I'm going to talk about a very interesting, intricate, involved and complex process, which has tremendous significance in it, which is a problem to the auditor, a problem to the preclear, and so forth. Of course, now you expect me to say it's some very simple process, huh?

I'm going to fool you. I am going to talk about a complicated process — a real complicated process. It's known as hypnotism.

Now, you didn't expect me to talk to you about that today. Of course, I probably didn't expect to talk to you about it today. But a D. Scn or an expert in Dianetics who doesn't know anything about hypnotism might as well fold up his tent, because herein is wrapped up the entrance point of research and investigation in the entire field of psychotherapy. It was hypnotism which took the Aesculapians into the original psychotherapeutic — allegedly — adventure of Greek psychotherapy.

Hypnotism. It's that thing which has been practiced by witch doctors, temple priests, psychoanalysis, medical doctors, charlatans, bums, medical doctors, psychiatrists, bums, dogs, snakes — now we are getting technical — snakes, medical doctors, psychologists, scorpions, snakes, psychiatrists, since time immemorial, and has never had any success yet.

Why? Why is it at once the entrance into psychotherapy which investigation takes, and turns right around and is the worst flub anybody could have anything to do with?

That's because the whole process of hypnotism is the exact parallel process to the dwindling spiral. And if you wanted to do something for the human race which would clear it instantly, you would simply unhypnotize it. What is the multiple level of agreement but hypnotism.

Now, in the first place, what is hypnotism? You think of it as hocus-pocus. Some people don't believe it is true or, you know, they doubt hypnotism. This is silly.

Hypnotism is that process by which sufficient agreement can be made between an operator and a subject so that the subject will agree that the operator has entire and complete control of his intellectual processes, as well as his sleep, mock-up processes, et cetera, ad infinitum. It is that process by which the operator — the hypnotist — takes control of the machinery of the thetan by agreement.

Now, this is merely, then, a heightening of agreement to a point where an operator becomes pan-determined, and where the subject becomes not-determined — nondetermined.

That's quite different, you know. There are three stages of determinism: There's nondeterminism, self-determinism, and pan-determinism.

Actually, if you want to get technical, there's really this many levels of determinism, if we look these over. And we'll have to understand this if we understand hypnotism. There are this many levels of determinism.

Maybe you will unhypnotize just while I am talking to you about this. There's this many levels. There's nondeterminism, see. That's just complete nonentity, nonconscious, nonvolitional, non compos mentis, nondeterminism. It's also quite parallel to psychosis. Psychosis is actually a state of individual nondeterminism, without anybody else able to determine anything with the person, either. It's just nondeterminism.

And then there would be self-determinism. And we would consider self-determinism as first-dynamic determinism — this "I can determine my own actions. I can't determine the actions of others or anything else. There is my determinism and other-determinism." Now, the "other-determinism" contained in that sentence would be seven more dynamics, wouldn't it?

So then there would be second-dynamic determinism. Person has gotten up far enough so that he has fair determinism on the second dynamic, you see. Self-determinism and second-dynamic determinism. He could have a state of beingness which would drop out self-determinism to a marked degree and still have second-dynamic determinism markedly. You know, "it," girls; Valentino: darned little self-determinism, tremendous amount of second dynamic. You know, you've seen this around. You might as well say this is it. Some guy has — a person has tremendous sexual allure and no direction otherwise.

All right. So then we could have such a thing as group-determinismthird-dynamic determinism. Well, you could have this independently of self-determinism and sexual-determinism.

We have a fellow by the name of Hitler; had tremendous group-determinism, didn't he? He was a magnificent group determinist. Oh, magnificent. No self-determinism at all to amount to anything. The man would get down and chew the rug and tear up tablecloths. And he'd get so mad that he didn't know whether he was spitting or screaming. And he would just go into a complete fit.

And yet this individual could determine the third dynamic, couldn't he — observably could, because he united a nation and sent it forward to obliterate all other nations so it itself could commit suicide. But nevertheless, he was third-determining, wasn't he?

All right. Then there have been examples of individuals who almost obtained fourth-dynamic determinism. Now let's say, then, if we had fourth-dynamic determinism on an exclusive basis, we would have something which would merely be a species, you see.

But we don't just limit this to man as a species. It could also be the whole species of wolves, see, or the whole species of cockroaches, or the whole species of seagulls. You know, it'd just be a whole species. That is, just one species.

We have had examples of individuals almost achieving this. Christ did a pretty good job of it. Mohammed came up along that level pretty high. I mean, but here you had a fourth-dynamic determinism that was pretty good — without very much third,, no second, and with practically no first dynamic.

This is a curious manifestation, right? I'm not saying Christ didn't have any of these first three dynamics, but observably he didn't.

Well, anyway, our fourth determinism, then, could be a fourth-dynamic determinism, which is simply that which would determine the course and existence of a species. And what do you know, there are thetans who run all dogs.

You know, they're the thetans who take care of dogs. Patron saint of dogs. He makes dogs. You don't think this can exist or happen, but that's a fact and it goes on every day and you don't even notice it. There is this sort of thing.

Now, fifth-determinism. Who would take care of the entire animal kingdom of a planet — plant and animal kingdom of the planet. See, you could theoretically get a determinism, see, that could hold that in.

Actually, MEST has that determinism. Air, for instance, is fifth-determined. It is a fifth-determining factor. Air is a common denominator to anything on this planet.

All right. Let's go up a little higher and see that there could be — now we're just talking in theory, theory only — there could be such a thing as a sixth-determinism. And we see that manifestation. They think of the Creator, and so forth, who made this. He's the overall determinism.

But a fellow who could handle adequately anything in the physical universe, and a fellow who could handle adequately — he could really handle adequately — the animal and vegetable kingdoms, you see, he'd be really fifth-determined.

Now, this sixth-determined — that would be somebody who would be, well, much better skilled than any nuclear physicist we have today, but it'd be a person who was really good on the sixth dynamic. And he could determine the course of the sixth dynamic with great expertness.

Now, seventh dynamic — well, actually we had a whole cult of people back in the eighth century called the magicians who specialized exclusively in handling the seventh dynamic. And they were seventh-dynamic determined. And their studies were so concentrated on the seventh dynamic, that as we go back down the line, we discover that they were very, very poor on the first, second, third and fourth dynamics, pretty good on the fifth, fair — just vaguely fair — on the sixth, but terrific on the seventh. And these were men, even as you and I.

Now, an eighth-determinism — a fellow who had … If we speak of the Supreme Being, you might think of the … The Pope, maybe, is very strong on the eighth dynamic. He has good eighth-dynamic determinism. But maybe he's very weak on the rest of the dynamics. In other words, we have this as the exclusive thing.

Now, we've got self-determinism — which we might as well call first-dynamic determinism — second-dynamic determinism, third-dynamic determinism,, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, seventh-, eighth-dynamic determinism, and pan-determinism. But, of course, at the bottom we have nondeterminism.

Now, an individual is as alive, is as awake, is as alert and is going to make as much a success out of things as he finds these various dynamics controllable by himself. In other words, he is able to influence these various dynamics, to work in these dynamics; his urge toward survival is perfectly well channeled along these dynamics.

This individual is as strong as he can determine these dynamics, as he can have an urge toward survival through these dynamics. In other words, an individual is as well-off as his dynamics are free and expressed.

This society frowns enormously on the second dynamic. It must not be f r e e l y expressed. There, if you just hold down one dynamic, you see … That's a very bad thing, to put something like this in a lecture, because we're apparently advocating free love and everything else. But if you just hold down that second dynamic you will adequately and amply suppress the remaining seven.

Now, let's just hold down the first dynamic and we will still suppress to some degree the other seven. Let's hold down just one's love of animals, you see, and we will get the thing echoing on the other seven, because this bundle is interrelated.

Individuals, then, can demonstrate a greater capability on one dynamic than another but will never entirely escape or be free, as long as any dynamic is completely and entirely suppressed, or even harshly suppressed.

All we have to do is suppress one of an individual's dynamics and we have to some degree made a prisoner out of him; we've chained him down. Some of his urges to survival are not channelable. He can't express them.

All right. What kind of a situation is this where an individual has his dynamics all the way cut down to a point where he is permitting somebody else to express all these dynamics for him in a sort of an hypnotic state, hm?

He's put in a nondetermined category, hasn't he — nondeterminism. And it all goes, as it goes in Asia, according to fate, Kismet, you know — fate, fate, fate; not my responsibility, not my responsibility.

And we get all these eight dynamics, then, very markedly suppressed by asking the individual simply to step off the boat. That's hypnotism.

You get him to agree that he's under control on one dynamic or another and the next thing you know, why, you have him in a state where you can say, "A large dog is now standing in front of you," and by God, he'll see a dog! And this is the immediate result of suppressing dynamics thoroughly.

Well, this practice of hypnotism is an expert, well-channeled, extremely well practiced suppression of as many dynamics as possible where one individual is concerned or where a group is concerned. It's also expressed as mass hysteria. You'll have large masses of people go into an hysteria of getting a similar illness.

It is enough for some fellow to come along and be president of the United States who had a gimpy leg and was moaning and groaning around about polio, to shoot upscale the percentage of polio incident in the United States to a point where it is now quite an alarming illness. See, he popularized it.

But, actually, he was in a position of authority and control, and he all of a sudden could start talking about this polio, polio, and giving himself an object example.

And people who have illnesses are actually simply communicating .. . Any form, any shape is a communication, by the way. Let me interject that: any form, any shape is a communication. When a person becomes absolutely insistent upon communication, he starts to take solid form. When a person is entirely insistent upon a communication, he gives it solid form. You under-stand that? We put it in writing; that's the first thing. The next thing you know, he's wearing a somatic.

This solid-form relay of communication is expressed on sort of an hypnotic level. All of a sudden somebody in power can communicate to everybody that what they ought to have — you know, by just being that — they ought to immediately have themselves a fine case of polio. And sure enough, polio be-comes an alarming disease. Adults all over the place are getting polio now. Whoever heard of polio before this?

So the problem of hypnotism is simply the problem of control. It is the problem of determinism. When a hypnotist starts in, he's got an individual there who is to some degree subjugated to his will. And he then, by a process — a gradient scale of agreement — builds up the fact to where the hypnotist has actually taken the place of the subject's will. Control and will has transferred in this case.

And that is the goal of psychoanalysis! And psychoanalysis has no other goal! Now, I'm not talking through my hat on that. I don't know whether you have been issued or not yet at this time your Freudian lectures. Well, all right, when you look that over you'll see that we have to have people transfer-ring around, according to psychoanalysis, before we get anybody well.

If you can just get a patient to transfer over and be the analyst, why, you've succeeded. Think of what you would do as an auditor if every preclear you had was to become you, and that's all. That was your total cure, was to have that preclear become you.

And now let's you be, not your fairly-good-shape self, but a seedy, rattle-brained guy who is completely overboard on the second dynamic, hm? How about this? Is this psychotherapy or is it hypnotism? It's hypnotism. We're trying to get the patient to transfer into the identity of the analyst. And in old-time psychoanalysis — its worst possible manifestations — a patient would walk miles just to find out whether or not he should go out on a date or eat dinner. If he couldn't get on the phone he'd walk miles to see his analyst to consult him to find out whether or not he ought to spit.

This is the condition in psychoanalysis. It is an hypnotic condition by which one takes a practice and puts it into an hypnotic rapport to such a degree that the practice then sort of moves on an automaton basis, totally on the advices of the analyst. And analysts aren't that good. And individuals aren't that good — and they never will be — so that they can mock up an entire universe for a bunch of inhabitants.

You've got to have some level of work here, whereby people have some individual self-determinism before you make anything work. The way you make everything completely unworkable is to make a complete pan-determinism utterly enforced upon all dynamics, with a nondeterminism in the other individuals — and that is hypnotism.

Pan-determinism is the road out. But does this mean that an individual must seek his own sanity and escape over the hypnotized bodies of populaces? No, it sure doesn't.

One does not and cannot use others as steppingstones for his road up or out. When you use others as steppingstones you will discover that you are suppressing one of your own dynamics, which is one of the trickiest problems that anybody ever faced.

Perfectly all right to go out here and say, "I am going to be ruler of the world," and get yourself a bunch of machine guns and atom bombs and golf clubs — or whatever they use these days in the highest rulers — and say, "Well now, the way we're going to become ruler of the world is to simply stand everybody up against the walls that disagrees with us and mow 'em all down." And the individual that does this is eventually mowed down — so that somebody looking at it and not analyzing it all will say that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

This isn't true, by the way. He who doesn't live by the sword in a civilization that is living by the sword — he dies much quicker by the sword. The whole problem here is simply how long does one hang on.

But this individual who goes out and machine-guns everybody down, and so forth, is actually suppressing one of his own dynamics. He's suppressing his third and fourth dynamic.

Your military conqueror going out here with a whole flock of machine guns and shooting down the populace, or passing a whole bunch of laws and hiring a bunch of cops to arrest everybody that didn't obey them … Same thing, only it's just a little slower look. This situation would never result in any greater freedom or progress for anybody. All it would result in would be the depression of the individual who was doing it. "Do not send to find for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Now, that's a very, very true statement — in spite of Ernest Hemingway's using the first part of it. It certainly does.

Here we have, however, two looks we can take at this. We can have this look where we are all meshed in here together into a great brotherhood which is entirely inseparable — something like a whole bunch of dough poured into a pan where each one of us is just a molecule in this mass of dough. Or this mass of dough can be in something like an agreement that man has a right to be free, and so the individual particles of it can pull out and separate themselves from the dough or be part of the dough at will. If they can't do that, they never escape from the dough.

So you have man doing the most incomprehensible thing of being the great brotherhood. He does not admit of a soul. He would not even look in the teeth anything like psychotherapy. If there is anything they detest in Eurasia, by the way, it's really psychotherapy. They're terribly afraid of it. It's a superstitious thing: You're not supposed to tamper with somebody else's soul, or something of the sort.

Well, if you're not supposed to tamper with somebody else's soul, you'll never have a chance to set anybody else free. If you can't set somebody else free, don't try to free yourself; you won't be able to.

That's the end product of this thing called hypnotism. If you're going to go around and suppress every intellect so that only you are in control of that intellect, and then you're going to try to be free, I invite you sometime to be in my office or the closet or something of the sort when a hypnotist walks in to me and asks for processing.

These people don't ask for processing, they beg for it! They beg with a desperation which gets them tears in their eyes. They get down on their knees, "Please, please. For God sakes, process me." It's a fantastic thing. I mean, you've never heard a plea like some old-time, long-duration hypnotist will make. He has enslaved so many intelligences, overtly, that he at last has come to a point where he himself is so enslaved that he can't budge or exhibit free will in his activities and environment. And he gets to a point of where he realizes he's just about down the third time.

And he hears about Dianetics or Scientology, and he thinks, "Oh, boy, this is for me." And then he gets somebody to read the book and process him. And he puts somebody reading the book, or something, under terrific duress, you know. And "You have got to process me as soon as you finish this," and you know, all this. And of course it doesn't work. It's just himself being processed, kind of by a circuit. It'd take a good auditor to do anything for him. A good auditor can.

Well, what about this? If hypnotism is so v e r y , very bad … ? I'm not saying it's bad; I'm merely demonstrating the condition it results in. And if its condition that it results in is so desperate for both the hypnotized and the hypnotizer, why, then it must be an interesting state of affairs.

So if we look across the whole field we can find that we can induce hypnotism on any dynamic merely by suppressing the determinism of an individual on that dynamic and supplanting that determinism with one's own will.

Now, as I talk to you and teach you in various ways about life, about the mind, about other things, I ask you every time when you look over this information … I'll teach you a process, yes, with great ardure. I'll teach you a process so that you will do it right. That's because a lot of experience says that's the right way to do a process. But, I never for one moment — never for one moment — ask you to take anything completely on its face value. You do this technique, it makes people well for you. Fine. That's right.

But it isn't making them well for you because I say so. It's because you are dealing with the woof and warp of existence which we happen to be dealing with. And you can see that it makes them well. And if it doesn't, you will be the first one to abandon the process. The time to abandon a process, how-ever, is after you have used it with great expertness.

Now, this then would demonstrate whether or not it was a good process for you or not. But the six processes which I have given you are working and do work for auditors all across the boards. And all of these processes are devoted to the same goal — devoted to raising the determinism of the individual. Now, I didn't say self-determinism, but raising the determinism of the individual — his ability to decide to make up his mind, to associate or not associate at will. That's the goal of all these processes. And that's your goal, too, under instruction.

You've had a great many curtains, a great many doors, a great many labyrinths stretched out in all directions, all composed of a great many lies. Somewhere out of this there was one or two or three or four ladders, certainly, by which you could stop circulating in the midst of these labyrinths and getting trap doors slapped in your face, and so forth. You could stop this and come out along some kind of an even line and walk out into some sun-light and look at this thing as a fairly clear picture, and view out in front of you. If this does not do that for you, it doesn't do it for you. Just because I say it will do it for you is no reason it will do it for you.

It was necessary to locate some of the central threads of truth and weave them together in some fashion so that a ladder was thus created. But we have nowhere along this line gone deeper into, and departed further into, arduous and onerous — more arduous, more onerous — methods of control and duress for preclears.

Yes, an auditor today, because of the velocity of his processes and so forth, can be sharper, can be more insistent, and so forth, to a preclear than he could previously. But look at where we've graduated from in psycho-therapy. In Book One it talks about Dianetic reverie. You realize that Dianetic reverie is the thinnest upper level possible of hypnotism. Here the auditor had to take a certain amount of control over the preclear's bank in order to get the preclear's bank operating at all. And then by knocking out enough held-down fives, why, the preclear would become more awake or alive than previously.

The only excuse we had for doing this, for inducing anything like an attentive state of mind on the part of a preclear, was because preclears were not able, in the main, to do these processes without this. Therefore, the processes themselves were a little too complicated, weren't they? Certainly, if an auditor did them with some inexpertness, they were very complicated.

All right. So we moved out of this level of Dianetic reverie. But remember, my first investigations were undertaken at the deepest levels of hypnotism. I was looking for the unconscious mind. And I found out it was a lie. I found out it didn't exist — that there was no unconscious mind. But I found that during moments of unconsciousness there was a recording mechanism which recorded everything. That didn't look like an unconscious mind, did it? It looked like a mind that was terribly conscious. This was a different look.

The books of Sigmund Freud, as much of an assistance as they have been, are yet filled with the most tremendous balderdash on the subject of the barbaric and inhuman and horrible and savage impulses on the part of man.

This civilized man, to Freud — this civilized man walking down the street in a suit and a necktie and tipping his hat nicely to the ladies, and dropping a dime in the old blind man's cup — was actually a hairy, frothing beast who was very, very barely under restraint. And this horrible nightmare under the surface, you see — he knew it himself — was man. What do you think this is, except just being able to point out to everybody how bad it is over there, huh?

All right. That isn't what man's composed of. Man is in a rather puzzled state of sleepwalk. He's asleep, you might say, to the degree that he is sup-pressed on any dynamic. How much of a dynamic is alive? Well, as much of a dynamic is alive as is alive. And where's the rest of the dynamic? It's asleep. Now, you could just say that as a rough truism on the thing, and it'd be more or less right.

As you wake him up, his urge toward survival wakes up. And he is not a savage, hairy, nightmare beast who would much rather strangle the blind man with his necktie than drop a dime in, who would much rather cut a woman to pieces and tear her to pieces than tip his hat to her. This is not man — not man at all.

Man is terrifically suppressed, yes. But — new look — it's his good qualities that are suppressed, not his bad ones. Curious, huh? Curious thing. I mean it was a complete reverse.

As you unsuppress a man, you find of course that he will go up through bands of anger and be upset with the world at large. It's like somebody waking up and finding out that the person left to guard the house had set it afire.

So then, man's waking up is much more important than his going to sleep, as far as therapy is concerned. And yet therapy has been on a 180-degree vector. It has insisted that the only way to make a man well was to put him to sleep; the only way you made a man sane was to put a straitjacket on him. To beat in his anchor points with whips: that was the way to make men sane. And nobody, in all the millennia man has been on earth, has ever made one individual sane or better with straitjackets, whips or any other mechanism which suppressed his dynamics. That's a curious thing.

If they would just open up the front door right now and bring in some-body who had gotten well, who observably was better through having been hypnotized, I would take back at least one one-hundredth of what I've said today.

Yes, you can get a fellow so apathetic that he will no longer register a facsimile. Yes, you can get a fellow so convinced on other-determinism that he's well, that he'll go around like a little automaton saying, "I'm well. I'm well." One of the craziest preclears I ever had, every time you'd ask this pre-clear how she was, she'd say, "I'm fine." She'd be sitting there with a broken leg and she'd say, "I'm fine." She was just a phonograph record. You couldn't get any information out of this person, and actually, communication lagged from here to Halifax. And there's your hypnotized case.

So as people go down the dwindling spiral, as their abilities, urges, dynamics in life suppress, they're going gradually to sleep. And they go gradually to sleep on the first, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth and seventh and eighth.

And hypnotism is an activity engaged in by this universe. And the hypnotizing of people is simply the dramatization of the physical universe. This is the universe which helps you all out — makes it unnecessary for you to exhibit any volition or initiative. This universe gives you the promise that all you've got to do is relax and it'll all be done for you. Lots of energy every-where; no need for you to create any.

And people run into brick walls and they get knocked out. And when they wake up again they're not quite as awake as before. Curious business, curious business.

The society at large specializes in putting people to sleep about things. For instance, for some reason or other the American public today has gone to sleep on the subject of the atom bomb. This is about . . . Yes, it has. We did a little survey and it was a very curious thing. I finally got one guy awake enough on the first dynamic where he thought it might be … After I'd de-scribed to him the possible plan, well, to avert atomic destruction in the United States and so forth — and all of it very sensible, sort of … you know, easy; no mad-dog stuff about it at all, just a gentle sort of a discussion about it — he finally opined at the end of a half-an-hour-or-so's discussion that, you know, he maybe should put in the supply of food for himself that is advocated by the civil-defense people.

We'd been talking to him on the fourth dynamic: What's man going to do? See? And this dopey bum — he gets awake enough so that he says, "Well, I'll go out and get a few cans of spinach and put them on the shelf." Man is very, very null to this thing. It's about as sensible to be completely null to this thing as to go and get yourself a great big black panther, see, and then neglect to feed him. And then put him in your bedroom and forget; go to sleep on the subject that you'd done it. Duhhh! That's just about as safe, you know?

And yet, man and individuals everywhere have simply gone to sleep on the subjects of this character. If they're going to live in a world which has various items, such as atom bombs and fast cars that run over people and so forth, it very easily goes to sleep on these subjects. It just doesn't see them anymore. Well, nonperception or nonexistence — the condition of not-isness can simply be neglecting to look.

See, the building is gradually falling in. And you just stand there completely unaware of it. And the bricks are making a horrible sound, and every-thing is going on there. And obviously, to anybody who could look at all, the building is falling in. And yet maybe you'd just stand there and let the building fall in on you — if you were asleep on the subject of buildings falling in; you wouldn't even notice this building.

There's a little nightmare condition here that might amuse you some night when you can't sleep. It may very well be that this world is full of the strangest beasts. It may be that this universe, or an adjacent universe which impinges directly upon your universe, might be completely overloaded with utter walking horrors which could snuff out your whole existence in an instant, and yet you would be so asleep you wouldn't perceive them. Because the whole subject of perception is actually one of agreement. We agree a wall is there, it's there.

Next time you exteriorize some preclear and he doesn't immediately see the walls of the room, don't you get upset. You'll have to educate him a little bit before he can see them.

Because, did it ever occur to you, they probably aren't there while he's outside? Or maybe as a thetan he's so asleep that he's below the point where he can see them; they're there, but he can't see them at all?

How about the way man has been walking around with all these facsimiles, huh? How about old Fac One? Did you ever run a Fac One on some-body and watch the guy practically come to pieces? Did you ever run birth on anybody and see him come apart? Did you ever throw anybody into a pre-natal, and he unwittingly (and utterly impossible to restrain it) simply curled up in a ball on the bed? Hm?

Well, gee-whiz, there was something sitting right there, see? There was something sitting right there — no visibility. Well, the condition there is once upon a time he agreed that it could sit there, you see, and then he's blinded himself to it. And it can go right on sitting there and affecting him to some degree. But he isn't looking at it. He's asleep about it.

Now, if you start to wake an individual up, these things very often will pop up and disappear faster than he could simply count them. In other words, as he wakes up he again regains control of them.

Now, what do we mean by forget and remember? You can remember those things over which you have some slight control. You forget those things over which you have no control.

What is awake? Awake is a degree of participation or control. Asleep is no participation, no control.

Do you know that you could take a car out here and fix it up in some trick way so when you turned the wheel to the right, the wheel sometimes went to the left and sometimes to the right, that the ignition key turned up-side down in order to turn on, the brakes were the clutch, and the gear shift was operated from the back seat.

Now, we give it to an individual and start beating him around — this uncontrollable car — and we just beat this individual around and force him to drive this car and force him to drive it. And of course, it keeps falling apart, and it does this and does that and won't drive, and so forth. And we just keep hounding him about that car as a theoretical experiment.

Theoretically, the car — if you left it to sit in the backyard after you'd stopped the experiment — would become markedly invisible to him. Could still affect him, but it would be invisible to him. Parts of it would be missing.

People lose those things that they doubt their control over. They lose them. This fellow who's always losing his pocketbook — he doesn't think he has any control over the ebb or flow of money. You see, his pocketbook.

People who have failed to solve enormous numbers of problems will lose keys. They do all sorts of weird symbolisms with regard to this.

What is this all about? Is it any big unconscious reaction? Yes, an unconscious reaction. They are no longer conscious of a still-existing problem. They are now blind to this problem. They no longer see this problem.

A very curious manifestation one time: a preclear had been unable to exert any control of any kind over his wife for a long period of time — some years. This person was always completely unpredictable. And by the way, many people will tell you it is very good to be unpredictable. If they're telling you it's very good to be so very unpredictable, they are simply telling you that they're scared. You see, you'd only have to be unpredictable if you were afraid of other forces. And these people think of it as a virtue. They're pretty crazy — people who have to be completely and continually unpredictable. You never know what they're going to say next or do next.

All right. In this particular case, this woman had been utterly uncontrollable for a long, long period of time. Unpredictable is uncontrollable — same thing. You have to be able to predict to control.

And so, the condition had finally come about to where this fellow was almost crazy as far as she was concerned. No place else in the universe was he very badly off, but he was really badly off there.

The woman was always doing something peculiar or odd that he couldn't predict, couldn't control. He couldn't predict her, therefore he couldn't control her. Even to any . . . And he couldn't agree with her on anything because she would inhibit anybody agreeing with her. This was one of her manifestations.

He was living with a psycho, and such a plausible psycho — you know, it all seemed so reasonable — that he kept thinking something must be wrong with him.

And one day he took a look at this woman, and all of a sudden a black curtain simply rolled down across the front of her and she disappeared be-hind blackness. He couldn't see her anymore. That's right. With his physical vision — just as strong and solid a black curtain as anything that you ever rolled up and down in front of a window.

This is not a peculiar manifestation. I mean, it happens quite often. In this case, he blacked her out. She was so unpredictable, he didn't dare look at her anymore.

And as soon as I ran a process approximating something like this: "Some things about her which you could predict" … And he finally predicted — with rather some glee, I'm ashamed to say — the fact that some-day she would die. This, for sure. He could predict that. He could predict something else, and he could predict something else. Yes, he could predict that tomorrow, some time or another, she'd eat; also, tomorrow, sometime or another, she'd certainly tell a lie; also, this and that, and other things.

Next time he saw her, there was no black curtain of any kind, but she'd gotten a little thin. You know? She was just a little faint. She was not stop-ping light waves the way she should be. It'd gone the other way, because I'd specialized on one thing: raising his determinism on this person. Do you know that after that he was able to control this woman? So much so, that it was no longer a game, and he left her — no longer a game. I mean, she was totally predictable as far as he was concerned.

He actually got to the point of where he knew what she was going to do. But at the same time I was running this, we were running a number of other dynamics. And we were getting the predictability of each one of these other dynamics.

"What can you predict about the physical universe? What can you predict about it?"

"Well, there's this and there's this and there's this and there's this." "What can you predict about sex?"

"This and this and this and this."

"And what can you predict about yourself?"

"Well, this and this and this and this and something." Predict — control, see?

And, next thing you know, predict — control — determinism; we've got a package there. Next thing you know, this person knew when stoplights were going to go on and when they were going to go off, and when this was going to happen and when that was going to happen — not on a telepathic basis, but a total-knowing basis. He knew what people … This, by the way, almost drove him batty: He knew what people were going to say couple of paragraphs before they said it! Well, he was listening to them. Life became a little bit upsetting to him, till all of a sudden he found an activity or a game here on earth which was sufficient to his pace. And he did; he got real interested in life in general. Went out to Inyo-Kern. Started fooling around with rockets and all kinds of things that had good, high velocities, you know.

Well, now this is not particularly an isolated case — somebody getting a black curtain across them, and getting perfectly thin and so forth. You actually have this case where a thetan has dropped a curtain across himself and his bank. He can't predict the bank anymore, so he just blacks it out. What he can't predict, he obscures.

Now, the entrance to mystery is unprediction. And from unpredictability we go into poor perception. And from poor perception we go into the blackness of mystery. As we trace this scale, we'd very often halt as auditors if we didn't know that the blackness was going to dissolve and leave us a thin field, very often, with the preclear — which is going to be upsetting to him.

If you really pulled his determinism all the way along up the line, he'd have to put the sidewalk there while he's walking down the street before he could walk on it — see, I mean, if he was really all the way up the line. The world is a mock-up; a very, very interesting one, but it's still a mock-up.

All right. Now, the subject of mystery, then, is a subject of confusion of particles — nonpredictable particles. So those things which are unpredictable to the individual are those things which an individual cannot control.

What does hypnotism do? Hypnotism pulls all the pins of prediction out from underneath him — even though hypnotism is sometimes used to make people tell you about the future. You see that? You put a person into a trance and ask him about the future. It's always going to be the wrong future, but we'll neglect that. There's always something wrong with that future. He is going to lose his ability to predict because he has already given over his control to somebody else.

Now, if you give over complete control of yourself, or if you're in an unwitting, non-agreed-upon course of some sort or another that just leads you deeper and deeper and deeper into somebody else's control — so that you're finally finding out what to eat and so forth at somebody else's say-so — you eventually will be unable to predict anything. And life will therefore appear to be a very anxious thing to you, won't it? And eventually, everything will go black and you'll have a preclear with a black field.

Now, you, exerting control as an auditor over the mental phenomena of other preclears and pulling them up out of the mud, are doing something very interesting: You're increasing your own control, you're increasing their control, and from this you could not other than proceed out into a wider control of other dynamics, could you, by increasing control. What does Opening Procedure of 8-C do but wake somebody up?

Well, let's get some kind of a rather sloppy but nevertheless true statement, then, with regard to the human race. We could say the human race consists of a number of individuals who have gone almost entirely to sleep. They are walking around to some degree in a trance. And that trance is absolutely no different from an hypnotic trance. There's no difference. You can induce this same kind of trance.

The way you really knock out somebody's education is to educate him in an hypnotic way: You educate him monotonously. You educate him under duress. You make the punishment just horrible if he were to miss. You install an examination system, whereas at the end of each semester he is supposed to regurgitate what he has imbibed during his semester back onto a piece of paper to the instructor's satisfaction. And when you get through, you will have wiped out an individual's control of the subject he's studying. Let's not miss on this. Let's look over the fate of people who have been ground too hard under too much duress on a subject, and we find out they've lost control of the subject.

They might have gotten A's all the way through school. And they get through school and you ask them, "Would you mind coming over and estimating the number of BTU which will be required to heat this particular tank?" And, boy, they have to start from scratch. Then you have to turn around to a journeyman plumber, or something of the sort, and ask him how many he customarily uses.

What's happened? You've got an obliteration by control. Anytime a school, over a long period of time, insists on a supercontrol of its students, you get no control of the subject studied — contrary to popular opinion.

Yet if you yourself cared to take a review of a number of people who had studied some subject very arduously, and had not had a chance to wake themselves up by practicing it, you would find out that they were almost obliterated on the subject, as far as their memory is concerned.

Now, because they've studied toward it, people expect them to practice it, and they start in practicing it and it's just as though they were running 8-C now. They're being put into the intimate contact of the subject. And they will forget or never recall in school, but they will learn the subject all over again from another way.

An ensign trained under terrific duress, terrific control, for ninety days or six months or something of the sort, and then brought on board a ship, is like a sleepwalker. And he starts to wake up the moment he sees the engine-room telegraph, and he looks at this big brass telegraph, and he looks at it there, and he says, "What's that?" And the quartermaster says, "Well, that's an engine-room telegraph." "An engine-room telegraph. Well, well, well. What does it do?" "Well, it tells the engine room how fast to drive the engines." "Is that so? Hm, engine-room telegraph." And he walks over, starts to swing it back and forth, and the quarter-master stops him. But his education has started.

Now he has to have and exert control over the actual things in which he was educated. Why the hell wasn't he ever educated to exert exact control over those things in the first place? Why was he retarded for 90 or 180 days in his education and control of objects and ships?

Do you realize what an awful lot of stress it puts on somebody to have to continually override misconcepts of training all the way along the line? Puts a heck of a load on the thing.

All right. What's happened to him? He's been put under terrific duress and control, and he's been made to go to sleep for 90 or 180 days on his subject. Now how long is it going to take him to wake him up on this subject?

If he was fairly alert to begin with, it won't take very long. But if he was real alert, he wouldn't have consented to study it. He'd have been a complete rebel; they would have thrown him out and would have nothing to do with him at all. That's what would have happened to him.

Uniformly, as we look back across history, we find out that there were very, very, very few people who ever graduated, who wrote the history of a subject. Now, why is this?

It's not because it is true that just because an individual is trained he can't function. This is not the conclusion to draw out of that. The conclusion to draw out of it is, is the only way you can train is by successively waking somebody up on the subject in which he's being trained, and give him control over it. And therefore you could train somebody.

Now, I daresay — following this same pattern of training today — if we were teaching you, let us say, to handle tractors, I daresay (knowing what we know) that the pattern of training would have to do with taking the various parts and functions and operations of a tractor, and breaking it down into a schedule, and going out and putting you on a tractor, and making you use or perform that particular evolution until you had entire confidence in performing it. And by the end of the time you'd been trained, you certainly would know practically anything that this would do. And you would be able to control any part of this tractor. And, boy, would you be a tractor operator.

Similarly, if we were teaching you the field of chemistry, and we walked out for any length of time at all, out of the roomful of test tubes, and if we omitted taking you through industrial plants, and so forth, on this level, and made you actually control things in those industrial plants — if we omitted those steps, you would never get out a chemist.

But if we kept you close to the substance, kept you in control of the various chemical functions of various things and the preparations of things — not to write them down in an examination book and then figure it out and twist the experiment so as to give the instructor the right answer; that's the wrong way to do it — but actually had you going down the line, giving the answer you got (that would be the main thing), you would wind up in the end, a chemist.

Oddly enough, one of the greatest chemists in the field of explosions was John Parsons. John Parsons is dead. He got too good. He blew himself off the map here two or three years ago. He was a good pal of mine.

But this man was sought out — when they really had a press on — he was sought out by the U.S. government, to tell it what to do about solid fuels when they wanted to knock out Tokyo. Remember the raid, Doolittle's bombers, and so forth? Well, they couldn't get these light bombers off an aircraft without putting a rocket assist, and they didn't have a fuel. So they came and found John Parsons. Very curious thing: The government at first was unable to hire him, in spite of his fame in the field of chemistry and explosives, in spite of his record and his attainments. Why? Because he didn't have any degrees in chemistry! That was a terrible situation, wasn't it?

But do you know how he studied chemistry? He was a bad boy in school. He wouldn't conform in any direction. But an old, mild old English teacher — a British instructor — finally found out that the boy was interested in test tubes. So he simply turned him loose in a room full of them and said, "John, you go ahead." And nobody controlled him to the slightest degree, and he went to that school some years. He graduated from there the foremost genius in the field of explosives in the United States.

Now, there's an interesting thing, isn't it? It isn't that there's anything wrong with formal education. But there is a great deal wrong in educating somebody so as to put him under control and put him to sleep on the subject — in other words, hypnotize him.

If you want to get results on a preclear, you only depend on one thing: Recognizing that he is in a somewhat-hypnotized state, and depend upon your ability to wake him up out of that state by making him contact at least the physical environment as in 8-C.

If you're going to instruct a student, then you're going to insist that that student learn how to control the field of his instruction. And if you specialize on him as a case, you're done — because you are putting him under control, aren't you? But if you specialize on him, on somebody who handles cases, and show him how, you're demonstrating a continuous control over other people, aren't you?

And by getting him to demonstrate his control, by getting him to exercise it and use it, you will wake him up — little by little, more and more. And he'll become more and more alert. And he'll think, "Boy, I sure was a dumb bunny before that course began. But now I really know what I'm doing." And if you have taught him to take in under his control all those factors with which he's operating, you will have succeeded. And if you have put him into a point or position where you have demonstrated to him he can't control yet, or ever, the factors you're training him in, you'll put him to sleep.

And hypnotism is accomplished simply by demonstrating to a person that he is not able to control, but that somebody else controls him. That's all there is to the subject, and actually that's all there is to training.

Okay.