Well, how's it going today?

Audience: Good. Pretty good.

Now, I've been talking to you on a lot of impractical, theoretical material, and I wish to give you now the practical aspects of the state of Clear, and some tests concerning it.

There is a one-shot Clear. There really is a one-shot Clear. There's one postulate which, if you ask somebody to hold it in his head for a while, gruesome things would occur. There are many versions of this postulate.

By the way, this was a research test process. There have been a great, great many research test processes, few of which have ever seen the light of day. And only now have some of them become important. This is one. I just wanted you to know there is a postulate back of Clear.

And the crudest version of it is just "desire to be familiar with." You just get the guy to get the idea that he desires to be familiar with — have him close his eyes and just get that idea and hold that idea, all sorts of gruesome things start occurring. It, of course, is not a therapeutic version. It's highly demonstrative, however, of what he is doing.

Now, more of an applicable processing version is "trying to be familiar with." You have "Get the idea of trying to be familiar with." A more therapeutic version than that is "Regret having been familiar with."

Now, of course, all of these tests are out of old-time Concept Processing. Remember, you hold the idea, get the concept and so on.

Some chiropractor, I understand, years ago after this was released out of early Scientology and so on, made an entire gimmick out of this. And it was down in Texas or someplace — disgrace to the state of Texas. But he probably loused up a tremendous number of people.

Now, "regret to be familiar with," that isn't just a snide comment. I mean, it's very funny, you take a little piece of something as beefy as Scientology and go off over the hills with it and know nothing that surrounds it in any way. It's like somebody tells somebody to — all he needs is a pair of tennis shoes to walk across the Dismal Swamp, you know? Eight cottonmouth bites later, why, he … This, of course, reduces havingness like mad.

Now, we get down to a process that is almost therapeutic — almost therapeutic, is "Recall a time you desired to be familiar with time." Getting involved, isn't it?

All of these things, however, are simply test processes. And its only value — its only value, really, is the fact that it, amongst all processes, will turn up more ridges and goofball manifestations faster than any other button, which, of course, is a test of this idea of becoming familiar with the four universes, you see. The idea of familiarization as opposed to conditioning, you see? And it is a test which differentiates between conditioning and actually just becoming accustomed to.

A person runs out fear to become familiar. In other words, the whole idea of conditioning is running out an unwillingness to confront. You see? And that isn't running anything into the reactive mind at all, see?

The psychologist would just love you to believe the Pavlovian, Wundtian, "American" Psychological Association, Karl Marx dialectic materialism school of Let's-Do-'Em-All-in — would just love you to believe that if you implant somebody enough he gets trained.

Now, this is what's wrong with American education today. It's why they're having difficulty with science. It's why Congress is just now about to make the greatest mistake of its existence in creating a Department of Science and Technology.

The whole picture of " implant to know" is a totally incorrect look. It's not implant to know. One becomes familiar with "to know," and you actually run out fear of. Actually, the process of education is to erase restraint toward something. If you erase restraint toward something, then you achieve education.

If you implant somebody, then you achieve automaticity. You achieve a lower tone and a lessened ability. Modern collegiate education today is of the implant school. Then they want the implant back at the end of the term. And if you can't give them the implant back, you're not educated.

I'm well accustomed to this. I remember there's a dead mathematics which everybody has to have before he can take higher mathematics than that: It's called analytical geometry. But it — in essence, it's a dead mathematics. It itself, as itself, has no real application. I think the only practical problem that it solves is the area of an irregular body of land in surveying. I think you can do that in analytical geometry. If you have something with odds and ends of borders going north by east by south by west, and it's totally octo-nonrectangular, why, you can actually get its area if you plot it by analytics. So, I know of no other real application for this mathematics, and that's a highly, highly specialized use. And they insist, however, that you have this. Actually, there is some necessity to know something about graphs and slopes and things like that, before you go into another nonessential mathematics called calculus.

But the main point I'm making here is, is that this nonessential mathematics — dead mathematics — would actually be simply an exercise or a series of exercises in the logics of plotting. You know? That's about all it could be. And there'd be no real reason to get it right on the nose. You know? There'd be no reason to be precise about this confounded mathematics because it isn't going to go anyplace.

And that antagonized me. I was being asked to spend a whole semester studying this stuff, and try as I would, I couldn't find any use for it. So I got mean, I got mad and I invented a use for it. I found out that you could take the slope formula and apply it to aerial navigation and that it would work out your courses and speeds — which was just using that by taking the aerial maps they had of the day and plotting them as squares, you see, and then have their coordinates match up, and you could go from coordinate to coordinate on some kind of a formula. And you had to put it on a little ruler and you're all set — sort of a slide-rule affair. Clumsy, but it had some use. As a matter of fact, I sent it down to the navy just to say I'd sent it someplace. I knew it would go nowhere if it was sent to the Navy Department, so — good safe thing to do.

We'll be* saying that tomorrow about the Department of Science and Technology. How to dead-end something utterly — well, you send it to the Department of Science and Technology. I'm sure we'll be saying that. The government has the world's lousiest record, by the way, in the reception of science. It begins with the breech-loading rifle in the American Revolution, continues through the refusal of the torpedo from Robert Fulton. That's gorgeous. It has a wonderful record.

But anyway, I knew that would dead-end, nobody would have any use for this. But there was still something that could be done with this. And I proudly presented the fact to the mathematics department at GW, saying that this dead mathematics could be made useful; it did have a sphere of application. And sounds like an exaggeration — they flunked me. They flunked me. I had to actually go up before the dean and the chair of mathematics and so forth, and insist on a complete examination in analytics before they would give me a grade.

So be careful about making things practical when people have carefully and safely pronounced them dead. You see, there might be a liability to this.

Now, if the human race has been pronounced dead, then we decide to wake them up, we're of course going to run into some trouble here or there. You see? We're going to run into a little bit of trouble. That's obvious. Well, the funny part of it is, we've run into the trouble. We've been there and back.

Now, in the whole field of research and investigation you get a tremendous amount of dunnage, you might say. You get tremendous numbers of byroads. You get awfully tangled and involved sidetracks. And we've run down plenty of these — plenty of them. They're all over the place, until you could say the mind itself is an accumulation of sidetracks that you don't need. The best description of somebody's mind is that he has a sufficient number of sidetracks not to be able to do all that much.

Now, familiarity with a subject is not familiarity with mass. Familiarity with a concept is not familiarity with mass. And as a result, any attempt to run very long in this direction, to audit significances, to audit ideas only or to change the mind directly are, then, unfortunately doomed to failure.

You have to establish familiarity with mass before you can establish any familiarity with ideas. And the mass actually is — most of the people you audit are below being able to tolerate mass. And when they at once and immediately target significances and ideas, and bypass mass and not rehabilitate their tolerance of mass, they lay one of the more gorgeous pterodactyl eggs. You see that?

Now, we get somebody to change his ideas about a tree before we make it possible for him to be on the cause end regarding the mass of trees. And all we succeed in doing is pushing him further into the soup. You got that?

Audience: Yeah.

Now, it's not that — this is not correct. We're still talking about tests for Clear. This is not correct. Changing ideas directly is a fatal activity. You got that? That's not correct.

But a case that cannot easily face a nothingness, or is facing nothingness because it cannot face a somethingness, the direct change of postulates and ideas becomes a fatality. Now, this is a highly limited truth, see? Now, the reason for this is an intolerance of mass causes the individual to look at nothingness. Let's go over this now. You understand this?

Audience: Yeah.

Now let's apply our definition of Operating Thetan. And we'll find, then, that this-person looking directly at ideas or nothingness is not being cause.

What is being cause? The thing which is causing him to look at nothingness is an intolerance of mass which is not himself. So the intolerance of mass, then, continues to be cause. And we have explained then, all downgrade mysticism, all downgrade occultism and so forth.

Well, fantastically enough, we have actually isolated what is being cause: Intolerance of mass is being cause. Fear of familiarization — that is being cause. In other words, the cause is exterior to the preclear. And he, therefore, faces ideas and nothingnesses and significances and figure-figure much more happily than he will face a mass. But he doesn't get any better.

Well, this is one of the nicest points in processing that you will ever meet. It took years to finally get around to a comprehension of just what I'm telling you now. Obviously, if everything is basically a postulate or a continuing postulate — which is to say a consideration — if everything is an idea, obviously we should have right at it. Process the ideas, and the fellow is all changed around and wham. Nothing to it, is there? All we had to do is process that. . .

Unfortunately the Laman religion, the Buddhist, made this mistake two and a half thousand years before we came along. So they would get this oddity: They would take any twenty cases and one of them would feel better. Get this? And nineteen of them would spin in.

Why? Obviously if it's true, if — in Christian Science they say, "All is infinite mind." In fact I think they start every service with some kind of a statement concerning infinite mind. They say, "Look at the idea; all you have to do is look at the idea and you're all set." Well, before that, Siddhartha Gautama said all you had to do was conceive mind essence and you were a bodhi. See? Bang. See, that's all there was to it. Yeah. Yeah, for somebody who could tolerate mass. See? It was perfectly true, as long as the person they addressed it to could tolerate mass. Evidently Siddhartha Gautama could tolerate mass. And he never noticed that other people couldn't. And it's the tolerance or intolerance of mass, since that early time until now, which has held up the entire parade of progress in the field of the mind.

In an effort to get some mass into it, the Euro-Russian psychologist has said there is only the brain.

Yesterday a news story came out. The French, who have been making progress ever since they started to teach Dianetics at the Sorbonne — they were doing that several years ago. They've been making some interesting progress in the field of insanity. One of their projects, by the way, was to dress everybody up in a past period which agreed with their insanity. And they found they were not insane as long as they were in that surrounding. That's taken from our past track stuff.

A recent idea is a direct outgrowth of Scientology, immediate and direct. They couldn't quite buy it, you see, so they said, "Brains communicate with brains but not with voice." And they have worked out what they conceive to be a conclusive proof that people are not communicating with people by vocal sounds but are communicating with a brain vibration to a brain vibration. They took it off one type of vibration, air vibration, and put it on to some kind of an electronic vibration, and they think they've got it, you see? They're not actually — they haven't gotten anywhere, but it's an interesting observation for somebody to make. The substitution of brain for thought is one of the wilder divergences.

But there's an earlier one even in the Aesculapian schools, which is a wilder divergence than that: the substitution of punishment for help. That's an awful flip, isn't it? I don't know how you would go about punishing a thetan with a club or an electric shock or a drug. I don't know how you would go about punishing him directly — no via mass, you see? But they've been trying it for an awfully long time. They have been punishing the mass with which a thetan was associated.

Now, get that as a dramatization of kicking away the idea of mass. Get psychiatric treatment as a dramatization against mass. Again, an intolerance of mass.

So in several fields, we have this whole idea of mass intolerance or intolerance against matter as being a primary stumbling block in the field of the mind. And evidently, nobody ever got around to looking at it and finding out why it was a stumbling block.

Now, our breakthrough, actually, takes place with the recognition of mass, matter — an intolerance of and tolerance of. Obviously, all you'd have to do is make up your mind to be Clear and be Clear. We've been saying that for years. But for some reason or other it doesn't happen. Do you see that? Well, the interposing link is matter. It's all very well for some religious leader to tell you that all is infinite mind or mind essence, and all you have to do is consider significances, change a few ideas. It's all very well for that to occur, but only for those people who can already tolerate mass.

But if you had a total mass tolerance, you would have a Clear. In other words, clearing has been possible when you had Clears. So we can then assume there was no actual doingness anywhere along the line. Somebody'd say to somebody — you've said this to somebody I'm sure, some preclear — you've just described to him a better state and he, all of a sudden, assumed it.

Well, people observing in this particular field back through the years have all had that little experience occur, you know? They've had that experience. All of a sudden they sort of told somebody to get well and the fellow changed his mind and got well and so on. And they have tried and tried and tried to repeat the phenomenon with failure, failure, failure. In fact, this is the history of the Christian church. You understand that if you showed somebody a relic and he just decided at that moment that by seeing the relic he was now well, he would get an instantaneous recovery. But if you showed the next guy a relic, why, he thought that was fine but nothing happened. Yet they went on showing people relics and never tried to find out why the 78 percent that were shown relics did not immediately recover.

About 22 percent of the race at any given generation is evidently tolerant of mass, and the remainder of the race isn't. And you get a 22 percent recovery no matter what you do for somebody.

Of course, we're asking psychiatry an embarrassing question. We're asking psychiatry why they're not getting their 22 percent? Because there is nothing in psychiatry that asks anybody to do anything. It's totally shock, mass, bang, crash, so forth, or talk him to death or evaluate like mad for him.

Psychoanalysis had the condition that if you isolated some past — the exact past experience — what a fantastic thing to assume that you only had one experience in your life that was aberrative. I mean, that is really an assumption of magnitude. But they thought that all you had to do — all they had to do was point this out to the fellow and he'd get well. Well, of course, they could get somewhere near their 22 percent. See? Because about 22 percent of the people they'd have anything to do with, so long as they were just taking people at random in the society as you would in a test series, why, you'd get — 22 percent of them would recover. They'd change their minds; they'd decide, well, it was — they were doing it in some fashion and they would change their minds, and they would get well and they would get over this.

But in practice, the psychoanalyst was getting crazy people. And these people were intolerant of mass. So by test of broad strata in the society, you had psychoanalysis while being studied by Freud as successful at least to 22 percent. But the moment you began to practice it, which is to say you took selected cases, the percentage went rrrpp practically down to zero, till you really can't find anybody that's been helped by psychoanalysis. It's a pretty hard thing. I mean, auditors in scrounging around are fascinated by the fact that they can't find people who have been made well by psychoanalysis. They find somebody who has terminated a psychoanalysis, and this person is being careful and knows that if he goes on being careful and restraining himself enough that he will be successful in some limited sense. And the auditor doesn't think this is a very good test of freedom and so doesn't give psychoanalysis any handout. Don't you see?

Any system, then, which asks the broad strata of the public simply to change its mind would have a cure wherever the person was already tolerant of mass.

Now, people are more tolerant of the type of mass you see in that wall than they are of the type of mass they find in their minds. So let's refine it, now, and find out what kind of mass tolerance we would address in order to achieve an immediate result in processing. And it would be the type of mass which is in the mind. Therefore, the address of that mass is primary in processing. And a tolerance of it in a very high degree of solidity, and a tolerance of the space and a tolerance of resulting energy, and also a tolerance of time or continuance, all, then, pursue a process and come out clean. And we have the preclear, then, able to change his mind.

We get him to work mental energy masses, spaces and so forth. And we, of course, work spaces without ever mentioning them. And we can actually, directly work energies today, which is quite amusing. You have him hold an invisible particle in front of him and keep it from going away. Nice, slick sort of process. You can have him hold a germ in front of him. You can ask him what he's holding it with, and he'll say, "A pair of steel tongs" or something like that.

And you say, "That's just fine, that's just what I want you to do." Of course, he's becoming tolerant of the steel tongs. He's eventually able to change his mind about invisible particles.

But in the final analysis, the whole trouble with invisible particles folds up the moment that mass tolerance takes place in this second universe of the mind. You see that? In other words, we had a nice great big hedge on this steeplechase of research, and that hedge was just this: mass — tolerant or intolerant. Was the preclear — could the preclear tolerate mass or was he intolerant of mass? And if he could already tolerate mass, then we could do almost anything with him. But if he could not tolerate mass, then we couldn't do anything with him. Hence we have havingness.

Now, there is no preclear in such good shape that he can't stand a little more tolerance of mass. So you can take this accidental: He can tolerate mass.

We take this accidental and what do we find? That it can be improved. So it's a gradient scale of tolerance. But any tolerance of mass will then cash in, in processing. And down below the line, intolerance of mass holds it up. Hence you're having him mock up things and keep them from going away. You are handling at once mass, movement and time. You're handling these three things. You are also handling obedience and control.

But let's take a much wider look at this, then, and take a look at the test for Clear. You'll be very interested, I'm sure, in tests for Clear because there are several attributes. These are totally mechanical, have nothing to do with ability in the broad world, have nothing to do with his intelligence, have nothing to do with his personality. It's a can or can't proposition. It's open and shut. There is no halfway gradient point. And we find, then, that the test for Clear, or the attribute which a Clear must have, or the attributes which he must have, are as follows:

One, these mock-ups which you're asking him to make — this all comes out in the wash in the process you're doing — but he must eventually come to handling these things with postulate alone.

Now, don't try to handle them with postulate alone if you can't. Go on and handle them any way you please. I'm not evaluating for your case, I'm just saying, eventually it'll turn up that you're handling with postulate alone. You got the idea? They — not go away with postulate alone. They get very still with postulate alone. They become more solid with postulate alone. Do you understand that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, as tolerance of mass improves, ability to postulate improves. It's a gradient scale for a long distance; a fellow almost can, but when he finally is able to postulate these things, boy, he can. See, it's just a fact.

Now, how much better he can postulate than that is none of our business. We're not interested in how much better he can postulate than that. We're just interested in that one fact: He is doing that. You got that? That's number one question that would be asked of a Clear, is — is he postulating these things into existence or is he still beaming them, mauling them, using energy and masses to handle them? Using a mass to handle a mass denotes a fear of mass. And one sort of erases that and gets over to a point of where he can directly confront them. And when he can directly confront them, he can of course postulate them.

There could be, you might say, a much cruder test than that which should have been the first one: is, can he mock up? But that is so crude it's off the line.

We'll take the next one. And that is to say, he is null on an E-Meter on mocking up anything and doing anything with it; he remains null. Even though he is acting and reacting and so forth, actually it is not registering on a sensitive meter. And really, no matter how much one of these modern E-Meters is amplified, you will not find any registering. Now, the odd part of it is, it's a terribly safe test. Because anybody who would register on an E-Meter will also register when he lies.

One of the interesting tests of an E-Meter is to set up the sensitivity and ask the person to say "no" to each question you ask him. And he says "no" to each one of these questions.

And then you say to him, "Are you sitting in a chair?"

He is sitting in a chair, and he says, "No." You get a reaction on an E-Meter.

So you say, "Did you mock that one up?"

He says, "Yes," he'll get a reaction on an E-Meter if he didn't. You see that? In other words, it's also a lie detector.

So it's actually not possible to squeak by this one, unless you just chopped up the guts of the E-Meter so it wouldn't work at all.

Well, almost anybody will register on an E-Meter if you bat him one on the back of the head. So you can tell whether or not an E-Meter is registering. See? You'd tap him back here, caress him back of the neck, something like this; anybody, even a Clear, will get some little reaction. Got that? So then you know the E-Meter is reading. And then you ask him to mock some things up and keep them from going away. And ask him if he did it. And, of course, if you say, "Did you do it?" and he says, "Yes," but he didn't, he'll get a reaction, and then you know what the score is.

So that is one of the hotter tests, because it's quite objective. It shows up on an E-Meter. You see that?

And the other one is, does he seem to you to be in good shape? That'squite important. That doesn't outweigh the other tests but it certainlyaccompanies them. Does he seem to you to be in good shape?_

There is yet another test: Is he positive in his replies? The old comm test. Communication lag test. Are his replies sequitur? Is he definite?

I'll give you a test for aberration the like of which you never saw before. I mean, this is a wonderful test for aberration. You all know all about it already. But I can usually spot a state of case without looking at any pictures or bank. I'll say something to somebody, and he will give me a scientist-type reply, which always begins with, "Well, I don't know, but. . ." The divine right of being doubtful, which is very much overexercised by the boys in the physical sciences and so forth. They think there is some virtue in being doubtful.

You say, "Well, could this be done?" You ask them, "Could it be done," whatever it is, you know?

And they say — well, they don't know, but. . . Now, they may not use those words, but they'll use that attitude.

You read some of these scientific papers and they're 50 percent on yes and 50 percent on no. And they go wobble-wobble-wobble-wobble, in conclusion, in conclusion, in conclusion, flub — is the meter on which they scan.

You'll find somebody who can really do something, does not write such a paper. But it drives university chairs and other people utterly stark, staring mad to read a positive paper. They cannot stand positiveness. They'll be very critical if they're given something positive. Somebody says, "In conclusion, the square root of the cube law is blank, blank, blank. Signed, Q.E.D." so on. You'll see some chair of mathematics or physics or something, ordinary guy that they get in there, just go zzzzzzzz — dow.

I had one tell me one time, " I tried to read your book, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health."

I said, "Couldn't you manage it?"

"No! You kept making conclusions, conclusions, conclusions!"

And I said, "Yes," I said, "that was interesting, wasn't it? Conclusions."

He says, "But there are no conclusions in the field of the mind! You know that!"

Wonderful fellow.

Now, you ask somebody who just finished an intensive. This is one of the ways I spot it, see. You ask him — he's just finished an intensive, he was brand-new, he came in and he got an intensive, and you ask him, you say, "How did you get along?"

And he says, "Well. . ."

I could say at that point, "Another week." See? I'd just say, "Another week." You know? And I'd be right. But because they're supposed to have the right of saying things, and saying their say at this time, why, I let them go on talking. And, of course, it always patterns off of this: "Well. . ." Doubt, doubt, "maybe," "perhaps," qualification, qualified, "but. . ." And when they get these sentences all strung out, there were no periods in them but plenty of doubts. You see that?

You say, "Did your auditor do a good job?"

"Well. .." blah, blah, blah, blah.

If the fellow is in pretty good condition, he's already — now get this carefully — made up his mind about it. In other words, he has a conclusion. He habitually makes conclusions. He has opinions and he can express his viewpoints.

Now, you'd be in pretty wonderful condition if you were audited for a whole week by somebody and you decide at the end of that time that he was, "Well, I don't know." See, the guy was fair or the guy tried or the guy was very good or he stunk. You see, there's a variance. But the expression of the variance would be positive. A person who can postulate seldom says "maybe." So this is an indirect test of the ability to postulate.

Now, the only time a person who can postulate goes out into long strings of "maybe" is when he doesn't have enough data. And he will put something on wait until he gets data. So his questions then, if you're able to furnish him the data, will sort out data. And you have an immediate test the moment you ask somebody something about his case or about something else.

Now, you can ask somebody at the beginning of an intensive, somebody who's in pretty good shape, "Well, how do you think you will make out?"

He will tell you, of course, the only rational, sensible thing, "Well, I'll wait and see." See? That's the only sensible thing he could say.

He could say, "Well, I'll predict that I have a good intensive and postulate it and make sure." But you probably talk about an OT, and he wouldn't need any processing.

So people who are about to be processed, or people who have just been processed, respond to some degree, positively. If they have any reservation, it is a reservation for lack of data. If their statements are dragged out or conditional, it is on the basis of lack of data.

Now, I'm not trying to hang anything around your neck. Act any way you please. I'm giving you some tests for Clear.

His statements are, to a marked degree, conclusive — merely demonstrating to you that he has concluded. When we were asking a chap the other day on an interview at the HGC, the interviewer, who was not Clear, was asking this person about this, and there was only one thing impressed the interviewer. And that was that the fellow had an answer for every question which was quite positive. And he'd never seen this fellow positive before, and this was what overwhelmed the interviewer. Even though the fellow didn't know, he certainly said so. See, if he had not reached a conclusion, he said that, too. But the interviewer had known this person earlier and this person had always prefaced everything with, "Well, I don't know . . ." and then had qualified, qualified, qualified and gone on to the end of the conversation with nothing but qualifications, and no standpoint or viewpoint of any kind in between. You got that?

So that is a little sort of eyesight, ear to the ground sort of — ear to the chest sort of test for Clear. Look at the ability of the individual to be positive or to be concisive. Even though he doesn't know, there is no reason for him to comm lag.

Of course, he tries to remember something, that is something else. That's not a comm lag. It's just — you say, "Well, did you feel better than this before?" or "Have you ever felt any better than this?" Something like that.

He says, "Well. . . (pause) yeah, when I was a kid I probably felt better than this a time or two."

Well now, why did you get a comm lag?

Well, you're asking him for a new chain of rationale. You're asking him for a new chain of thinkingness. And he sometimes has a little difficulty shifting his gears, getting over into another pattern.

If he were in terrifically good condition he, of course, would have no difficulty at all. But you're not going to hold this against him. Particularly after somebody's been processed. Because his whole bank and habits of thinking have been completely shaken up, and he is not now accustomed to thinking this way. And he has to become refamiliar with the whole thing. You get the idea? But he'll know this.

Now, these various tests are quite interesting. I have not said a blessed thing about psychosomatic illness. Is he still psychosomatically ill?

Well, how are we to determine whether an illness is psychosomatic or not?

Psychosomatic illness turns out to be (just amongst us girls, here) no test for Clear because it might not have been psychosomatic. You understand this? Well, a fellow has got four tendons cut. "Well, oh yeah, yeah," you say. "Oh yes." Now, they didn't heal up, and he's in excellent condition, then we have to conclude that they were not psychosomatic but physical. Get that? We merely conclude that he is weak in the universe of bodies. But that's nothing against him. That's nothing against him. He very well might patch these up in the next six months. See? This requires some looking at it, some settling out and so on.

Of course, we did have somebody with a withered arm one time. And this person had been moping around and moping around with a withered arm. And some auditor audited this person. You know, we've always been getting in the last seven years, we've been getting fantastic results. Just because we're doing something new is no reason why we were all tramps yesterday, you know? And this fellow was going around with a withered arm, and he was moping and doping and so on, about this. It seemed to be about all he could talk about and so on. And some auditor got real mad about it and grabbed him.

This auditor, by the way, had a good reason to be cocky. He had about a four- or five-year-old boy who had two withered arms, very short. And this auditor had gone down and processed this little boy, just on the miracle basis, you know? And he only processed this little kid for a few hours, and all of a sudden the little kid's arms grew out to proper length. Case is lying up there in the file. Anyway.

The auditor got mad about this withered-arm deal and, himself, ran the body. Got this? This is different. This was "no-cognition-Pete," the preclear, you see? No idea had ever turned up in any process, you see. And the auditor just mauled this guy around, you know, and the fellow's arm grew two inches, and at last observation seemed to be recovering.

The preclear, however, was very surprised and went much deeper into apathy. The auditor could much more ably face a preclear's body and handle it and do things with it, than the preclear. So, that somebody's psychosomatic became well is no test of Clear, either.

Because more and more auditors are going to be Clears. And they will find themselves more and more able to confront bodies and do things with them. So just that a body got well is no test of a Clear at all.

That it remained caved in is no test of Clear — not necessarily. Because it might be physiological on some kind of a basis or another. The fellow actually might have a tumor as big as his brain. You get the idea? We can only say now that he will attempt to do something about the condition. That's all we can say about it. But that he doesn't at once do something about the condition is not an invalidation. Do you see that? Over a span of time with a Clear you will see the condition change.

But "Clear" is a definition of a thetan. And "psychosomatic" is a description of a body. So we do not confuse a mental condition or a thetan condition — well, let's be very positive, let's not confuse a thetan condition even with a mental condition. Nor a thetan condition with a body condition. It is not fitting to say, "She is beautiful, therefore she is Clear." Well, "She is beautiful," what do you mean? She has a beautiful body, maybe. See? She has a beautiful body, then this is no index, because I've seen some "operating GEs" in my time! They're just about as much alive as a mannequin in a store window. We've seen some of them and I'm sure you have — wide-open cases. Wow! Bank total effect on thetan. "Operating GEs," we call them.

Now, whenever we have an observation or a test for Clear, let us make sure that it is a test of a thetan. Tsk. Got it? And the one thing that we say he must be able to handle is a mind. Now, let's not stretch it any further than that, shall we?

If a thetan is in good condition, he can certainly handle a mind. If his tolerance of mass is high, then he can handle mental tolerances. Now, that's what you're demanding of him. If he can ably handle mental tolerances, as his own familiarity in the field of livingness increases, he will eventually be able to confront, handle, do things with the body. And as his livingness increases, his familiarity and so on, he will eventually come around and handle the fourth universe.

But you cannot lay down — that I can find out — you could not lay down any specifications as to what he should be able to do with a body or specifications of what he should be able to do with the physical universe. Unless you started classifying OTs. Now, this is what you saddle an OT with. See, he, for sure, is able to confront bodies and do things with them. And he certainly can confront the mest universe.

A familiarity with his own body, just so that he's not scared to death of it, a familiarity with an auditing room just so he's not flinching and going — doing a bunk past Arcturus every time he notices that he's being in session, is about all you could ask of somebody.

So these, then, are not — basically, let's be frank, just because they can't be defined these are basically not, then, part of any test for Clear. The body, the physical universe: no test for Clear. Thetan, mind — these are tests for Clear.

He has no reactive bank. What is a reactive bank? A reactive bank is evidently that hidden automaticity which apparently stores and gives up facsimiles without choice by the preclear. That's evidently a reactive bank. It is the automatic "furnish you with facsimiles of all shapes, sizes and kinds even when you were asleep" sort of mechanism. You got it? See, that's a reactive bank. A Clear does not any longer have a reactive mind unless he puts one there.

Now, obviously he's come up to an ability to remember without masses. Let's go right back to masses again. He doesn't have to help himself and his memory by furnishing himself with a mass in order to know about it. See? So you've come back to the ability to make postulates. Well, of course, he can always put it there, but there is no reason for him to do so.

There's a little trick that you yourself can pull, you know, long before you get Clear. You say, "What was his name? What was his name? What was his name? What was his name? What was his name?" It's not going to do you any good at all to sit there and chant this.

Because the more you talk and think about it the more mass you as-is and the less likely you are to remember. You'll get the phenomenon of taking your mind off the subject and then remembering a couple of hours later. That's when enough mass has developed to give you the hot dope on an automaticity.

Well, there's a way to short-circuit this and directly route it. You can route it at once merely by mocking him up — it's an interesting test. "What was his name? What was his name?" Don't go on chanting, "What was his name?" Mock him up. Mock him up. Mock him up. Mock him up. Mock him up. And you finally say, "Hello, Joe."

Your consideration, evidently, is that you have to have the mass before you have the dope. We could say, then, that dialectic materialism, which says from two forces you get ideas and so forth — they're so low on the scale they don't even mention masses. The only masses they can think of are masses of people. But "from two forces you get ideas." See? There's a little clue about this. That's simply the idea that an individual has to have the thing before he knows the thing. He can't get the thing conceptually.

Think of the state that Nikola Tesla must have been in. Think of this guy in terms of Clear: He set up in his mind the alternating-current motor and let it run for a year or two to see what parts wore out. That was the way Nikola Tesla invented the AC motor.

Well, now, to have that much mass around undisturbed and never pull at it or get interchanges with anything else because of it, man, could that guy tolerate mass! And motion. See? Here was probably the greatest electrical genius of the age, the last — I mean we talk of James Watt and Faraday and a lot of these guys. They were probably very, very great guys. There's no doubt about that. But here was a guy, Nikola Tesla, who nobody's been able to figure out yet. For instance, he talks about currents running along the ground — the "ground wave." And if you go around the electrical or engineering department of any university, they will give you a bunch of this, "Well, I don't know. Nothing has been written about it." It's one of the most gorgeous things you ever saw.

Nikola Tesla was an example of somebody being able to think in high gear. But unfortunately, he could think in such high gear that he never bothered to go into agreement with somebody thinking in low gear, and so he's not taught in a university today worth a nickel. Get the idea?

You try to explain Scientology to somebody who has not yet found out that people think, and you're in trouble. See? Case is going in high gear.

Now, you can overwhump them, just overwhelm them, and go ahead and get the job done and bring them out at the other end, which is one of the more remarkable things that we can do today.

But there are definite tests for Clear. They cannot be faked. It's too much of a strain for a person who is not, to fake them. And it's almost impossible for a Clear not to do them. He probably couldn't fake them, either.

Now, a Clear can make an E-Meter wobble around, pretty much at will. So just don't let him look at the needle while you're testing him. All right.

Now, do you see what the background tests of this are? Basically a Clear is someone who does not have a reactive mind and so therefore does not have reactive actions. And there are definite tests by which this can be determined. So it is not really a. relative state — not by our own definition. There are certain things that do denote whether or not the fellow got off at that station. Got it?

Okay. Thank you.