Going to talk to you now about fundamental fundamentals, which are terribly fundamental.

The first and foremost of these fundamentals is something that man might have known something about but that man had never expressed. Man had not expressed the definition of a static and, as a consequence, he was apt to go in small circles every time he confronted one.

In The Creation of Human Ability you will discover there is a process in there called Conceiving a Static and then it says, "Don't use." You ask somebody to look, in mock-up, something of this sort, at thetans and he has a tendency to become rather ill. It is a havingness reducer that ends all havingness reductions. One of the frequent manifestations you find in a preclear is he's been up all night fighting thetans. And this is merely from the fact he starts conceiving a static automatically and the automaticity, of course, just rips up the rest of his havingness and that's that.

A thetan could be described as many things. It is very poorly described as a spirit or a soul, since that got us nowhere. It got us nowhere literally and actually for thousands of years — thousands and thousands of years. You just never saw a definition get people nowhere faster.

What was a soul? Was it a ghost? Well, a ghost was bad and a soul was good, but they were both the same item. What was a spirit anyhow? Was it the essence of things? Was it the essence of the man? Where did it go? Did it go to some hot Hell or some pleasantly harp-strung Heaven?

Quite amazing. People even had destinations figured out for something they knew nothing about, which is pretty good. "We don't know what it is, but we can tell you where it goes. We can't show you one, we can't show you the phenomena of one, but you must reverence it."

If you consider this irreligious, then you have too high opinion of yourself, that's all. Because in the final analysis, what is this thing called thetan? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up. And that is the handiest definition I know of.

Now, where an individual — where an individual is having trouble with his soul, we have somebody who is sitting in the next house trying to feed himself in the house next door. It's a very hard thing to do. We have a person who is splattered around. He's in a couple of places and thetans aren't easily in a couple of places, except by postulate.

Now, what basically could we say that would simply sum up all of life? Well, we would say it was basically a static. And that's the first Axiom: Life is basically a static.

Well, it's a very hard Axiom to phrase, extremely hard, because if there weren't any statics there wouldn't be any masses or forms, energies or spaces, you see. And people therefore say, "Oh, life is just nothing. Yeah, that's right." Or they say, "Life is — consists of masses and energies." Well, that's not quite right, but life can be considered to consist of statics and forms, since the static believes that there are forms. So don't then go around and say, "Well, these walls are somebody's delusion." That is simply casting an aspersion on it. These walls are somebody's creation. That's correct.

Now, if you've ever stubbed your toes in the dark, you know that creations can be solid. If you've ever run 8-C, you know creations can be solid.

So we mustn't ever go off on this kick that has ruined this concept since its earliest introduction that "life is all thought" or "life is all mind." People have said these things for ages now. We mustn't go astray with this because that is not true. Life is a thought or mind or beingness that conceives there are forms, masses, spaces and difficulties. You see this?

And we can't then say to the chap, "Well, life is just mind essence," as the Buddhist does and expect him to get anywhere. He doesn't. He sits right there for the next few thousand years and contemplates the fact, which is just exactly where he gets to too; he gets to a contemplation of the fact. Why? Because he's left out the most important thing that life does: it creates masses.

And now we say, "Well, these masses are really — don't exist because they were just created and people believe they see them." That's good enough for me. I hope it's good enough for you. The last time I ran into a wall, I was convinced. And when you stop being convinced when you run into walls, you're on the way out and so is your preclear.

Now, the way to get over that conviction is to get up to a point where you can mock up a wall. And you do that with a process known as Solids; it's a gradient scale of getting around to putting together a universe that is very convincing.

When you no longer believe yourself, you do not believe your own mock-ups, you only believe the other fellow's. But you can get to a point of where you not only believe — fail to believe your own mock-ups but you fail to believe the other fellow's too, and you're on an inverted condition here whereby you are incapable of viewing the universe, but you know it is there and you're running away from it, but it doesn't exist. But the funny part of it is the only recovery we have ever been able to discover (take this down, because this is a fact), the only recovery we have ever been able to discover that was an absolute recovery was through, not out. You understand?

The difference between through and out. So the fellow who is trying to escape all the time is eventually totally trapped. The fellow who is trying to go through doesn't get trapped.

Now, in other words, if a fellow drops into an inverted state where although he once knew all of his own mock-ups were solid and the other fellow's were too and then only the other fellow's are solid, the way for this fellow is definitely not out — it's back through a belief in the other fellow's mock-ups, through a belief in his own mock-ups and out. You see that?

So although we can say that "life is simply mind essence, mind is just thought, mind is just a static" and we can say all these things and be very glib about the whole thing and then say, "Well, just why don't we retire from the whole works and …," it doesn't work. The fellow who tries to retire from the whole works by sitting on a mountaintop over in northern India is still sitting there, and it's a very solid mountaintop.

I called this to an old sage's attention one time. He told me to go up on the mountaintop and after a while I would be able to conceive the fact that there was nothing anywhere but mind essence. And I wasn't to think of anything but just conceive mind essence, but I must go up to the mountaintop.

And I asked him rather impudently, because I was a very impudent young man, I said, "Then why do I need a mountaintop?"

And there is exactly the unanswered riddle of Buddhism. Why did they need a mountaintop?

You get your preclear up to a point where he can tolerate mountaintops and he doesn't need a mountaintop anymore. But if he can't tolerate mountaintops he has to have them because he can't have them because he's got to go out and sit on them, you see? And so we get into one of these horrible muddles.

Well, Axiom 1 is: Life is basically a static.

The word basically is in there to call to attention the fact that life does things in addition to just being "a bit of a thetan."

Well, the word static sometimes causes an engineer, whose science, by the way, is very good and it does build very good bridges, but I'm afraid we've gone a bit beyond it — he calls a static something which is in a balance of forces. In other words, something is pressing up on it as hard as it is pressing down and so on, and he will point to an inkwell or something on the desk and he will say to you, "That is in a state of balance and therefore that inkwell is a static."

I am afraid that he has taken a very limited view. The inkwell we know for sure, just because the rotation of the earth, is going at a thousand miles an hour and nothing is balancing that speed. Nothing is balancing that speed. Do you see that?

So it's not a static, is it, although it is not falling to the floor, which is the only thing that seizes his attention, and that doesn't make it a static. There are eight other motions the inkwell is involved in, none of which are balanced, so that inkwell is not in a balance of forces.

A static by definition is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn't moving. And that's why we've used the word static. Not in an engineering sense, but in its absolute dictionary sense.

Some of these definitions we use you have to become much more pedantic and puristic in order to use them than they are normally used. Many of them are used very loosely. We don't use words loosely, we use them with great precision where we can. All right.

This concept, then, is not necessarily a new concept, but to state it as an Axiom as part of a science is definitely a new concept.

The entirety of Scientology works out and resolves when one views that first postulate and follows through on it. But if he is still in a confusion and thinks that a thetan is a soul or a spirit or maybe a ghost which is sitting next door so that he can take care of it or something like this, he still is mixed up in a religious implant somewhere and he needs some auditing.

The first and foremost thing that a squirrel argues about is this first definition in Scientology, and they really squirrel. The next thing they argue about is power of choice. They do this because they cannot tolerate freedom in another person. Remember that when you see these wild arguments. Just ask the fellow, if you want to really stop them, 'What freedom would you permit to?" and name somebody. And you'll just stop him in his tracks because he will not admit or permit any freedom of any kind. And if he really realizes that life is a static, he realizes it can escape and, therefore, he is defied.

The second Axiom is: The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.

That is very, very important. And although you may at times find yourself wandering into the terrible seriousness of this or that or the other thing, the truth of the matter is that it arrived by a series of postulates, considerations, opinions.

Now, a postulate needs to be further defined here. A postulate in the dictionary and a postulate in that Axiom are not the same thing. We have found a missing word in the English language. There is no word for "self-created truth." All self-created truths are by definition in the English language lies.

So we couldn't put here "The static is capable of considerations, lies and opinions," because they are not lies. When he says, "There is a man standing in front of me that I have just mocked up," there is one. If he said there was one and there wasn't one, that would be a lie. But he has done a self-created truth, you see. That's quite different, then, than a lie.

A lie is he does one thing and says something else, you see, or he sees one thing and says it's something else. That would be a lie. But a self-created truth would be simply the consideration generated by self.

Well, we just borrow the word which is in seldom use in the English language, we call that postulate. And we mean by postulate self-created truth. He posts something, he puts something up. And that's what a postulate is.

In the whole field of knowledge it is quite dismaying to discover that there is no brief word which takes up generated knowledge. And knowledge is always supposed to be something totally which comes from the outside to you, whereas 50 percent of knowledge at least would be something that comes from you to the outside.

By overlooking this little point, the educator spins in his student. What the student says or creates or postulates has to have value, don't you see. You don't just wipe him out.

For instance, I'm telling people consistently in teaching Dianetics and Scientology, "When you have a reality on this, why, believe it. But if you don't have a reality on this, then either find one or don't believe it." The only reason Scientology is true is because there is a ghost of Scientology walking around in everybody's head.

Where Scientology has been untrue is when Hubbard invented something. Hubbard tried to keep that to a minimum but he is a creative bloke. (laughter) That's a fact. Occasionally — occasionally, very seldomly, a conclusion has been uttered which is not a mirror of people's thoughts and minds. One of those conclusions was the announcement of a process which was — let's see, what was that process?

Oh yes, when Problems of Comparable Magnitude was first released, it was released as "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to" and then, "Give me a solution. Give me a solution. Give me a solution. Give me a solution." Spun people in left and right. But I said that was the way to run a case. I caught myself about — oh, I think it — I think it took me about sixty hours to catch that one, but it was in existence for then and, therefore, was invented because it wasn't true. What it was in actuality was a misobservation.

But these Axioms you will find are entirely basic. If you processed a preclear long enough without telling him any of them, he would tell you all of them. That is the test. Actually, I see some heads nodding. I know there are many old auditors who have done this: people suddenly start telling you all about the Axioms.

Now, the person who is mass-happy begins to believe that the mass is causative — that a thought didn't cause the mass, that the mass causes the thought, and we have modern science in the mid-twentieth century. "Mass caused the thought."

In fact, there is a rather puny effort to be philosophic amongst us laboring classes — not that there's anything wrong with the laboring classes, but there's a great deal wrong with a bunch of long beards that never had enough to eat getting philosophic. They come up eventually with "can't have" and that's all they ever come up with. And this "can't have" in this particular age is called communism.

And they all sat around and they dreamed up something called "dielectric materialism" and — that's not "dielectric," it's "dialectic," although what difference this would make I don't know.

And they say, "All ideas are the product of two forces." They also say, "Man is an animal and we will treat him as such." And they say, "There is no soul; religion is for the birds," practically in language as ungraceful as that.

Now, this is quite remarkable: "Every idea is the product of two forces." Well, it's very easy to convince somebody who is mired down in amongst the machinery of a factory that forces are forces and there's nothing he can do about it. He knows when somebody drops a boom on his head, he's squashed. And he knows this will give him the idea that he ought to get out of the road of booms thereafter and that's about as high as he gets with his thinkingness. You got the idea?

It's not true that ideas are the products of two forces. You can get another idea because you saw a couple of forces come together, but when those two forces came together no idea sprung out of them.

Now, you'll very often find a preclear who is taking his engrams apart to get the ideas out of them. This is quite remarkable since he put them in in the first place. What is the total idea in a mock-up? The total idea in a mock-up before the thetan begins to add ideas is "It will appear." That's the total idea in a mock-up: "It will appear." There is no other idea.

Now, we get all these bodies walking around and they are essentially just that. Their total postulate is "They will appear."

Now we want them to move or do something else, and they have to have some new ideas added to them. Now they have to have purposes, now they have to have limitations. Now they have to have certain freedoms and certain laws. All of these things are additive.

You start to take a body apart or a man apart and he will get all these additive facts. But this mock-up will still be there. To get the mock-up not there, you have to run something that handles this whole business of "appear." And "Make it solid" handles that and so the mock-ups disappear. It's quite remarkable, you see. So that — it's a very low order philosophy that says, "All ideas come from mass. Man comes from mud." If you try to work a preclear that way, you, by the way, get nowhere. It's the most nowhere that you ever got to. It's nowhere that's even south of spun-in.

Now, the third Axiom is: Space, energy, objects and time are the result of considerations made and — per — or agreed upon or not by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.

Now, we've said "considerations" up here in Axiom 2, and we've simply stretched into Axiom 3 the actual fact.

Now, there's something very funny about a mock-up, is that there's a double postulate in a mock-up. When we said, "It will appear" we have said actually two things: it is there and it is visible, see. And so appearance takes apart into thereness and visibility. But why on earth does it appear? Well, it appears because it appears. Well, it just didn't rain out of heaven. There was a thetan around someplace and he said, "It appears." And so it appeared. But it is a mass.

Now, the funny part of it is after that it can be sawed up, weighed, dissected, operated on, psychiatrized; all kinds of things can be done with this mass, don't you see?

Now, maybe only he alone sees it. But somebody else agrees that it is there too, so they both see it. And now you have a mutual appearance. When people are so plowed in or hypnotized that they are totally under the sway of a person who is denying them utterly any self-determinism, that person can then make things appear, which then appear to others with evidently no other consideration. But the funny part of it is, they already considered that they'd see what he saw, just by becoming subservient.

Therefore you have a magician usually rigs himself up in a role of horror. He rigs himself up so as to deliver a considerable shock. The psychiatrist in the mid-twenties got more and more anxious to produce an effect until he began to synthesize himself a horror role. So actually a psychiatrist can go around and talk to people and tell them that certain kinds of insanities exist and then they see them, don't you see? They don't exist at all. There is nothing emptier than a psychiatric classification of insanity.

But the psychiatrist has got himself mocked up as somebody horrible. (He's doing this on purpose, by the way.) You wonder that they would do this, but they do. They appear in a horrible role. They are proud of killing ten thousand people per year with electric shock machines. You see? That gives the impact and, therefore, that gives them a hypnotic effect on the society, don't you see.

This is the most subordered method of control known, where you produce a sufficient amount of horror in those around you that they then obey. You see that — you see that as a very low order of things, because everybody in that vicinity then becomes ineffective, relatively ineffective, don't you see. This is why a fascism and so forth becomes relatively unworkable. All right.

If you understand, then, that you get a mock-up and then the mock-up is there because it is there, it is visible by more than one because it is agreed upon, you have even time.

Everybody agrees that time goes pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, so it goes pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. If we disagreed that it went pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, we'd be back fighting the Revolution. Simple as that.

Now, the next postulate is not anywhere near as important as it was once but is quite important since we've handled objects, but we hadn't handled what they appeared in, which was space. And space, up to the time that this was understood and conceived, the fourth Axiom, was a total mystery. Just what was space? Space was nothingness. No, space is not nothingness. Space is the viewpoint of dimension, and that is what space is. It's how far we look. And if you didn't look, you wouldn't have any space. You look into your mind, you have space in your mind and you say, "Where does this space come from?"

Well, you looked, didn't you?

Now, you wonder where all this universe space came from and why is it infinite. Well, it's not infinite. Not even vaguely infinite. If you went out to its edge and looked, there would be more. Do you understand that?

But you're here right now looking only that short distance, so that's all there is of it. Do you understand? That is quite remarkable.

People get so they can't tolerate space and it makes them quite ill. You start to run space processes on preclears, they're liable to get sick at their stomach. That's because they know they can't eat space. Space is no mystery and it's not even difficult.

You can mock up space by putting anchor points around. If you told somebody to take four guidons — you know, flags on lances — and stick two in front of him, one to the right and one to the left, and then two behind him, one to the right and one to the left, he is sitting in the middle of created space because he looks at the guidons. And you just tell him to hold those and sit there, and he will get the most fantastic energy manifestations you ever heard of. Energy starts whizzing through and so forth; he has made an emptiness in the middle of his bank. He should be looking at other things; instead of that he's looking at the emptiness in the middle of these four guidons, and it's quite a remarkable piece of phenomena. You want a preclear — or try it yourself sometime, and you will be fascinated with the fact that space is thus easily created.

Actually, you have four anchor points, the top and the bottom of the guidon in front, and four anchor points behind, top and bottom of the one, top and bottom of the other guidon. You have eight anchor points then, which in three-dimensional space is what you need.

Well, why did you have an anchor point? Well, that's because — so you won't keep looking forever. See, you won't just keep looking on, on, on, out, see.

You say, "I will look this far and that is the end of that space." And that's what an anchor point does, very comfortable thing to have. A thetan doesn't like to go forever and hit nothing. It upsets him and is, by the way, exactly what apathy is.

Apathy is caused by the idea of going forever without ever hitting anything and getting anything back. And this is the basic reason why thetans love games.

Now, the fifth we have already covered more or less but it has to be there: Energy consists of postulated particles in space.

And so we have the space, we have some particles and we get, then, a motion and we get other phenomena of considerable interest to us. We're building a universe and these steps are necessary to the construction of a universe.

Now, somebody may come along and invent eight-dimensional space or five-dimensional space or something like that and "all particles are cross-eyed," but he has put just further limitations on these basic definitions. And I'm afraid these are certainly germane to this universe and they're germane to the universe of any preclear I ever audited. And so we can more or less conceive that these are the general gen of any universe.

Thank you.