. And the problem starts falling apart. But again, we get third dynamic in terms of all dynamics, don't we?

And we get the fourth dynamic. And the fourth dynamic is the species. We're all out to have the species called "man" survive — or our own team survive, if you want to call that a species, because our own team can be pretty big. It's actually a species amongst other species which inhabit only alligators or something. Now, that's a fact — that's a fact.

You'll find out that teams favor forms. Teams out in the universe favor forms. And they're not forms of "all of them have green hair" and "all of them have blue hair" — and there's not that difference. One is composed solely of fellows that when they mock up an illusion of themselves or take over a body and so forth, the body is an alligator. And the other team runs exclusively dolls. And the dolls are in the form of something or other, and this they consider a race. This is a race. It's a wider, bigger subdivision than the subdivision of man itself. But you have people all out for mankind. Now, that's all right, and that's_ a subdivision of it, you see? All right. Matter of fact, if mankind doesn't wake up to the fact that he is a species, he's not going to be here anymore. Now, the next line . . . As an object, he will cease to not object or object.

Now, there's the fifth dynamic. Now, this is awfully important. Friends, lend me your ears for a moment on the fifth dynamic. Don't get your preclear in a state where he can create or destroy anything and omit the fifth dynamic by category.

Don't miss that one. Just because you're scared on the fifth dynamic, don't flub the dub in assessment. And if you're ever going to hold a gun on yourself while you're assessing a preclear, or ever going to hold a gun on yourself while you're working a case, do it here on the fifth dynamic.

The extra species break down into five classes, generally, here on Earth — and these are the ones you'll find keyed in, anyway: birds, beasts, fish, insects and spiders. A snake is, of course, really a beast. Only he's a little more like a bird, only his shape is closer to a fish. But if you have any difficulty remembering that one, we will make an arbitrary sixth division and say snakes or reptiles or amphibians. Any way you want to put it — reptiles. Now, don't get the idea that a spider is an insect, because I don't think a spider is an insect. It's a different class.

Now, look, don't miss that one. Don't miss that one, because I've seen that going by the boards and being forgotten about: "Well, everybody knows everybody's scared of snakes. Everybody knows everybody's scared of spiders. Everybody ever knows . . ." What do you know — there's this race back on the track evidently — race back on the track of talking snakes. One of the invader forces or something of the sort was predominately snakes.

And we look through mankind; we look through mankind, and over twelve ethnological groups (he said very learnedly) — "the ethnological groups which I have inspected very carefully in order to give you the very benefit of my adventures" — I find, in each case, the snake is the symbol for treachery, for slander and for the things that are real bad; and in five of them, the primary symbol for sex. Hm. Hm. Interesting, isn't it?

It's not even vaguely interesting that in Freud's work — not even vaguely interesting, though I'll mention it in passing — that the snake was treated as a symbol for sex, which came up because the person was aberrated on sex and therefore they got the symbol for the snake. Now, I have to mention that, by the way, because it'll be stuck in somebody's noggin someplace or other, that "Well, of course — of course, you get snakes connected with sex, because they're a symbol for sex." That's just lousy; that's circuitous logic and doesn't apply.

Now, it's all right to discover this datum — and this datum is very important. Yes, young girls connect snakes with sex. Why? Well, it's because of the libido theory of the left-hand side of the ruddy rod, I guess. There's no valid explanation for it, you see, but it's completely dopey, because you take phallic symbolism — well, it's very interesting, but there are only a few geometric shapes possible, and why is it that they pick on snakes? Well, you could have lots of explanations for this and they'd all wind up with this: symbol.

And what do you know: Never in the course or existence of any of the research or the processing of Dianetics or Scientology have I found otherwise than that if the object was feared, it was the object that had created the fear. I found no symbolism. Direct causation has been the primary discovery in all this research. If the preclear is aberrated — he thinks he's aberrated — it's because he has made the postulate that (and generally because he's been told that) he is aberrated. And if you look for the engram, you will find the engram "you are crazy" answers up, to a large degree, his concern for the fact that he is crazy.

Now, don't think that this turns off in terms of symbols. When we get down to identification, we're into the field of aberration. And when we talk about aberration, we're talking about identification. We talk about identification, we're talking about direct causation. That is to say, if snakes are considered to be the same as sex, that's because snakes have caused something that is aberrative about sex. Hm. And so let's look back in the Bible and what do we find out? We open up the first page of the Bible and we found a snake in a tree and he gave wisdom. Well, we can say, "Well, this is just a symbolical interpretation of the Bible," and so on. Well, let's just get off of symbolism entirely. Let's skip it. And don't try to rationalize it out. If you find your preclear is aberrated on the subject of the second dynamic because he doesn't want to have intercourse with a snake, boy, just take it from there. Don't worry about this.

And that's one of the things that you're going to do in diagnosis rather consistently and continually, is you're going to try to stretch your imaginations in order to do Creative Processing. No, if you're sitting there with an E-Meter, you don't have to stretch your imagination any; you just take and mock up what's there. You're not trying to do a covert, circuitous route on this. The guy or the girl is aberrated on the subject of the second dynamic and you mention snakes when you're assessing objects in connection with the second dynamic and the needle goes wham! and drops another dial, wham! and drops another dial, wham! You say: "All right. Now let's get you having intercourse with a snake." And of course the needle will probably wind off the pin and the E-Meter blow up right about that point, because you wouldn't have paid attention to your gradient scale.

But this is what you're leading toward in your processing. This is what you're leading toward, just like that. And so let's have, then, a snake with a bunch of orchids and a top hat and a cane coming to the door and ringing the doorbell. Oh, no! We can't even have a beau as a snake.

All right. Let's have a toothpick in a top hat. (This toothpick hasn't got any wiggle to it, you see, yet.) Now, we can get a clothesline coming to the door. And now we can get a hawser coming to the door. And now we can eventually get a top hat that has a conceptual snake under it coming to the door. And eventually, we can get a snake coming to the door in a top hat to call. See, we're up to there.

Now, we go on just a little bit further than that and we get this snake on the other end of the telephone making an improper proposal. You get the idea? We sneak up on this one and the next thing you know, why, we have led up to the piece de resistance. Now, there, by the way, is — your preclear is just going to go there, because it so happens that back on the track, evidently, an incident of which the story in Genesis is the symbolism — the story in Genesis is the symbolism of an actual series and chain of incidents back on the track: "Wisdom — we're going to make you smart."

Why do all people think a snake can hypnotize you? It's because snakes hypnotized you. I mean, don't ever stretch your brains on diagnosis. Just think of the shortest route through to two points and get as close to an identification as you can and you've got it. And that's true of all aberration.

This person is afraid of lorries. Now don't go looking for why — bumped off on a kiddie car. You're looking at gradient scales the second you do that. No, he is afraid of lorries because of lorries.

Now, you can't find him divebombing anything in this life. He wasn't in these last two wars — and, of course, this is the only civilization in which there's ever been an airplane, and yet this person is daffy on the subject of airplanes. Just daffy. "Look at an airplane," and he says, "Oh, no!" Well, get him crashing an airplane.

I have to stress this at this point, is because with Creative Processing you don't discover the actual incidents. The actual incidents blow; you never pay any attention to them. The guy comes up Tone Scale on the subject, and skip it. But you'll find out there was a society maybe 92,000 years ago, and it had buildings which were remarkably similar to maybe some civilization which we've had here and which had airplanes. And they were very junky airplanes and they never got much better than that, and there were bodies and everything else.

This fellow has never been in the navy and he hates naval life. And maybe that'll translate shortly and stretch across into space opera. But there's a grave possibility that it translates directly over into naval life. I mean, he is afraid of A because it's A. I mean, always make up your mind to that. So on Creative Processing, you don't have to go around any circuitous routes to discover what and why and where. You've got that in assessment. You know what it is, and you process that with Creative Processing, and then you don't address the actual incident itself.

So, we'll go up to the fifth dynamic and we've got all those categories. By the way, spiders — there have been races of spiders that were sentient and all sorts of things.

The sixth dynamic, of course, is the MEST universe itself And boy, there you have objects! And only there you have objects such as we're accustomed to having. And there's a special kind of Creative Processing which is addressed to the sixth dynamic. You want to find out what objects in there are particularly bad.

And the seventh dynamic, of course, goes into theta. But that will go into thetans to a very marked degree. And it will go into sentient energy, as such, and other things.

And, of course, the eighth dynamic would be gods.

Now, continuing this last part of this afternoon's talk. When we address all of these dynamics, we had better address them in assessment in terms of objects, and we'd better get a clean assessment. And we'd better get a very thorough assessment on this, because I've seen a couple of boys missing the boat — and I missed the boat not too long ago, which was a great shock to me. I processed a preclear for four hours without discovering the central aberration on the case, and that is almost unheard of. I discovered it in about three and a half hours after I started to process this case. And I just wasn't thinking in terms of assessment.

Well, now, there was a good reason for this. We went over a long period there where we didn't quite know exactly or accurately what we ought to be assessing in order to do Theta Clearing. And now there's some point in an assessment. There is no point, you see, in classification, unless you have some use for what you're classifying. And the use to which a classification is put changes very markedly the classification itself.

For instance, Kraepelin's enormous classification of mental aberration, psychotic conditions and so forth, was done without a specific cure or goal in mind for the condition. And so he classified it only according to those manifestations which he himself had observed. He didn't evaluate them. Therefore, the entire classification is useless to us. And I don't mean it's — part of it is useless, I mean it is useless to us. It doesn't make a bit of difference to us whether this person is a manic-depressive or a schizorunic, or anything. It just — we don't care. If this person can be lashed down — if we're going to go into this extreme — if this person is going to be lashed down, tied down or something done to them to hold them still long enough to get them into communication, we have techniques to resolve the case. But they have a case.

Now, you'll find yourself straining your brain on psychosis. That's the worst thing you can do, is try to be logical about the illogical. That's horrible. Here you have this fantastic case that is running around, and he says to you this and he says to you that, and you try to make up out of this what he's doing and get the computation on the case that makes him do this and so on. And you try to think it over and think it over and you think — you're working on the basis that one day you'll hit a button somehow, and something or other will happen. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Get an assessment as nearly as you can on what's worrying this fellow, and then work a gradient scale to get him to put it into the environment and take it out again. You see, that includes having to find an environment to put it into first — at your lowest levels.

Now you're working on this basis — you're working on this basis: that the further a person goes down the Tone Scale, the more they're an object and the less they're energy. At first, they're just space creating energy. And then they're just — are energy. And then they go down the Tone Scale and they hit the bottom and they're an object. Well, all of — actions, and all symbolisms of objects, become objects too, and everything becomes an object. And they just sort of freeze into MEST. And you'll find out their behavior is a very MESTy behavior. You'll find out, too, that they cannot let go of anything.

Now, inability to let go means inability to let go of the aberration. So they're trying to hold on to something awful hard. Or they're trying to avoid something from hitting them awfully hard. One of these two conditions is going to exist. They're either holding on or keeping somebody else from holding on. And one of these conditions exists and that's all you're interested in. And you're working there, desire — you're working in desire, enforcement, inhibit what? Desire, force and inhibit "have."

Now, if you were to work out the interdependencies of this universe, you would find the insidious nature of every object in it was simply this: It had two labels on it. It has "have me," and "don't have me." And it also has another label on it, is "I want." And out of these, you get the cohesiveness of matter. You get positive and negative electricity. Positive says to negative, it says, "I want." And the other one says, of course, "I'm going to have." Kaboom. And we get a current flow.

Now, you can work that out and have a good time with it, and it's a very, very interesting mental exercise. But you should work out this one. (The electronic aspect of it is important to an electronics man, but not so important to you.) Matter is energy and has the characteristics of energy, and energy is ARC. But ARC has as its component parts three things: desire, enforce and inhibit. And to everything, you can put down desire, enforce and inhibit. So, we get the whole universe trying to stick together or blow up or break apart, all on the basis of "have." That's fascinating. You get one "have" into a psychotic's bank, and of course it short-circuits the whole bank into "have," so he has the evil with the good.

And an object is time. Time is a slippy little abstract word that got slid in there to describe the activities of energy in space with regard to an object. And for our purposes, the object is time. And when we say "object," we might as well say "time," because it will come out to the same end in processing. And when we say "object" we might as well say "force," and when we say "time" we might as well say "force," because we're talking about energy flows with regard to an object, and if — an object is time.

So we've got an identification — we have an identification which happens to be the top-strata single-thread identification which will unravel all these cases. So, you see, you don't have to know so much about them. Identification: You want to solve this fellow … This fellow is worried about time. Okay, solve objects. How do you solve objects? Solve "have." What are the categories of "have"? Desire to have, enforce having and inhibit having. And what do you do? You solve time.

Now, this thing is subject to test, workability, in processing. And it works in processing. And do you solve this by addressing it directly? No. The trouble with it is, is he has it identified. He has all these things so tightly identified that he can't separate them. So if he has all these things so tightly identified he can't separate them, you'd better start separating them immediately. And the way you start separating them is by Creative Processing, which is just to move over into another field of certainty and process over there. And he'll learn all of these mechanics all by himself, and feel them and manage to work them out on the level of postulates, and so forth, simply by addressing Creative Processes.

Now, that's very tricky. That's a very tricky technique. You've got the identification which finally wound up in such a thing as the MEST universe and which finally wound up in aberration, sickness and insanity for many, and it wound up to greater or lesser inability on the part of a great many. You see, we have this — various things exist in this universe.

You can't kill a man. You're not free to kill a man on Earth here. That's interesting. You can't use force, then, can you, to that degree, directed toward killing a man. You're not supposed to do that. Police object, everybody objects. And you're free to insult a man.

Hey, now, wait a minute. Well, wait a minute. There's going to be — an aberration will happen right there on that point. What do you do about somebody who stands in front of you and insults you? It's not against the law to insult anybody, and you can't kill him. You can't even hit him. All you can do is communicate back to him again. And if you communicate back to him again, you just go into the level of insult. And it puts up an ARC ridge for you. Great. What do you know, there's no solution.

And from a woman's standpoint, men are too muscular to be mauled around in most cases, and so therefore they have to be inhibited in this degree. And you have to inhibit them in some fashion or another, but how can you do it if you haven't got enough strength to do it? Well, you could set up some kind of a barrier saying it isn't good to beat up women. And then you've got the problem sitting there with a man, he's got this antagonism to . . . In other words, ARC is just going to blow.

And when you have objects, about the least manifestation that you'll get when you get objects this solid and things like "I can't use — I can use force this way, but I can't use it that way," on the same subject. You know, you can kill a man by insulting him. Gradient scale. Gradient scale. You can just knock him to pieces until he hasn't got any dreams, he hasn't got any hopes, he has no desires, he just has nothing and he's dead. That's slow.

Now, evidently, anything that is very, very slow is permissible under law. And anything that's fast is not permissible under law. You see, that's not rational.

And so you will be able to run out of preclears such things as the unsolved problem of what you do to people who yell at you, scream at you, insult you and upset you. And it puts a terrible ARC problem right in front of them. What do you do? What do you do? Well, if you had a gun you could shoot them, but if you shot them you'd get shot. And there you get your overt act–motivator enforced all up and down the track. "Don't move fast," is evidently the law of the game. "Move slow."

Well, you won't find anything very workable in the preclear's mind. They'll have to get some workability of this, until all of a sudden they realize that as a thetan they could at least shift their position or change their wavelength. And they'll suddenly realize they have a solution to it. But that's a rough problem. That's a big problem. How do you stop the gradient-scale encroachment on self of a destructive force, which destructive force is permitted and even aided and abetted by law? It makes every man an outlaw if it's carried out to its furthest length, although he was a nice fellow and he was perfectly willing to do this and that and so on.

Now, high scale runs on a smooth enough flow for ARC to exist. But you start getting it down into problems such as those which exist in interpersonal relationships here on Earth, and whee! It just starts blowing. About the least you get is hate, and out of hate comes things like war. And then we get the solution of: "Well, let's kill everybody and make MEST out of everything. Huh, that's good. That's the way to solve the whole thing! Yeah, that's the way to solve the whole thing: let's just make MEST out of everything. Let's knock out everybody's imagination, everybody's creative impulses and control everybody. And then get everybody to work hard so they can't enjoy anything. And then let's make everything scarce. And then let's get everybody to hate everybody, and then we'll eventually have a universe." That's what's known as the conservation of energy!

Oh, you wonder how that does a jump. Well, boy, that does a jump but good. It says, "Now look, this stuff is so scarce that you've — at very best, very best — you've inherited it from elder gods or something of the sort, who were here before you and who left all this for you. And here you have all this universe, and you can work in this universe. And they made these beautiful planets. And of course, these beautiful planets are composed of have–don't have. And here you are, and therefore you must respect all that and treat all that, and don't make any energy of your own, use theirs. And it's all been done before, because it's all 'have,' " you see? And a guy starts going around in circles. He says, "Well, I — I know I can create something. I — I — I once could. I — I — I had some energy of my own once."

But they keep saying . . . There's a funny incident on the track whereby you show up in this area and they say, "All right. Now, we don't use anything but facsimiles around here. And we don't use any live energy, you understand that. We're good people. And we don't ever use any live energy and so on. Well, now, there's a pile of facsimiles over there. Go over and get yourself some so you'll have an identity." And what do you know, you can go over and pick up a package of facsimiles.

I was processing some of these one time on a preclear, and that's where borrowings — one of the ways you've got facsimiles is by borrowing. And I was busily processing like mad on these and they were going out in all different directions. They didn't add up anyplace, until all of a sudden we hit this incident — crash! He had wound up in this particular portion of the universe where "all we used around here was facsimiles," and they were evidently all tailored and ready-made and that was all he could have for force.

So this fellow comes up to you and he says, "You're no good. You're just a dog. And after this, every time I spit, why, you're going to have to do this and do that with all those forest trees over there, and you're just a slave. Now put these bracelets on. And you're going to be fed cornmeal mush with a syringe every day, and that's the end of that and …"

What you are supposed to do at that moment, you see, was pick up this facsimile. And this facsimile says, "I object," or something, you see? Cute system. Don't use any force — no force, no force. And what do you find is wrong with your preclear? Why won't he take responsibility for objects? Well, he can't — hasn't any force of his own, so therefore he's got to respect all force.

And energy cannot be destroyed. That's one of the primary laws we run on. Can neither be created nor destroyed. That's true of MEST universe energy. That's true of it. But you as a preclear make up facsimiles of the energy forces which you perceive, and these all say, "Can't be created, can't be destroyed; can't be created, can't be destroyed." And what do you know, it's a lie.

It's true of MEST universe energy up to a certain point. You cannot burn coal without getting the weight of the coal and so forth. And you can't suddenly turn on an electric light switch or something of the sort, and have the energy created. There's no such thing as perpetual motion in this universe. You can't start a machine running and have it run forever without feeding it fuel. It won't create energy, and so on. But ye gods, let's just consider that as a limitation of this universe. It's not a limitation of the preclear. It's not a limitation of the thetan. It doesn't happen to be true of the thetan. And it doesn't happen to be true of all energy. It just happens to be true of this energy. And if your thetan got good enough, he could probably create and destroy exact replicas of MEST universe energy. But he sure wouldn't be able to respect the elder gods anymore and do it.

This MEST has the most fascinating emotional connotations connected with it. It's well up and down the Tone Scale. Every piece of MEST is. This drives a mystic mad, by the way. A mystic will look at an object and see that he can tell who's handled it, and it seems to speak to him, and he's got an emanation coming out of it and all of that sort of thing. Of course it has! It was some thetan's thoughts once, and still is. And it's there because the thetan wanted it to be there, and actually, he must still want it or it still wouldn't be there.

And where's he now? He's probably got a ridge on him the size of Earth. Wouldn't that be interesting? Wouldn't it be interesting if every planet we had was alive, really — had its own thetan or had several thetans and so on, and they had just played the game of "have" and "have not," and "have" and "have not," until here they are and all they can do is travel around suns and maybe some of the suns just sort of — are just decombusting gobs of "have" and "have not" and so on. Wouldn't that be amusing? I think it would be an awfully good joke on the thetans that got into the rat race and couldn't get out of it.

Yeah, "respect the elder gods" is the same as conservation of energy. It runs, essentially, "this energy isn't yours." You find most people believe that all the energy they get comes out of food. Yeah, they think, somehow or other by some necromancy, this low-wave combustion fuel converts and so forth and that's how they get their energy. That's very fortunately not true. That's where the body gets its energy, because it's an engine.

Now, in doing an assessment of the case, we have to know the component parts of the case and we have to know the function of these. And we take the function apart and we find that the function of theta runs into be (space), do (energy), which results in a have. And it becomes a now-have here. Well, the function of it, then, is that any object of any of the dynamics has a "be" to it. It's got a space. It's got a doingness to it of one kind or another — even if it's apparent static, it has a doingness — and it has a "have" characteristic.

Earth is saying "have me" and "don't have me," practically in the same breath. Now, to the degree to which it says "have me" is the degree to its endurance. It endures, in other words, as long as there is desire, enforce and inhibit as postulates sitting behind it. So you would have to overcome, to destroy a piece of matter, an awful big piece of endurance. You know, matter is as hard to convert as it is intended to endure. Try to do something with the pyramids. They just don't walk around very good. But they were sure intended to endure. So we have this degree of havingness.

Now, any object has this characteristic. And any object, according to this universe's laws, is trying to go through the big cycle — the major cycle of action. And a cycle of action is intended to wind up from creation with destruction. And in this universe, it's supposed to be not destruction at all, but conversion. See, you'll find out it's very easy for your preclear to convert these things out of existence, and rather difficult for him to just pow! them out of existence. Of course, you get him to converting them out of existence easily and varying them, and doing other things with them, and converting them into flowers and doing all sorts of things like this, that's all very well. But as long as you have to, you should process him on this cycle of action, but as long as you are doing it, you're agreeing with the MEST universe.

That cycle of action is a fascinating thing, but it's the cycle of havingness. Otherwise it wouldn't have any time. A fellow creates something and he wants to have that and then he wants to have it a little better. Have-have-have-have, and then do a flip with it and change it to something else because he's tired of it, something of this sort. And then, in spite of the fact that he tries to change it and tries to change it, it decays-decays-decays-decays-decays and it's gone. Now that's a cycle of action.

Now, assessment, then, would have to address itself not to just the blunt statement of "Can you create and can you destroy?" but would have to address itself to "What are you willing to create, conserve, alter?" When you get to that one, it's very funny. You'll find a lot of things he is not willing to alter. He likes a lot of things. He doesn't want to alter the British Museum or something. He just doesn't want to alter that.

"Well, change it around."

"Can't."

"Well, make a stable out of it."

"Oh-h-h!"

"Well, I tell you what. Put a sign on it. See the sign on the front of it, says 'British Museum.' All right, now have the sign say The British Museum." Well, he'll do that. Now, you're on your way. You see? Gradient scale. You've gotten that sign changed.

"Now, let's change the thing by making it more British Museum." Let's get it to grow. "More British Museum. And now let's get it antiqued a little bit." He doesn't mind that too much, because it's full of antiques. "And let's just get it antiqued and a little bit more antiqued and a little bit more antiqued," until all of a sudden we say, "Well, that's so antiqued, maybe we'd better build a brand-new British Museum. Let's build a big one this. time. Let's build a brand-new one."

You made him create the British Museum. It's not very many seconds in processing beyond that point where you say, "All right. Now blow it up." Or "All right. Now have the ground open. Now put it in. Now bury it." And he will. And oddly enough, he has changed his aspect toward the British Museum. Hmm.

This fellow is engaged in a worship of antiquity. You'll find that worship of antiquity scattered all over the place. He won't own anything unless it's old. And here he is gumping around with this body that's practically on crutches and it's all seamed and lined and everything else and — he's got an old body. You find out this was his — one of his main ambitions was to have an old body. Nyaah! So he gets young again.

Now, what do you want to — how do you want to change your preclear? Now, that's very much the important point there, you see?

All right.

Start, stop and change is, of course, be, have and do. Be, do and have: start, stop, change. "Have" is stop. When he has accumulated this fortune, he will retire — "have" is stop. When I have accomplished this goal, I will not do it again — "have" is stop.

You wonder why your preclear is stuck on the time track? He's stuck for two reasons: he's stuck in a desire to have which has been fulfilled, or he's trying to keep from having a facsimile which is maybe hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. If you try hard enough to keep from having something, you put it right there in present time, because you say there's no time factor with — next to it. But if you say it's an accomplished "have," there's no time factor with that either, because it's just "endure forever."

And you wonder why this fellow has this facsimile? Well, he did a good job once. Yes, he did a good job. Yep, he accumulated all this stuff and so on in there — did a good job. That self-complacency expresses itself in inaction. You find his time factors are messed up, that he really isn't happy about a lot of other things.

Now, where it comes, then, to start, stop and change you have your cycle of action: create, conserve, alter, destroy — you've got that same cycle going in there. And you've got your "have" would be the same as stop. You've got your "do," the same as change. And in order to create you've got to have space, so your start is, of course, "be." You must postulate a beingness before you get a gettingness. And you've got to have a gettingness before you have a havingness.

Well, I wrote all that down once here: "That portion of the static of life concerned with the life organism of the physical universe is concerned wholly with motion." Believe me, it sure is! And motion has its conditions: space, change and have. All right.

We've got Axiom 20: "Lambda creates, conserves, maintains, requires, destroys, changes, occupies, groups and disperses MEST." You get that? So that's your cycle. It's got to be able to do all those things, and you just pick this up out of some of the old axioms here and put it down in a new place. You got to create objects, conserve objects, maintain objects, require objects, destroy objects, change objects, occupy, group and disperse. There are probably a lot more of them, because you've departed there from a simplicity and gone into a complexity which is derived from the same thing.

Now, objects, you see — givingness is creating another desire so that one can give, so you can give and receive and have objects. What are you willing to give? Whee! You'll find out your preclear is just completely fouled up all over the darn Tone Scale on the subject of not wanting to give anything, really. And you start it — giving them away. All right, let's just — starting him in Creative Processing, let's have him make up a — all right, let's have him make up a body and give it to somebody who hasn't got a good body. Okay. Now, let's have him give this. Now, let's have him give that. And he'll find out all of a sudden he hasn't got any willingness to give these things away. He'll start it in fun, but then it started to get serious, and it's amazing that "parting with" and processing are practically the same thing. You're asking your preclear to part with something, and that's something he desires. You're asking him to do something he doesn't want to do. It occurs to him that you're asking him to give up time, you're asking him to cease to be, if you start really nailing in toward the center of this case.

The whole truth of the matter is, is what's keeping him from being is time. Time's arbitrary command value over him is the arbitrary command value objects have over him. Look at the command level of the body over him. That's one of the first things you're trying to solve in processing: you want to exteriorize this person as fast as possible and get him away from these banks and get him out as himself That's as fast as possible, and process him from there on, because he can change postulates so much easier.

Well, what's going to block it? The command value of the object is the command value of persistence. He wants to survive. The body is an object and the body survives, and even though it survives just for a short time, you're asking him to give up a body? Oh, no!

No. You've got to have him give something away first, and give something else away, and then give something else away and give something else away and have him start giving bodies away. And then have him start creating bodies so he can give them away. And then he can create bodies and give them away to people who are going to take them out and destroy them. And make him put a lot of care into just exactly how good this body is that he's going to give to somebody, and then this person goes and destroys it. And you start that, you can have him cut the body up into bits, get his own body mocked up and chop it up into bits and all that sort of thing, and the next thing you know, why, you've got him loosened up on the subject of what? This terrific thirst for time.