I want to talk to you now some more about the Axioms.

We've gotten up to the Axioms of affinity, reality and communication. These subjects are very inherent. For instance, in Scientology they're terrifically useful. If you want to find where a communication line is breaking, why, look for some affinity that is off. And if you want to audit somebody who is having a rather rough time, then you'd better audit them with considerable affinity. If you demonstrate enough affinity one way or the other, why, you will be able to overcome their communication reluctance.

But it's very important that you understand that all these things are basically a consideration. We have to consider that they exist before they exist.

Now, we are covering on this track the considerations which man has composited into an existence. Man has decided that certain things existed, and so he has agreed upon this very thoroughly, and so they exist for all of men.

And if he had never decided upon these various existences, why, they wouldn't exist. So we look at this affinity and we find out that — we look at reality and communication, too — and we find out that we are looking at a long series of considerations which man holds in common. These are not considerations simply because we in Scientology consider that they exist. We can do enormously important things with this information, this codification, organization of this universe. It's been going on for about seventy-six trillion years, and to be able to bust it loose and knock it apart is quite an interesting feat.

All right. Let's look over affinity and see that the first thing about affinity is the fact it's consideration. And then that in the ARC triangle, the distance of communication is represented by the affinity to a marked degree, and the type of particle — the distance and the type of particle. For instance, they say absence makes the heart grow fonder. That happens to be a lie, but you could postulate it that way and make it come out. And you could also say that if you get two people far enough apart, why, they are liable to get mad at each other. The main reason you have wars is because Russia is a safe distance from the United States. It can afford to get mad.

Did you ever notice that somebody was very furious at you as long as they were on the other end of a telephone line, but when you went around to see them they weren't mad at you anymore? Well, that's an inversion on the situation. You closed the distance and so you achieved a better affinity.

Many ways that you could handle this, but again, basically, it's a consideration.

Now, let's look at reality. And we find out that reality, in number 26: Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence.

The whole subject of reality is a baffling one to people who do not add into reality, affinity and communication. If you simply said, "Well, this is reality, and that's your reality, that's somebody else's reality," and so forth, why, you would just be talking, that's all.

In the first place, a person can postulate anything he wants to postulate, and he has a personal reality. He could simply say," It's there," and he'd say, "That's real."

Or he can have a facsimile appear which is more real to him than the actual universe around him. Many times you'll run into a psychotic and his facsimiles are far, far more real than anything else.

Well, these are two conditions which we don't recognize as reality. In the one hand, the person merely postulates reality and so that's his reality, and other people don't agree upon it, and the other part is also a not-agreed-upon reality, and that is this reality: it's an otherdetermined reality. Somebody has given him a facsimile and has really impressed him with it and so this looks more real to him than reality. In other words, we have complete selfdetermined postulation and complete other-determined postulations, neither one of which are what we consider to be reality.

Those are extremes. What we consider to be reality is in the mean of this. That is, what do we agree is real? You and I agree there's a wall there, well, there's a wall there. And we agree there's a ceiling there, there's a ceiling there. And we agree that you're sitting there and I'm sitting here, well, that's real. That's simply because you and I safely have agreed that that takes place.

Now, if somebody else came in the room and looked at all you people sitting down and said," What are you all standing up for?" why, you'd have rather a tendency to believe there was something wrong with this fellow.

And as a matter of fact, do you know what we do? We use natural selection to take out of the lineup people who have too much personal reality and too much other-determined reality. If this person walked in and said, "What are all you people standing up for?" why, if he did that consistently about a number of things and said," What is that lion doing walking on the ceiling?" we would have a tendency to lock him up. In other words, we would move him away from survival and he wouldn't procreate. In other words, we'd move these people actually out of the… at least the genetic lineup (the insane).

Now, here we have in reality a very embracing subject, because reality is actually isness. Reality is isness and unreality is not-isness (our effort trying to make something disappear with energy). And, by the way, that's very amusing, trying to make things disappear with energy. They used to talk in the Bible and other places, and they used to say, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword," and somebody said once, "Turn the other cheek." And what these people were actually saying was fighting force with force does not bring about anything like a perfect duplicate. Only they maybe didn't know they were saying that. Using force to fight force brings about an unreality. But, oddly enough, using force to build force brings about a reality.

Isness is a continuous alteration; a continuous alteration gives us an isness. A notisness (saying it doesn't exist) gives us an unreality. So there we have reality and unreality defined.

Now, how could you use this principle of reality in auditing? Do you know reality is basically an agreement? A mechanical agreement is for two forms to be exactly similar; one's a copy of the other form. That's mimicry. And we learn by mimicry.

If you go in and find a psychotic prancing up and down a sanitarium room and you simply start prancing up and down the sanitarium room exactly like he's doing, do you know that he'll stop and talk to you?

Well, maybe he hasn't talked to anybody for ages, but certainly, he now has an agreedupon reality. And having agreed upon reality, he can get into communication with it. In other words, mimicry is the lowest level of entrance of a case and is a very good thing for an auditor to know.

Now, what we know then as reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence. All right.

Now, let's take up number 27: An actuality can exist for one individually, but when it is agreed with by others it can be said to be a reality.

And let's find out that those things which have become solid to us, which have become very fixed to us, must have been agreed upon by others.

And we get something very interesting there. The anatomy of reality is contained in isness, which is composed of as-isness and alter-isness. An isness is an apparency, not an actuality. The actuality is as-isness altered so as to obtain a persistency.

Well, this agreement is part of the as-isness of this whole universe. If you ask somebody "Give me some things that you wouldn't mind agreeing with," "Give me something that you could do that other people would agree with," and so on, we'll notice some change in the case. Why? We're changing his level of agreement.

He is actually bound by certain considerations. And until he postulates otherwise, he will continue with that agreement. This is how we fix somebody into something.

The whole of existence, actually, is run very much like an hypnotic trance.

How do you hypnotize somebody? Well, you get them to agree with you. And then you get them to agree with you a little bit more. Oh, most people think that it's done by watches or something or other. It's not done that way. It's done in a very interesting way.

I don't know much about Western hypnotism. I myself studied hypnotism in the East, and when I came over to America again, I wondered what on earth this strange practice was that these people were practicing and calling hypnotism. Because it wasn't even vaguely what is taught in the East to induce trances. It's quite remarkable that hypnotism is inducible on small or large groups.

Now, the worse off a group is, which is to say, the less communication they have, actually, the more communication can be forced upon them. And you can get a form of hypnotism there. But the interesting thing is that they must have been prepared by an enormous number of agreements before they got into that state. In other words, somebody else prepared them, so they didn't care who they agreed with after a while.

Anybody in a uniform walks up to a soldier, if that uniform has a higher rank on, the soldier will obey them. Well, this is a form of hypnotism.

Now, you can take an audience and simply get them to agree with you. And you get them to agree more and more and more and more and more, and the next thing you know… And, by the way, when I say "agree with you," I mean you could get them to agree first that you were simply standing there.

And then the next thing that you could get them to agree to is the fact that they were listening to you. And then you would give them a few little things on which they would agree with. And the next thing you know, you could tell them that the world was on fire and the audience would rush out to find out. Or maybe they'd just sit there and burn. It's quite interesting. But you could move it out that way.

Now, what is this all about? Does that mean that anybody bringing about an agreement would bring about hypnotism? Oh, no. The reason why in Scientology we do not bring about an hypnotism, even by Opening Procedure by Duplication — every Case V that's had this run on him claims it's a way to induce trance — but every single one of the tenets of Scientology could be reversed and, with a bad intention and so forth, could be worked out in the opposite direction.

We are undoing the agreements which people have been making for seventy-six trillion years. Only we're undoing them, so this makes them freer and freer and freer.

Now, show you this fellow on the stage who simply gets the audience to agree and agree and agree and agree and then tells them the place is on fire. Oh? He isn't really going in the direction of making them freer, is he? His intention for this is entirely different.

It isn't that an intention is above agreement. It's that consideration is always above agreement. He is trying to work them into a situation where they will accept what he says without question. We're not interested, in Scientology, in anybody accepting what we say without question. We ask them to question it; we ask them to please look at the physical universe around you; please look at people, at your own mind, and understand thereby that what we are talking about happens to be actual. This is the series of agreements. These are. They aren't just fancy ideas.

Now, I could get people to agree with me about a lot of things. And every once in a while I could throw them a curve. I could quite imperceptibly introduce a false idea into the science and maybe somebody less scrupulous might do this. But over a period of four years, you can trace back and you'll find out the only arbitraries I've introduced into the science that are completely false are "the psychiatrists are no good" and "the psychologists are stupid."

And of course those are completely false. I mean, the fact that psychiatry kills two thousand people a year with electric shock machines of course means that they're bettering the community, and they're doing what they should do and they're humanitarian. And they're not out for money.

But introducing ideas like this, I would be apt to get more agreement from people than otherwise. But what I am giving you is not counter-thought. If you just kept, you know, fighting the concepts that I gave you all the way up the line, you would just be re-agreeing all over the place. What we're doing here is laying out the map of what has happened in seventy-six trillion years, and your agreements have finally mounted up to a point where you believe this is — this universe is all here and what you're agreeing to, fortunately, are the very things which you agreed to.

We aren't giving you new things. We're giving you old things. And by understanding these old things which we have rediscovered, why, you become free.

Well now, what is this feeling of unreality that people get, this unconsciousness and upset condition of forgetfulness, and so forth? Well, actually, forget-fulness and so on stems from an effort to make things disappear by pressing against them with energy. We push against a thought — if you can imagine this — and if we push against it hard enough and then say it isn't there while it's still there, why, we will become forgetful, believe me. And if we push hard enough, we will become unconscious.

But remember, we had to postulate that we could forget and we had to postulate that we could become unconscious before either of these things could happen.

You know, people roll around waiting to go to sleep? Then they say," I am going to go to sleep." Well, inspect R2-40 and you'll understand why the proper thing to do is to simply say "I am asleep."

"Well," they say, "that's a lie!"

No. No, it isn't a lie unless you considered that you were awake. Now, if you said, "I am awake and now I am going to sleep," why, of course, you wouldn't go to sleep. Or you might — if you could induce a self-trance you could.

But the point I am trying to make is that you can make at any moment a prime postulate. Well, more about that later.

Well, now you've had considerable about communication. Oh my, the communication… and the formula of communication and duplication and so on in Scientology that we have covered is very great. But let's read again this formula on communication:

Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication of that which emanated from the source-point.

Now, understand, we are using this word duplicate as copy. And we have a perfect duplicate, which means as-is. Now, that's the way we're using it today. When we say duplicate we merely mean a copy. We say copy, facsimile, duplicate, we mean pretty much the same thing. And when we're saying perfect duplicate, we mean as-is, and we mean the object in its place, in its time, with its own energy. But a duplicate, that is another piece of energy in another space and so forth, but it's a copy.

So we send a telegram from New York City and it says "I love you," and it arrives in San Francisco and it says" I loathe you." Something has happened there, that we don't get a perfect duplicate.

Well, the more mechanical an individual gets, the less he can make a perfect duplication, and so he can't as-is. And he falls even off to a point of where he can't make an exact copy.

So you say, "Go around the corner and tell Betty I love her." And he goes around the corner and says, "Joe said to tell you he loathes you." And he's perfectly happy doing this.

We get a line of soldiers and we whisper a message, "H-hour is at ten o'clock." Now, you're supposed to whisper that to the next soldier. And when it goes through a dozen soldiers this way, we find out at the other end "We had beans for supper" is the message which they claim was put on the lines.

This is an inability to make copies. And this is the most disruptive thing and the most significant thing about communication. The formula of communication, for your own use and so forth, is simply cause, distance, effect, with a good copy at effect of that which was at cause. That's all you really need to know about communication.

All right. There's much more to that in the manual, and you will understand much more about communication.

Now, 29 is another Axiom about as-isness and persistence. And it tells you why people have to mock up another creator, and so forth, than themselves for their own creations. In order to get a persistence, they have to assign another authorship to the creation, and so on. They have to say it's other-responsibility. That's so that when they look at it they won't make an as-is of it. You see, if they'd have said that "I made it and now I look at it," why, that would be very bad. But if they said — if they created something and then they said, "Bill made it," then when they look at it, why, they say, "Bill made it." But that's a lie. So we get persistence stemming out of a second postulate, a lie. They made it, then they said somebody else made it. And so we get persistency stemming out from any lie.

Now we get number 30: The general rule of auditing is that anything which is unwanted and yet persists must be thoroughly viewed, at which time it will vanish. And we know that, of course, in the line of duplicates — perfect duplicates.

Now 31: Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion.

And 32: Anything which is not directly observed tends to persist. In other words, if you don't as-is it, and you've already said it's going to be there, why, naturally it will be there.

But this is worse than that. You get somebody working at his work and he's never paying any attention to the machine, he's always paying some attention to the work, we'll find he has facsimiles of the machine just all stacked up like mad. He's never as-ised the machine.

We get somebody who has always looked at lighted objects in dark rooms, has never looked at the darkness, he will eventually see nothing but darkness when he closes his eyes. He'll have a black bank, in other words.

Thirty-three: Any as-isness which is altered by not-isness tends to persist. In other words, if we use force on something, we will get a persistence.

Now we're going to go into something which is tremendously interesting, because it is the proof of the fact that we have reached an ultimate truth and an ultimate solution. And that ultimate truth, and so on, is itself very, very important to an auditor. Because that tells you whether or not Scientology is a total subject.

I used to show you a circle and showed you just before you got to the top point of the circle, all data was known. When you got to the top point of the circle, no data was known. And then you had to start out with a new data again.

You went around the circle and up to the point where all data was known. Then you came up to the top again, and then you got no data known, and one datum known.

You see that? It was a circle. Everything known and nothing known were adjacent. Well, we've reached that point in Scientology. That's because all truth is a static and the ultimate solution is a static. Naturally, the solution to a problem is the as-isness of the problem. By solution to the problem, we mean: What will cause this problem to dissipate and disappear?

Well, the as-isness of the problem will cause it to dissipate and disappear. So therefore we have reached the solution of all problems; we've also reached an ultimate truth.

Now, let's go into this ultimate truth just a little bit. The remainder of the Axioms are devoted to this. I'm just going to take it up with a very fast explanation, rather than go into the remainder of these Axioms, because you have them, after all, in your Handbook.

It was entered like this: Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration — suddenly realized that. The stupidity, that's the unknownness of the consideration: you don't know what he was thinking about; you don't know what he was talking about; you don't know what it meant. Well, that means it's the unknown-ness of consideration.

Well, mechanically, the mechanical definition of stupidity is the unknown-ness of time, place, form and event. See? A fellow is really stupid. He knows something happened, but he doesn't know what happened, he can't add it up, he can't do anything with it.

All right. Now we say: Truth is the exact consideration. That's the consideration. Now, mechanically, truth is the exact time, place, form and event. Ah-ha! Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.

Well, wait a minute. We say truth is the exact consideration. Well, all right, it's the exact consideration. The truth of the fellow saying, "I am a man," the truth is "I am a man." That's the first postulate.

Now he says," I am a man," so he's a man. That's the exact consideration. He cannot tell a lie until he has said," I am a man," and then he has masked or hidden the fact that he is a man and he says, "I am a woman."

Now, the odd part of it is that he made a truth when he made the first postulate. And that which denied that truth then persisted. The second postulate always persists. I give you R2-40. The dissertation in R2-40 in the Handbook makes this much clearer. But just look at that. The second postulate persists, not the first one.

The second postulate introduces time. Now, persists is time, that's all. Mortality, immortality — this is a matter of time. It's also a matter of identity, but it's basically a matter of time. That which is persisting means that which is "timing." And if you have assumed that after you made a postulate, you then had something which permitted you to make another postulate, you'd have to postulate time there, wouldn't you?

Ah, it's quite interesting. So that's your second postulate, then, introduces time. Merely because it's the second postulate, you had to introduce time. See, there is no time in the static natively. Time is just a consideration. All right, so you introduce time, you get a lie.

This is mechanical, by the way; this is the way it works. You make a second postulate in front of the first postulate, it's the second postulate which persists. But it derives its strength from the first postulate.

There is a large dissertation on this in R2-40, and I give you that for your consideration. But the way we entered into the solution of the subject of Scientology and life was this — again, I give you this: Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration.

Well, then truth is the knownness of the consideration, isn't it? Well, right back there we have that perfect duplicate; right back on the line, we found out that when you got the asisness of anything, if you made a perfect duplicate of it, it would disappear, wouldn't it?

So, truth is a perfect duplicate. But that's a disappearance! Well, if that's a disappearance, then all you've got left is the static. So truth is a static. And it follows through just as clearly as that. It's a mechanical proof. It's as mechanical as any kind of proof you wanted, in any field of mathematics — it's totally mechanical.

Now, again: A problem is a solution only when you get the as-isness of the problem. That right? A problem is a solution when you get the as-isness of the problem. Therefore, what have we got left? We got the as-isness of the problem; we have nothing left.

Oh-oh, but we don't have nothing. We have a static.

So, we find out that the ultimate truth is also the basic truth, contains no time, no motion, no mass, no wavelength. And we find the ultimate solution contains no time, no mass, no wavelength. Very interesting, isn't it?

Very, very fascinating. So we've come back to something which is not an imponderable. Does and can one of these statics exist? Yes. That, too, we can subject to proof. And we could subject it to proof immediately, instantly and easily. Nothing to it.

You just ask somebody who's not in too bad a condition to "be three feet back of your head." You can ask him to be anywhere, to appear anywhere in the universe, and he can. You ask him to manufacture space and energy, and he can.

In other words, you can inspect, actually, whether or not this is taking place and you will find out that it is taking place. And you will find out that man is basically a static. So he doesn't move, he appears.

Now, therefore, we have this thing called the static, we have this thing called the perfect duplicate, the as-isness, so therefore we have this thing called an ultimate truth and we have an ultimate solution.

Now, I say in Scientology that we have wrapped it up. There are a great many strong points on the track where there's a lot of data hidden in chaoses and confusions and that sort of thing which we've bypassed, a lot of things which we haven't described adequately. For instance, I am not even satisfied at this moment completely with affinity and our description of affinity. But I can tell you this: that they are bypassed points.

The other evening at two o'clock in the morning I suddenly found myself out at the edge of a cliff, looking at end-of-track. It is end-of-track. That's right — there was no more road. There isn't any more road out there, that's all, because we've come back to the static.

And we find out what this static is, we can demonstrate its existence, we can demonstrate what it does, we can prove it and we can all agree upon that proof. And we can do wonderful and miraculous things with it.

The forty processes contained in the Auditor's Handbook can do those things, just like that.

Now, if you can do the first few of those processes well, certainly up to process 20, you will be doing very, very well. If you understand this whole subject, why, come down to Phoenix and I will give you a D. Scn. But if you could pass the CECS with great ease, without any further training, we would be very surprised people — very, very surprised people.

Okay.