Well now, we have a point here this morning. We either answer the questions or continue the lectures on clearing. What do you want?

Audience: Lectures.

All right. The lectures have it. Okay.

Probably in these lectures most of the questions that are here will be answered.

Then we do have something to talk about at once and that is the phenomenon of an inability to identify mock-ups as one's own — the phenomena of entrapment in the physical universe, in other words.

This is a remarkable thing. We could answer this very smugly and rapidly by saying that an individual makes problems so as to keep himself busy. So we could answer that. But actually, that is a brushoff; that is simply an accusation. There is an actual phenomenon which fools a thetan into thinking that he is trapped in the physical universe and that his bank is not his own. In other words, there is a phenomenon which makes the individual feel that he is not mocking up his engrams, facsimiles and reactive mind.

Now, how is it that an individual does not clearly recognize the fact that he mocks up his own reactive bank? How is it that an individual does not see that these pictures are not — his own? How does he believe that they are something else's? How does this come about? All right.

Let's look at the anatomy of this situation. We have in mental parts, from old Dianetics, we have the analytical mind and the reactive mind. Well, all the analytical-minding and so forth is, as far as we're concerned today, more or less part of the reactive mind. In other words, it might just be an upper strata of logical machinery or something of the sort. But logical machinery is not very logical. The only thing logical around the place is a thetan. And when he is gone then he no longer is fluidly logical. What he does is exercise patterns of logic which are preconceptions with him. You see, he gets this series of things that appear reasonable, but they are actually only now-I'm-supposed-to's.

Thus, we get generals acting like generals, you know? And you can stand in front of such a man and explain to him carefully that if you don't relieve Corregidor, or if you don't send supplies and quinine and rifle ammunition to the people in the Philippines, that the war is gone. You know? And this fellow says, "Now I'm supposed to, now I'm supposed to, now I'm supposed to."

Now, the difficulties of the matter is, is his now-I'm-supposed-to's are reactive, and they are added up to another situation than the one he is in. Hence, you find a Pentagon down here all set to fight the last war — always. Because its logical machinery is set up to fight one enemy of one type, and a war with a certain set of weapons, don't you see?

Now, the reason I bring up the military, actually — because the higher ranking military, in any nation in any age, has more or less behaved in this same way. It isn't just this particular military, this particular high command at this particular time. They could have fired a rocket and put something in orbit a couple of years ago, but there was no now-I'm-supposed-to to take care of it. You see? So they didn't do it.

Now, this is essentially this equation at work: "That which has happened, I have lived through, therefore it is safe." And that is what is known as logic by security.

As a matter of fact, that's the most unsafe supposition that you could make. But it again is a reactive familiarity.

Instead of, then, getting familiar with an existing situation, they take familiarities with a past situation, which are composited and beaten into some sort of a logical pattern. And these past familiarities, then, are made to serve in the present situation.

Hence, you know the truism with regard to this in Scientology: you know the fellow has got to examine present time. In order to examine present time, he must be able to confront present time. As he is unable to confront, so he then substitutes for familiarity a bunch of engrams and reactivities — engrams and reactions he substitutes for being able to look. The machinery, then, looks for him, and it doesn't look.

Be perfectly all right for somebody to have some machinery that did the looking for him if it gave him the dope. But remember, that machinery isn't looking — it is simply reacting.

Now, therefore, an analytical pattern — what passes for an analytical pattern — is actually a reactive pattern. So we are really dealing only with the thetan and the reactive mind. Do you see that? We could narrow that down in Scientology. That was a fairly good approach that we had in Dianetics. It talked. There's nothing wrong with it. It still serves to the guy out in the street that thinks he's dead in his head and he's a brain.

The truth of the matter is the only logical thing around would be that thing that could look, could draw conclusions from actual evidence. In the absence of actual evidence, in the absence of observation, we then get reactivity, stimulus-response mechanisms. And stimulus-response mechanisms are never the result of observation. Now think that thing over for a moment.

I've just told you that he takes a set of observations and then uses the past observations and so forth. But now I tell you on the other side of the picture that reactivity is never the result of observations.

Anything that is the result of an observation will clear itself. See? Those things which are direct observations clear themselves. Therefore — well, let's be very, very flat about it: The reason you want to go look is you know it'll clear. It doesn't matter how bad the oil tank fire is, or it doesn't matter how bad this is or how bad that is. The funny part of it is as soon as you've looked at it, it is less bad. Now you are — you get the result of your observation, don't you see? And if you continued to observe it, you would find that you were able to do something about it.

Now, how far that would go I don't mean to say as a flat statement, but the probability is this: That as you continued to observe it, you would find it less and less necessary to do something about it, and you would finally come out the top with regard to it, and you'd even be able to alter the situation without touching it. Now, that's the reductio ad absurdum; it's way up topside. In other words, you go — you hear of an automobile accident, you don't observe it — see, it is just a big via. And then you go look at this automobile accident and then you think you should do something about it, don't you see? And if you really inspected the automobile accident without an interposition there — no screen between you and the accident, you see — you just looked at the accident, the probability is you'd as-is it. We're now talking about a very high state of being able to observe.

Now, these screens that you run into in a preclear are interpositions which work this way: Here is the actuality, here is the world of observation, and then here is a screen, closer to him and between him and the world. And somewhere in the vicinity of the screen or inside the screen, we get a series of reactivities which take the place of observation. Now, this is based on this interesting datum: It is dangerous to look. That is (quote, unquote) "It is dangerous to look. It is dangerous to experience."

You could cause automobile accidents by training children into "safety." You would eventually raise a whole generation that would do nothing but go out and have accidents. You see this? You gave them no familiarity with accidents and you told them they should flinch from accidents.

So you could say all flinchingness and all reactivity is the result of erroneous training which forbids observation. You see where we got here? Now, this is no condemnation of the American university. It's no condemnation, at all, of training in any particular field. But it does show you that training could have two sides — there could be two sides to this coin called training.

You could train toward observation or train away from observation. It isn't training that is at fault; it is a type of training that is at fault. The reason you become upset occasionally with your father and your mother and the way they handled you is because they gave you so much training away from observation. When you protect people from observing directly, you debar them from as-ising.

Now, give the American newspaper another fifty, sixty years, and the American Psychiatric Association will never again have to worry for patients. A careful analysis of the American newspaper demonstrates that it, however, is not trying to observe for you on a via. It has a pitch. It is "how bad it all is over there." That's the pitch. Now, its pitch has nothing to do with service; it has lost its idea of service, information and so forth. This idea is lost. In its place is the Effect Scale.

Now, you know what the Effect Scale is: As a person goes downscale, he thinks he has to do more and more to create an effect. The lower he goes on the scale, the more violent he believes his effect must be. The higher he goes up the scale, the more he is capable of producing an effect and the less effect he thinks he has to produce, which is quite remarkable. Both of the things go together. In other words, an individual who could produce a tremendous effect very often really doesn't believe he has to produce any effect at all.

Hence you get the ARC triangle, whereby somebody who is very friendly, who can communicate, don't you see — all these high-toned things — his ability to communicate, his high level of reality, he can postulate. Yeah. And we go right out the top of the ARC triangle, don't you see? The second an individual comes up to a total postulation he, of course, comes up to total effect. But to come up to total ability to postulate — simply say it is so and it becomes so — he has already departed from the agreement strata and everything else. Now, he is the one who could produce a total effect. People are so well aware of this, they assign this virtue only to God.

Now, as we go up the scale, then, an individual has to work less and less hard to produce an effect, don't you see? As we go down the scale, he thinks he has to do more and more and become more and more violent to produce an effect. And we get the teenager, we get people in prisons and so on. They're absolutely certain that they have to just kill. See? The only thing they could do is — is not kill anybody quietly, they'd have to — have to kill (pounding) somebody completely and violently, and — and — and even then, they don't really think they produce an effect. You get the idea? See? They think the way to produce an effect on a baby, the only way you can produce an effect on a baby is take a double-barrel shotgun, maybe about four gauge, and fire both barrels simultaneously. And then they would sink back in terrible disappointment because they'd know, after they had fired the shot, that it didn't produce any effect.

Well, that's what's weird. As the individual thinks he has to be more and more violent, and use greater and greater effort, and more and more damaging things to produce an effect, so, at the same time, does he become unable to observe an effect. He cannot observe an effect produced. At the same time, effects become more and more unpalatable to him. He cannot receive an effect, certainly. But his production of an effect directly is less and less observed the lower he goes in tone. In other words, the less he can communicate, the more effect he has to produce and the less he is able to see that he has produced an effect.

And you see this oddity as you live along in life in this particular universe, and I'm sure you have seen it: You have seen somebody produce a tremendous effect and then go off and mope because he lost. And what do you think the cycle of rage-sympathy is?

Somewhere as we come down the scale, before a person becomes totally blind, he is still able to recognize that he produced an effect. So in a tremendous sweep of rage, he damages somebody and then sees that he produced a little bit, see — sees he produced an effect — and feels sympathy for them. You get that? Well, that's in the medium range of the scale, you see? Knock hell out of somebody and then weep over them — which is kind of silly, just between ourselves. It's very, very silly.

Now, do you know this goes down just a little bit deeper to this: We knock hell out of a fellow and then weep over ourselves. Huh. That's weird. There's the guy lying in four bisected parts, and we feel sorry for ourselves. Quite amazing. Now, this is your overt act — motivator sequence, your ARC triangle, this is your Cause — Effect Scale and so on. You know all those things, but it is also this one: It's the scale of observation. A person is less and less able to observe, the more effect he has to produce.

So you could say conclusively, then, that a newspaper which was doing nothing but trying to produce a total effect on you — the American newspaper is trying to do that. It is trying to produce a total effect on you, see? And if it could just have enough — enough data in it about kill, (pound) you see? And if — if it — if it could just — if it could just — just, you know, just — just — just have bloody enough stories, you know? If — if it — you could just make it somehow, and — and get it — get it under you that everybody was dying every place in horror and agony, you know, why, somehow or other it'd make the grade. Whew!

Aw, just read the stories. You want to know how much accuracy there is connected with these stories?

Take any story — we learned this: We have actually a lot of histories on this. The newspaper reports were found to be wildly at variance with the actual circumstances in almost every case. Wildly! Oh, it's just all hopped up, I mean it's just completely backwards — gorgeous — to such a degree that, with the data that has been sent in to me and so on, and that I've seen on this . . . You know, it says that Mamie Jones had a skull fracture, was run over by a truck and was in a coma, was not expected to live. You get there, you find out it was her mother and it was a bicycle. I mean, there — it's just weird, you know?

So you get this factor entered into the woof and warp of living: An incorrect report of what the observation is. Now, this begins with a dependency on the observation as a via. We start to depend on the observation, see? We say, "Well, there's no reason to go over and look because this will tell us what it is." Something that's just as accurate as an RAC "know before you go" map. The Royal Auto Club, for instance, has got maps written up for every section of the world, their little section maps and strip maps, and they tell you where the little stone bridge is at the bottom of the trail and how it curves over to the left and a hundred feet beyond that, why, people leave out milk cans — I mean, it's the most fantastically accurate survey of routes you ever wanted to see, you know? So you know before you go, you see? And you get this "know before you go," and it comes back, and you say, "That's very fine." Well, you find out that's dependable.

Well, having started a groove in that direction and said these vias are now, then, dependable, then we pick up a newspaper and find out about travel in North Tunafish, you know? And the newspaper says, "And the tribes are all running loose and everybody has been killed and everybody's being murdered and everybody's dead, and it's compounded and made much more horrible by a cholera plague," and so on.

And we say, "Well, see here now, there's no reason why we should go to North Tunafish because we would just get all chewed up into small bits." See, the RAC gives you a correct rendition of what the track is. And we look around to another source of information about the same area and, instead of going and looking, we stay dead in our heads and read a newspaper on the subject.

Then we do the most remarkable thing, if we do this other remarkable thing — we seldom have this experience, however; we seldom have this second experience. We just take it for granted that the data is correct, and we don't spend any time examining it. "And the tribes are all up in revolt and cholera plague is sweeping the area," and that sort of thing. If we were to go — we seldom do this; we read the report. But we go down to North Tunafish, and we find out that the local telegraph operator had a bellyache from eating green melons, and we find the tribes that are in revolt are two criminals that busted out of jail. And we find out from the officials of North Tunafish that they consider themselves highly put upon for being cost some of their tourist traffic, for the excellent reason that their roads are wide open, well policed, and they're doing the best they can. You get the idea?

Well, now you can have a reverse observation on this: "Everything is calm and peaceful in North Tunafish." So we go down to North Tunafish to find out how calm and peaceful everything is. And the second we arrive there's a ha-ha-ha of a machine gun going over on the quay, and we get our baggage ashore, but there are no porters because they're all dead from cholera and . . . You get the idea? The government is totally wiped out and upset and the land has been turned over to the rhinoceroses.

You see, we would get either observation, good or bad, being incorrect, for the excellent reason that the fellow who wrote it didn't go and look. He might have been right there in North Tunafish, but he wrote it from the south end of the longer bar in town. See that?

Now thus, observation by via, I'm merely pointing out to you, is terribly inaccurate. Terribly inaccurate. Intelligence agencies try to overcome this by saying — by a code of evaluation. And they have it all worked out to a fare-ye-well. They say that the observer is A, B, C, D grade, and the probability of the information is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So we get such a thing as A-l as being an expert observing something that sounds highly probable. See, "A" means an expert and "1" means highly probable. And we get D-5 as a person who is totally disassociated from that particular field of observation, and well, let's say, a farmer from Iowa inspecting naval affairs or some naval circumstance, and 5 is an improbable information.

You could have "D-l." In other words, you could have this highly inaccurate or unpracticed observer, a farmer, observing something that was highly probable. You see, he reports to you that there are many milk cans along the road to town. Well, this is for sure in Iowa, see? Very probable. But supposing he reports a Japanese battleship ten miles up a creek in his immediate vicinity in Iowa? You see? And it's only two feet deep all the way up the creek. So we would get a piece of information that was graded D-5. Well, that's fine. Intelligence can shake it down. But I've seen intelligence make an awful lot of errors.

But the primary error of intelligence is in not being able to get their information read by the commander. See, the commanders don't read the intelligence data. Well, of course, intelligence — now get this — is being used as a via by the commander. See? That is already one via. Well, on such a via we get such things as Munich and Chamberlain. At the time of Munich, the British foreign service had a tremendous amount of information concerning Herr Hitler, his plans, his armaments, his storage of them and so forth. And it was stacked up on, I believe it was, the left-hand side of Mr. Chamberlain's desk. And it was damning! And Chamberlain, according to foreign service, never read it. He never looked it over; he never found out what the data was. And he went happily over and signed this pact, which was the worst thing he could have done at that particular time. I only know this because I knew a couple of foreign service officers who were very bitter about it.

And for some time, we have been suspecting that Eisenhower used as his sole intelligence media, Newsweek, and took occasion to check up on this to see what he was going to say in his announcements after having read what Newsweek said about it. And never found any variation at all, until one day found a foreign policy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 points in Newsweek — well, here we go. We will hear this from the president as the foreign policy situation here in a few days. And sure enough, the president came out with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, with not even a comma changed.

Well, on the heels of this, we get a complaint from Allen Dulles — he's knee-deep in Dulles, this Eisenhower is — and Allen Dulles is the head of CIA, which is Central Intelligence Agency. And Allen Dulles, unfortunately — he should have been muzzled because he didn't really, I guess, in his rage, know what he was exposing. But he said that it didn't do any good for CIA to have agents and people all over the world collecting information everywhere if nobody ever read it. And according to his statement, it was just stacking up in the White House and nobody ever read the reports. And Eisenhower confirmed it. Eisenhower said, well, if it was in a digestible form so you didn't have to read all that stuff, why, he might be able to persuade somebody to read it. I mean, why didn't he confess that he wasn't doing his job?

Now, what I'm telling you, by the way, is easily traceable just through the newspapers of the last few weeks of January, here, 1958. Fabulous, see? I'm not railing against it. It's perfectly normal. Every time you get a fellow who is somewhat shaky in the knees and so on, you'll get him looking on a via but then not looking at the via. But this odd situation can then develop: is, the via can now tell him what to do without his ever finding out the via is telling him what to do.

If Dulles is real clever he might find out that he got all his dope from Newsweek and after that would publish his CIA reports in Newsweek. And they would get to Eisenhower anyhow. (laughter) You see that? Well, that's certainly hidden control, isn't it? Hm?

All right, if there is such a thing as hidden control then, if there is such a thing possible, don't you think it might happen occasionally in the mind?

And so it does. And that is the reactive mind — what we used to consider the reactive mind. The fellow didn't even know it was there, and it was feeding him data all the time. All of that data added up to just this one datum: observation on a via. Observation on a via amounted, finally, to not even knowing what the via was but obeying it implicitly. Do you see that? All right.

Then a reactive mind could be built into somebody by giving him all of his education on a via and never letting him look at what he was being educated in. And the next thing you know, you would have somebody totally (quote) "educated" (unquote) who was not able to observe but who was totally dependent for his observations on something else. You see that? And he'd even forgotten what this thing was looking at, for him. And we would get a reactive bank.

We could build in a whole reactive bank just by training engineers to engineer without ever letting them see any concrete, without ever letting them see any slide rules or grades or railroad locomotives or bridges or anything. We just carefully kept them from looking at anything and we kept feeding them textbooks by the shovelful. You see? And that's information on a via. We never let them even read any direct observation; never let them pick up a textbook like 7 Was a Civil Engineer in Central Africa and Built a Railroad, you know? Never let them read anything that was a real blow-by-blow, up-close-to-it description.

When we were trying to educate officers for military government, one of these things occurred early in the education. We'd educate somebody as a military governor for an area, and he would go over and he would find everything was completely reverse, or not there at all, or the situation was not even vaguely analogous to us, that he'd simply wasted time being in school before he took over his duties. He had to unlearn everything he learned. Well, the funny thing, this situation was so acute and so on, that they did do the reverse. And this was answered by dumping on the heads of students, then, actual reports written in the field on the subject of military government.

In other words, what was put in there was direct observation. Everything the fellow had seen, the logs of officers who had been in various areas and so on. This was then — all of a sudden accelerated the training problem to such a degree that they were able to cut it from nine to three months. Fascinating. Now, the fellows going over now at least knew this: that no amount of study would tell them what they were going to see when they saw it. It taught them to expect the unexpected, you see? And do something about the unexpected. And they were pretty good officers — so good that the US government has never called them back to service. Now, these boys did a terrific job.

Some of the early lads in this particular field were on Saipan, for instance, and they weren't really able to cope with the situation. Particularly since the military, the army and the more military aspects of the navy, were on the back of their necks. They had stockaded all of the Japanese people on the island, put them in a stockade, and they were having an awful time and they couldn't cope with the situation at all. And the island had been totally overrun and these Japanese and Chamorro natives were in pretty foul condition. And they were losing seven babies a day — seven babies were dying every day. That's pretty fast because there were only about fifteen thousand people. That's an awfully high thing.

So, what did our — well, Civil Affairs actually sent over a couple of newer officers. They took a look at this situation; they were better trained than the older ones. And they looked at this situation, realized that this was pretty horrible. And they couldn't get milk, couldn't get supplies, they'd write out requisitions and so forth, and the military would simply tear them up, wouldn't pay any attention to them. The military was damn mad at Japanese and Chamorros, and they were not differentiating between babies and soldiers — identification was going on.

Well, one of these new Civil Affairs officers wormed around through the communication center and got on the line to Vice Admiral Towers, and all he had to say to him was, "You'd better come here quick and take an inspection before the newspapermen do." And Vice Admiral Towers got on a plane, went out to Saipan and — seven babies were dying every day. He was the old transatlantic flight hero, by the way, ten years before Lindbergh. And the Old Man said, "Wow!" He said, "You make out every requisition you have made out to date, regardless of whether or not it will be duplicated or filled." And the Civil Affairs boys did and Towers sent it at once straight through. And actually one complete ship came out for the relief of civilian duress on the island of Saipan.

Now, it just stopped (snap) right that — that moment. The second that you got somebody to come in who was trained in the idea that something could be done — that was all the new officers knew — and as soon as you got somebody who could talk or make a postulate, like Towers, you see — to act. You see, you got him to look; he acted. And the situation straightened out at once. It practically as-ised.

"Yes," you say, "well, an awful lot of canned milk and a lot of other things were necessary to straighten out this rather disgraceful situation." But the funny part of it is, is I think if they'd looked a little harder, it would — all would have straightened out without the canned milk. I'm sure of this. The point is, is there was milk on the island, you see, and there were cattle back in the boondocks. And they probably could have reassembled the community one way or the other if they'd just looked a little harder. They didn't. They did it all on an emergency basis.

This I've just told you is a very, very true story. I had a hand in it. So I know what I'm talking about.

But here is a matter of getting somebody to look.

Well, as long as a newspaper sits there and says, "Horror-horror-horror, terrible-terrible-terrible-terrible," everybody gets the idea that the world is in such terrible condition, we can do nothing about it. You see that? It gets in this horrible condition, "we can't do anything about it, and therefore we just ought to go on the same point of the Tone Scale which the newspaper is on." If you asked the newspaper to do anything practical, it would quit. (snap) Bang! That would be the end of that activity. Don't ever ask a newspaper to do anything. Their boys are sitting down in the end of the bar and dreaming the stories up that they think will best please the editor. I mean, that's possibly what journalism has become.

I know journalism today is unable to cooperate when you ask it for direct cooperation. We've had an incident just in the last three or four days where a newspaper, by releasing a certain story, could have done something very, very good. And the newspaper looked over the story and found out some entheta over here which was a cousin to the story, you see, not intimately related. And they right away started to investigate the entheta so they could publish the entheta, but that wasn't even important. In other words, you ask them to make a direct observation, and they themselves now saw how bad it was over there. Only they didn't look in the direction you were pointing, they looked some other direction. Quite amazing. See, they can't directly observe. All right.

Just on this basis of observation, this is the way a reactive mind gets going. We don't look. The newspaper, for instance, tells us how bad it is over there, how bad it is over there, how bad it is over there. It's telling us it's so bad that we can't do anything about it, which is quite a trick and which is usually a lie. Look, if you individually cannot do something about it, then there's nothing anywhere that can do anything about it. I mean, that's a horrible thing to tell anybody. That's a great way to lose a PE audience, by the way, is say — tell them, "You can do it."

But the reactive mind starts looking, and all the observations are on a via. And these observations, then, sum up to "It's all bad and you can't do anything about it," and we get the mechanism we know as a screen. That is the direct birth of the screen. Because the next postulate after "I can't do anything about it" is — is "Well, I shouldn't, then, worry myself with it all the time." And we put up a protective screen and don't look at it anymore. You see that?

But what are we not looking at? We're not looking at something that wasn't true in the first place.

Possibly you have — contained in these vias and wiggle-waggles and inability to observe and letting something else tell us how bad it all is — probably we have the genesis of pain itself. Probably pain is totally a postulate. It's highly probable that there's nothing in the whole universe that hurts unless we say it does. It's very probable that if we weren't so convinced about the injuriousness of this and that happening to the body, that we could take our body and throw it up against the wall, drop it over a cliff, pick it up, dust it off and have it running again. There's no reason for a body to retain an illness or an injury unless we ourselves retain it in the body. We have to work very hard to get an injury stopped in the body so it will continue to deform. Now, that's amazing but true. There's no reason why a body should deform simply because it's cut up.

Occasionally you've seen miracles of one kind or another, sudden changes of healing, sudden changes of body aspect. These things all add up to the fact that somebody was in charge of something there, and if he had been in charge of it from the beginning, it wouldn't have happened.

Now, any time you wish to actually heal up a psychosomatic illness, there is one thing that heals it up — there's one thing that heals it up — one process. It's long, it's arduous, it's not the best process, it runs down havingness. There's lots of things wrong with it, but it always works. It's sort of these things — "Well, we probably could save him with some chamomile pills but an operation with a cleaver is better." Well, chamomile pills may or may not take care of it, but the operation with the cleaver certainly would take care of it in this particular case. This is that sort of process. It can be run as a present time problem solution on a limited basis and usually works very well, providing you as the auditor select out the terminals involved with your preclear's problem. That is always the first action — that is always the first action of the PT problem — is find the terminals.

In other words, get him to identify the terminals connected with the problem. Up to that time the problem has no mass. The acquisition of mass alone may blow the problem into no importance. You see? All right.

So we have him isolate these terminals, and then we ask him, "What part of that terminal could you be responsible for?" See, we isolate the terminals — terminal or terminals — that are most intimately associated with the problem. We ask him, "What part of that terminal could you be responsible for?" What part of it? And if we use that on both terminals, or if we simply use it very sloppily on "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" — that's a very incorrect version. But like the cleaver will amputate a leg, that'll amputate the problem. See, it's very grim but it'll work. See, any part of this will work.

Now, we take a psychosomatic illness and we simply say to this fellow — let's say he has a bad leg — and we simply say to him over and over and over and over and over, using this as a repetitive question, "What part of that leg could you be responsible for?" And we use that over and over and over.

We did recently, may — run this on about — for about twenty hours on a preclear who had a very bad leg, and the auditor was just going for broke. Had no such instructions. Actually should have torn the preclear to ribbons. It did make the preclear very uncomfortable along the line, but the funny part of it is the preclear recovered from that psychosomatic illness.

In other words, here is one of these killer processes. It knocks out the psychosomatic illness. It's a usable process and it's something that you could use if you wished. You find — see that?

Now if we wanted to get into real butchery, we could use this — this is not a recommended process, I'm merely showing you the direction we go here, and we're getting back to this phenomenon that makes a screen and makes a reactive bank happen in the first place — we could say, "What part of that screen or field could you be responsible for?" Nyaaow! Oh, he'll tell you at first — that's the one thing he'll tell you about the field, you know, about this screen. That is the one thing he has no responsibility for. See, that's the one thing he has no responsibility for.

Responsibility sort of adds up to ownership, adds up to taking care of, adds up to willing to say, "I made it," you see, it's what we mean by responsibility. Willing to take the authorship of the thing.

Oh no, the screen is the one thing. He might say, "Well, I'll take responsibility for all the deaths and tortures in the Napoleonic War. Yes, I'll take responsibility for all of the miscues of the Korean War. I'll take responsibility for all of the misconduct of Hirohito in the war with Japan. But don't ask me to take responsibility for that black screen." This is sort of his general attitude toward it, you see?

Well, in view of the fact, if you remember Ownership Processing, in order to as-is anything you had to get the exact ownership for it. Do you remember that? You can ask a person, "Who made this" and "Who made that" and so on, and we get a remarkable change. The answer, unfortunately, all the way — the correct answer is "I did," as far as the preclear is concerned.

You say, "Who made that screen?"

"I did."

"Who made that facsimile?"

The correct answer is "I did."

You see? But you just ask him to say this, and he will do it on this kind of a basis: "Well, if you say I have to say that to get well, then I will say that, 'I made them all.' " Isn't that wonderful? In other words, he doesn't take responsibility for it at all. He says, "If this will let me off the hook, then I'll say it." Now, it's quite remarkable. Quite remarkable.

The very fact that people could be audited should have told us this years ago — and possibly did tell some of you about it. But I was more stupid, and I had to see it the hard way and see one come all the way out just on one factor alone: "I'm responsible for it."

Now, as the individual refuses to take responsibility, so he refuses to take ownership for the bank. And his gradient scale of irresponsibility — getting more and more irresponsible for what is happening in his bank and his environment — told that he can do nothing about it, he retires from it and says, "I can't help it anyhow, why should I look at it?" And he keeps retiring from the bank, retiring, retiring, retiring, and eventually he can't handle any part of it because it's all otherwise owned. This was the popularity of Dianetics: It said, "Somebody else did it, you didn't." Well, Dianetics was not being dishonest, you could erase engrams regardless of who made them.

But let's look at this — let's look at this: His pictures are copies of what he saw go on in the physical universe. Now, his picture of Mama is a copy of Mama. And he knows Mama is self-determined and is her own author. Right? But he has a picture of Mama, so he says, "That is Mama, therefore I am not responsible for it." Perfectly true — he is not responsible for Mama, you understand? Physical-universe Mama, he's not responsible for, this is true. But the picture of Mama he was responsible for. But he gets the picture of Mama in the bank and he says, "I'm not responsible for Mama, therefore I'm not responsible for that picture." And when an individual starts copying the physical universe exclusively, he copies nothing but things he's not responsible for. So the total summation of his bank is an irresponsibility. Do you see that? The total bank becomes an irresponsibility, but he's responsible for every piece of the bank.

What he's not responsible for is the significance of the pieces of the bank which have been copied, but he did the copying. So, see the tangle he's in? He's not responsible for Mama's character or personality, but he is responsible for Mama's character and personality, which we call a valence, as it is in the bank because he made the picture. And when he thinks of Mama, he makes another picture of Mama to help him think about Mama, but that is Mama and it's something else, don't you see? He's made a picture and is responsible for a picture of something else he didn't make and isn't responsible for. So the total content of his copied pictures are irresponsibility. And the total authorships of his copied pictures is responsibility. You understand this now?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Because he's made pictures of the physical universe consistently, and because he's got them in the bank and because he's obsessively mocking them up all the time, he feels that his pictures of the physical universe are impinged on the physical universe, and therefore he's trapped in it. Well, he's got a picture there, he's misowning and it's a picture of a wall, and it is pressed against him in some fashion or another because a wall pressed against him. And he says, "The reason I am stuck is because that wall back there in 1812 pressed against me, see — the wall pressed against me. The picture of the wall is pressing against me, therefore the physical universe has me trapped." Oh, but he's mocking up the picture of the wall that's got him trapped!

Probably at no time did the physical universe ever trap anybody!

Now, because he has pictures of a body and he, being the author of the pictures of the body, is saying, "I am not the author of the pictures of the body," is therefore stuck in the pictures of the body. Do you understand that? And therefore says, "I'm stuck in a body."

It's highly improbable that anybody is stuck in a body. As a matter of fact, it's so highly improbable that it isn't true.

You fish somebody out of his head sometimes with, "Try not to be three feet back of your head," and this fellow is stuck in a lot of facsimiles or something of the sort, and he'll go out with a total mass. You never saw anything move out of the body so easily. There is no stuck-to-the-body at all. He can move in and out of the body. He gets out of the body over here, and he says, "Oh, I'm out of the body!" and he goes in, flip! "Oh-oh, I'm out of the body," he says. But if he looked himself over, he'd find out that he was out of the body, but what he was stuck in was still with him. How interesting. How interesting. Well, that — what he's stuck in — must be a field then of some sort or another, and sure enough it is.

Nobody's stuck in a body. I've already conducted this test — made people sick enough to leave, in any event, and they have finally left, and they didn't even — no slightest grate as they slid out. See? Not the slightest hindrance in sliding out of the stiff. See, there they were, they were out. They're out. They're in. They go back and forth with the greatest of ease. The facsimiles which they're packing around are not stuck to the body, which is fantastic because it tells us, then, that the body agrees that the facsimiles can hurt it, and caves in at those places where the facsimiles are placed.

Here we have the neatest little plot you ever saw in your life: The body itself is obeying the facsimile — senses it in some fashion, probably telepathically, and obeys it. But it's never touched by it. There is no evidence of any kind that any facsimile mocked up by a thetan ever touches a body at all. There is no evidence of any kind that any facsimile ever touched the physical universe at all. The body, when it registers on an E-Meter, is apparently merely being obedient on a telepathic basis. It gets tense and undense and dense and so forth, to the degree that it's supposed to by a telepathic interchange of some sort or another. Now, it's very probable that all there is, is telepathy. But that's beside the point. We're not trying to wipe that out. We're saying that no thetan's facsimiles evidently ever touched a body; no thetan's facsimile ever touched the physical universe. Therefore, we are telling you exclusively that the impossibility is to get a connection between thetan and mind, thetan and body, and thetan and physical universe. But a thetan manages it.

Now, you say he does all this just to keep himself divided up and so forth, and keep himself fooled. The funny part of it is, he can do it all so easily by postulate that there is no reason to keep himself fooled. Now, that's the final gist of the situation.

He's going on a certain series of rules, and these rules all add up to "I'm stuck." Funny part of it is, it's an impossible phenomenon. It's not credible, except on the basis of "It's a picture of Mama and therefore I'm not responsible for it."

A total butcher's Clear could probably be arrived at on the basis of "Look around here and tell me what you could be responsible for," and then let the individual pick on facsimiles or body or anything that came up. He would eventually go Clear — sort of like you'd pull a daisy apart. It'd be a rough deal — be a very rough deal. But, nevertheless, it'd be a total button.

It is a total button on a psychosomatic. We can do so well with psychosomatics, even if we merely used that one or Expanded GITA, or anything else, we can do so well on them that we are not justified in not telling people that we are experts in the field of spiritual healing. This we're definitely experts in.

Well, with the mechanism, with a person who is ill, is not taking responsibility for the illness because they've seen the illness in the physical universe and therefore they consider that it is not theirs. But they keep it mocked up and they don't realize that they're doing it because they didn't know what was doing it in the physical universe — which is all part of the reactive bank. The more reactive a person becomes, the sicker he becomes.

Therefore, the road out for any clearing or psychosomatic illness or anything else has to do, then, with responsibility, or doing it directly or direct observation of the various universes. You could probably effect a Clear merely by direct observation and nothing else — the person would eventually blow Clear. But it's a very long route. The next longest route on the thing would be the responsibility route. And the shortest route we know would simply be making the facsimiles themselves.

Do you understand this now?

Audience: Mm-hm.

See it a little better?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Thank you.