Now let's talk a little bit about how your preclear might possibly recover from the state which he conceives himself to be in.

We consider now that the pattern of existence through which he has been is a very definite track. It is a track which starts in with as-isness. And this, of course, includes space.

You might possibly completely miss a case if you didn't realize that as-isness has to start with space. You see? You yourself could get so concentrated on objects and on energy, and you yourself get frantic along these lines, you might overlook this fact of space. You see, because a thetan can more or less communicate with space with great ease. You see? The body has gone too far on this track to do this easily. The body gets sick when it communicates with space. But a thetan can communicate with space rather easily.

And the as-isness begins with space. And then it gets into, of course, simultaneously, energy and mass. Now, space-energy-mass, the consideration of it, are all simultaneous. There is no consideration here related to time. Now we have to move the anchor points of the space in order to get a continuance of the space and move the energy itself in the space and change them in some fashion or another in order to get a continuance of that energy.

And it's the first moment, then, we have a simultaneous action, because we have not yet postulated time. Well, a thetan doing this would, theoretically, pass immediately from asisness into alter-isness — just immediately. He'd have to or he would have no continuation of any kind. In other words, it wouldn't exist unless he intended to change it. You see, he'd have to make the intention of change simultaneous with the action of creation. And if he did not, he would get a disappearance immediately of that mass.

All right. He passes, then, into alter-isness, which is a simultaneous action with asisness (at first), and then of course immediately becomes an action of continuation. And we get isness, which is this reality that we talk about: space, energy, objects. Just exactly why we consider this combination to be a reality, that reality is isness and so on, is a little bit dull. Because the fact of the matter is reality itself, to continue as a reality, would not be an isness at all but a continuous alter-isness. So we get isness, actually, as a hypothetical state.

Now, the fact that the thetan is a static, that's not hypothetical or theoretical. That's a fact. The fact that he is a static that can consider and can produce space and energy and objects — now, that's not hypothetical; that's a fact too. We have facts, facts, facts all the way along here until we get to this thing called reality, and we suddenly discover that isness is hypothetical. What we call reality is hypothetical. Therefore, we'd better just keep calling this thing reality, and "everybody knows" what reality is.

The basic goal, by the way, of a barbaric cult known as psychology, which is practiced in some American universities, this stressed enormously the whole subject of reality. I mean, you talk about the amount of learnedness which has been pressed up against the cheek of reality, the tremendous quantity of discourse on the subject of: "Let's see. If there was a wood and a tree fell and there was nobody to hear it, why, therefore… And then, of course, there wouldn't be a sound, would there, if there was nobody to hear the sound. Because, you see, trees aren't alive."

Well anyhow, this short-circuitedness and complete confusion on the subject of reality stems from the fact that in the whole field of as-isness, the creation of space, energy, objects, alter-isness, isness, not-isness and more alter-isness, there is only one hypothetical state. Just one state is hypothetical and that's isness. And that's completely hypothetical. It never exists. It can't ever exist. It has to be alter-isness or as-isness.

And, of course, as-isness can exist. As-isness can exist. It really would have to be able to exist if you can repeat it. You see? It must be in existence if you can repeat it and cause a vanishment of mock-ups or objects or spaces. So it obviously exists.

But this is not true of isness. Reality does not exist, because it precludes a stop. You see, it precludes that there's a stop right there — zoom. There just isn't any such stop. It is continuous alter-isness.

When people stop altering the positions of things and stop altering anchor points and stop pushing things around one way or the other — whether they say they're doing it or they say it's being done on an other-determinism, or however — the moment that they just relax on this whole thing, they get the condition which your preclear quite commonly is found in, of no longer postulating time.

See, the mechanism of saying "It will continue because I'm saying somebody else is responsible" is of limited use. It's a very limited use.

You set up a machine — let's go into that a little closer — you set up this machine or something to go on and shift and change the anchor points of the space, manufacture the energy involved and take care of the objects. And you set up this machine, you say, "I'm no longer responsible for this. I have no further responsibility for this now, and therefore it's others' space and it will go on happening, and therefore I can continue to have this space because somebody else is making it." See, we could get into that rather shifty bypass. And so we could, then, have — not over too long a time — but we could have a consistent alter-isness.

And this alteration would continue to take place and continue to take place as long as we at least kept one tiny little fingernail on the machine over here. We weren't looking to see, you see, that we had the fingernail on. But as long as we had that fingernail just touching that machine we were all right. See, we said, "Just that much of it is ours." You see?

And he says, "I have everything all set up; it's beautifully set up and it'll all run automatically and I don't have to worry about it anymore. After all, a fellow created this universe, other people are the ones who caused time to take place — they tell me when to get up and when to go to bed, and I've just got everything all set, and it's totally other-determined now." It becomes just that: totally other-determined. But it also, for the individual, passes by the boards. He's no longer postulating a persistence, he's no longer changing any objects in space, and so he will simply sit still. Everything gets very dim; everything gets very thin and so on.

Well, the funny part of it is, in that state, he couldn't even keep an aberration going. But his alter-isness has been practiced so long after the fact of not-isness, that even though he sits still, he'll keep on changing something. And that condition is known as figuring, thinking — thinking as we call figuring. He'll try to change something and he feels, "Well, I will just sit there and think and that will keep the universe moving, it'll keep time going," and so on. There's only one trouble with this: he is dealing basically with the root stuff of what makes universes. But now that he has sunk into that category where he's doing nothing but "consider" again — he is not creating or moving anything — he is going to have a very difficult time of it. In fact, everything is just going to get dimmer and dimmer and less real and less real.

Well, what will persist there is that which he is still changing, which is his worry about his aberration. In other words, the only thing — this is not esoteric or difficult — the only thing which goes on persisting is that which a person is actively working to change. Now, that's a horrible thing, isn't it? But that's all that goes on persisting.

Now, it is not true, then, that you get into a static, completely fixed state by changing something. You can pass up or down on the line of not-isness and alter-isness. You could actually alter conditions. Things can get better because you work at it. If you don't believe this, go out sometime and sit down in the middle of a field out on some mountainside. You just sit there, you see? And you make no provision whatsoever for work of any kind. You don't try to make a camp — you don't do anything like that. And you could make it much better for yourself and much more interesting simply if you'd go out and start dragging in some brush and make yourself a lean-to and fix yourself up a fireplace and bank your lean-to in such a way as the water won't run into it. It doesn't matter what you do. As long as you're moving pieces of mass around, you would then get up to a point, however — you think you're working toward that point, usually — where you wouldn't have to do anything else. And of course the moment when you get to the point where you don't have to do anything else, (quote)"time hangs heavy on your hands,"(unquote). Why does it hang heavy on your hands? Hangs heavy? It isn't even moving.

No, time is going to move as long as you go and move pieces of bark and trees and dig little ditches and scramble for a living, and so on, go out and fish and so forth. You're going to get time. And you can sit there for a number of years and just have a busy time of it and be quite interested in existence and so forth and go right along happily. And then all of a sudden you win — they got a carrier pigeon to you, or something of this sort — and you found out that you won the Irish Sweepstakes. And now you can hire twelve men to keep this camp. And this camp turns into a mountain lodge and you get all the machinery you possibly can from the city. And boy, while you're doing this, this is tremendous, you see? So you finally wind up with a swimming pool and a beautiful hot-water heater and you wind up with everything nicely appointed, and what do you know? You've got everything done, you see — it's all finished — and you sit back and you are just exactly in the same position, as far as time is concerned, of you sitting on a mountainside moving no masses of any kind whatsoever. (Quote)"Time is hanging heavy again on your hands."

You can only have those things which you handle; you can only have those things which you move around.

But an individual gets into a tremendous protest against mass. He has decided that continuous survival of things is very bad. In other words, he starts to fight survival itself with not-isness.

Now, as you know, not-isness is a highly specialized activity. It is the activity, actually, of causing something to vanish or dull down or become less, simply because it is too much. See? There's too much isness, the fellow considers, you know. He's gotten too much persistency, too much survival: Joe Jinks that got him across the barrel in a bank, you see, and took all his money away from him, and — well, there was just too much isness, you know? And the best way [thing] to do about that is to cause a not-isness, you see, and let's just fight everything.

Now, let's examine a war, for instance. A war is just simply each side saying the other side must cease to exist. And they are doing it with shot, shell, lead, dynamite, spears, arrows, deadfalls, and they're using energy, you see, to make other things cease to exist. Well, it was perfectly all right as long as you were building your camp, you see? But if you suddenly started to fight a war with somebody on the other side of the mountain, whereby you were saying he must cease to exist, you are fighting persistence by causing persistence. Now, get that: you are fighting persistence by causing persistence.

You want to know why a war, which shouldn't ever take more than a couple of days, goes always on and on and on and on and on. They got so bad a few centuries ago that they had a hundred years of nothing but war, and everybody was saying everybody else mustn't exist. And they kept moving objects around to cause existence to cease. Now, you get how these postulates could become completely tangled?

And the thetan does this because he so loves a problem. And that is the most problem there is. A thetan loves a problem. And that is the basic of problems. You move masses around — which, basically, you see, causes persistence — in order to cause persistence to cease. In other words, a hundred-percent paradox: cannot exist, can't ever happen, never has happened, and yet he will do this. But he is never happy doing it. There is no serenity involved in this. It becomes nothing but a complete chaos after a while.

Probably the only joy any soldier ever gets out of a war — and don't, for heaven's sakes, don't spread this around because the society doesn't believe you should do this — the only joy anybody ever gets out of a war is by kidding himself that he has made absolutely nothing of something. You know, whether it's enemy troops or tanks or ships or something like that, there's a big whee in this, a big thrill. (Combat troops know about this.) It's only when they cease to make nothing at will, apparently, that they become very downhearted.

Hardly anybody would be able to comprehend what is known as a military rout whereby a body of troops suddenly is instantly and immediately disheartened and just completely quits. It's a strange phenomenon, a phenomenon which has been rather incomprehensible: how fast troops will go into a complete, headlong retreat.

Well, let's say they keep shooting at a castle on a hill. And they just keep shooting at this castle and shooting at this castle, and the castle keeps shooting back, and they keep firing at the castle and the castle keeps shooting back. Well, just about that time they start to go to pieces in morale. They can't make nothing out of something, observably; the castle continues to live.

They bog down on that rather badly. They get to be rather 1.5. (And, actually, that is the manifestation of 1.5: people using force to make nothing of something which continues to exist in spite of it.) And they'll suddenly drop. It isn't a slow curve. They enter it rather slowly and then they'll just suddenly go to pieces — their morale will go to pieces and so forth. Because the only compensation they have for war is the fact that as thetans, you see, they can observe that they are at least going through the motions of, and have the manifestation of, making nothing of form. And the sadness underlying it, to them, is the fact that they don't make nothing of it, really.

Beyond this point there's still all kinds of suffering takes place, and sadness, and it goes on and on. But you start moving that many particles with that much velocity, such as a German 88, and you'll get persistence. I mean, that shell bursts. We don't find the fellow on the ground is still there — the fellow that it hit in the vicinity of — but there's persistence. Somebody has to go through his effects, and then somebody's got to write a letter home and say he died a hero, and then somebody else has got to carry the news through. And then there's people at home. And he's left a hole in the society one way or the other. And this goes on and on and on. And then years later, why, they dig up what's left of him and ship him back over and put him into a cemetery. You know. I mean, there's persistence occasioning here.

And what's persisting here? Well, there was that particle, it sure was moving fast. And any time we get a particle moving with this much velocity, we get some persistence. And in a war all they can think of is terms of more and more and more particles moving with more and more velocity to cause less and less persistence on the part of the enemy.

You want to know why the German nation keeps fighting and keeps overrunning its borders. Well, it can't do anything else by this time. I mean, from legion times forward, people have been going in there saying, "You mustn't persist. And these fast-moving particles which we're making you handle will make it so."

Oh yeah? This can't be, you see?

So we lead into anything about which we find man extremely puzzled. We lead into that one little formula there of: "We're going to take particles" — which is the mechanism of making things persist — "we're going to take particles and make things not persist." And any time you find anybody in (quote) "difficulty" or in the middle of a problem, just look at the basic anatomy of a problem, which is that anatomy. It's "We're going to cause a nonpersistence by the use of the mechanisms which cause persistence." You see that?

You're going to get a game. There's undoubtedly going to be a game occur here. Going to be lots of problems.

Now, you want to know how to take apart a problem: Just look where the person is using the particles which, you know, by changing them, will cause persistence in order to make a nonpersistence. In other words, in order to create a not-isness. Where is he using alter-isness to create not-isness? He'll be using alter-isness to create a not-isness, and of course will be getting, consistently and continually, an isness, which is a continuous state.

I say it's a hypothetical state. It's hypothetical because you can never stop it, you can never arrest it and you can never take a look at it. You know? Any time that you really recognized an isness and so forth that was not in a state of change, why, it'll disappear. It'll vanish or it'll dim down. Something will happen with relationship to it. So you always have to look at the change. This is the fellow living up the time track; this is the fellow living in the past, and so forth. He's looking at the changes, he's looking at the changes, and he isn't looking at the reality.

Actually, that's a very healthy state of mind. You talk about healthy mind states — that's a fine, healthy mind state: The fellow is looking at the changes, he's looking at what will be, he's very cheerful about how many particles he can move around and cause something to come into existence or persist, or he knows the proper modus operandi for knocking things out that he wants to destroy: just as-isness. And that would destroy it perfectly adequately and he could start in again.

Well, if you, as I say, want to look at the basic mechanics of any problem which is causing any trouble, why, you just find the matter of the particle motion — the alter-isness, in other words — which is aimed with the goal of not-isness. And of course that's impossible. Your preclear who is hanging fire in processing, by the way, he's doing this. He's using particles to knock down ridges, something on this order. Actually, he'd feel a lot better if he'd simply go out and trim the hedge. You know, let him move around something that is not quite as damaging, with the same goal. Because if he's all messed up with his engram bank, and he's all messed up with tremendous ridges and black ridges and that sort of thing, and he sits there as a thetan creating particles and bombarding these ridges, what are you going to get? You're going to get a persistence of ridges, aren't you? So that kind of processing won't do him a bit of good — actually, it won't do him a bit of good.

That's why we never use flows in processing. You can process objects if you want to, and you process space if you want to, but we'll just stay away, as a general principle, from flows. Why? This is a flood of particles moving this way or that, so we just won't bother with flows in processing. And, therefore, running of concepts attended by the running of flows is just something we won't have much to do with.

Now, your thetan has a great objection — because of this communication formula as used in this universe — a great objection to somethingnesses. He looks across a distance and he sees a somethingness, and this begins to tell him after a while that he has to be a something too. And he doesn't like this. He doesn't enjoy this, really, because it's an other-determined something that he has to be. It's by looking at a wall he has to be a wall, you see? And that's what this universe is dictating to him.

Well, actually, because it's all a consideration in the first place, he doesn't have to fall into that little grave. He doesn't have to fall into that one; he doesn't have to do that kind of a shift at all. He can simply say," I'm looking at the wall," and see the wall. You see? But after a while, he gets into the mechanics of perception, the mechanics of communication, he's using energy in order to communicate with energy.

There's nothing wrong with that except to the degree that he loses his fluidity on it. As long as he could maintain the idea that he was simply communicating by postulate, that he was communicating, he's doing all right. Well, when he drops below that level and you get enforced communication — when he's made to stand still and be talked to, you know; when he's made to stand to and hold that ridge, you know, and when he's made to sit there and absorb that textbook (you know, any one of these things; he gets under this bombardment) — and he starts fighting the communication formula. And of course we get a persistence, then, of this universe's communication formula.

Remember, this universe has got a communication formula. And that formula is based on the fact that two things can't occupy the same space. So, immediately, we fall away from "cause, effect and no-distance." You see? Well that, actually, is a bottom scale. But bottomscale cause and effect occupying the same space, is almost occupying the same space. They're not a complete identification of source point and receipt point. There's still a slight distance, no matter how downscale you go. It's only way upscale that you can get a perfect identification between cause point and effect point. These two points can be coincident way upscale. Well, all right, if they can be coincident way upscale, an individual could put a distance on them or anything. But to the degree that he began to agree with this universe, he would have to have a distance across which to look. Because he can't occupy the same space as the object at which he's looking. See, that is this universe's formula.

And that's, by the way, native to a lot of universes. It's how you keep everything stretched apart. You say, "Two things can't occupy the same space. Therefore, we've got to have a lot of spaces and things more or less fixed in these spaces, and we've got to keep them all apart. And therefore they are separate objects…"And we go into a lot of stuff like that, but we also go into the communication formula. And it says, then, that cause point can't occupy the same spot as effect point. So we've got cause, distance, effect as this universe's communication formula.

Now, as the individual agrees that two things can't occupy the same space, and as he agrees with this communication formula, he then gets into a situation where he says, "Now, look at all these somethings around here. And I am actually basically a nothing, and therefore if I have to duplicate these by becoming a something, I don't like that. I can't retain my own native form and so forth. I'm in bad shape here. I can't fly around and be a spirit. I've got to be pinned down here, I've got to be an energy mass in order to look at these energy masses."

And he doesn't like this. He objects to this.

So we get to the other manifestation on the track: The only objection the thetan has to anything, if he's having a big objection, is to something — just any something.

Then this, of course, will invert. And having objected to a something hard enough, you see, he'll turn around after a while and start objecting to a nothing.

Now, how is it then that we get any change at all if not-isness doesn't work? Well, there is the system known as valences. One ceases to become himself and becomes something else as his sole method of change. See that? He's causing a persistence by saying, "Things mustn't persist." And he keeps saying, "Mustn't persist, mustn't persist," and it goes on persisting. And he uses more particles and more particles and more particles, and pretty soon the United States Army is wearing coal-scuttle helmets. See? Just like that. The government says, "Down with Karl Marx. Down with Karl Marx. Down with Karl Marx. And everybody is now going to be taxed according to his ability to pay…"See that?

So we get another type of change. If two things can't occupy the same space, therefore, we are an identity persisting. Therefore, the best way to get a change and get an utter change is simply to be somebody else. In other words, completely shift valence. And because we want to win all the time, why, naturally shift to winning valences compared to oneself.

Well, if one thinks one is losing, then anything can start looking like a winning valence. A beggar, utterly penniless and about to die, would look like a winning valence to some people.

And we get this valence-shifting going right along with "two things can't occupy the same space." So an individual goes out of this spot and over onto another spot. And when he is running a lot of not-isness, you can expect him to do a lot of valence shifting. He can't continue to be himself because he's in communication with nothing.

Well, at that time he will start to believe that he must have nothingnesses. And he goes from there into having to have somethingnesses. And he goes from there into having to have nothingnesses by change of valence. And, actually, no other deep significance to it.

Okay? Got it?