And this is the second lecture of the day of December the 19th.

I'm going to go over with you now, a little bit more on auditing patter. I talked about it today; gave you a new little process in the bargain.

The auditor does well, when he is processing, to get communication from the preclear; and he does not at all when he fails to do so.

A preclear is not very communicative, and unless an auditor keeps him communicating, the preclear sooner or later is going to lapse off.

Now, we get all sorts of problems with regard to communication. The first and most obvious thing is the lag. This means that too many things have entered into the line.

Now, whenever you get into mest communication, you get into a lag. You get — well, Q and A. You get the positive — the statement — the causative statement which is followed, then, by the effect. And when there's a big distance between these two points — if one is bogged into mest, he thinks it takes a long time to get between those two distances. If one is involved solely with thought, however, it takes zero time. Time does not enter into communication. Actually, time enters into communication only as much as one enters MEST into communication. So it tells you how (quote) "bogged down" a preclear is at any time: How slowly he communicates. Bogged down — that's how much mest has he got in him? How much mest is between him and it?

Now, let's take up here — we've had Step Ia, the patter — you know pretty well what it is, discussed it on earlier tapes. And let's go here to Step IIa, and we say, "Mock up and unmock own body in room until perception betters." Well, that's handling bodies.

Well, you must realize that an individual gets out of his body with difficulty in exact ratio to the amount of mest he has entered into the idea. See? Commu­nication is as slow as one has entered mest into it. Therefore, one can space terminals as well as he takes mest out of the problem.

Now, let me give you a very quick example of this: I have had, organiza­tionally, from time to time (mostly because the people available simply weren't doing their job or they had something else in mind), I have had difficulty sometimes in getting adequate material out on Dianetics and Scientology. So I sat down one day and studied this problem of communication just from that angle — how am I going to get more material out and get it out better? And I studied the number of steps that it took for me to write something and for it to arrive in hands, even of staff. And I found out there were a lot of steps there.

I would, let us say, put it on a dictation machine or type it on a typewriter and hand it over to somebody to duplicate on a stencil. And then this duplicator — this stencil was put on a duplicator and the duplicator was run through, and then the material was collated and then it was passed out to people.

That was just the staff. I said, "All right, let's take some mest out of the line and get some information out. Now, where are we going to take mest out of the line? Well, we evidently have to take a step out here someplace."

So I bought myself a big stack of stencils and ran them into the front of a typewriter. And we had a stencil then, and all we needed to do was run the duplicator, that was all. And yet, I found it was difficult for people to run the dupli­cator, so I got a duplicator. And I was actually, for a while there, operating just like this. And we had lots of information and lots of this and that during that period.

I would put stuff — compose it onto the stencil. Sometimes people would say, "Well, this isn't well proofwritten — look, there's some commas out of shape." Commas — you know, terribly important things! I mean, gee, how's anybody ever get along without a comma! Uhh! Shades of Korzybski.

Anyway, you can't worth a nickel compose on a stencil and proofread them at the same time. It's quite a trick. You'd have to put them back into the machine again, and usually when you put them back into the machine again they don't line up quite, you know, and they overstrike and understrike and so forth. And the whole lineup was just trying to take time and mest in general out of the comm line. So I'd just throw them onto the stencil. And then when I got them off of the stencil, I'd throw a wad of paper on this duplicator and pin the stencil onto the duplicator sheet, just turned around a couple of times till it sat right, and then let it roll. And sit down at the typewriter and get out the next stencil while it was pocking off, see?

And what do you know, it wasn't anybody could stop the communication line. People started going frantic — there were several people resigned from the organization. (audience laughter) That's right! You think I'm exaggerating. There was just too much communication there, too suddenly, and it drove several people frantic.

Well now, compare this to a few months earlier: I had written a bulletin on how you give an intensive process and why people spin under processing. We'd found — and you could use this as a datum, by the way, I'll just give it to you in passing — that this was the condition under which an individual had been worsened while being processed. These conditions, one or more of them existed, if a case became worse during processing.

One: The processing was done too late at night.

Two: There were too many auditors on the case.

Three: The preclear was hungry — too hungry, bad diet.

And four, which really sums up to the earlier one: The preclear was not getting enough rest.

And the last one: The preclear was suddenly deluged with environmental problems, such as divorce or something like that, just hitting him in the middle of processing.

And we found out that these conditions were the conditions which attended — practically all of them attended — every break we had in terms of processing, and we were processing some terribly bad-off people at the time in Elizabeth. And nearly every one of these conditions was disobeyed on any case which had gotten into severe difficulty because of processing. All right.

I wrote a bulletin on this, and also described how you gave the thirty-six hour intensive run — what you hit for and what you did. And it was about — typed up, oh, I imagine, it was about five or six pages; and it gave this material and other material, and it was a good rundown. Actually, it was the forerunner of that Standard Operating Procedure which came out in an early bulletin following Book One. I believe it was released in about July of 1950.

And many, many weeks went by, and I asked one day an auditor — his preclear looked a little bit dazed and I said to the auditor, "That preclear doesn't look like he had sleep. Haven't you read the bulletin on this subject?" And, "You're not supposed to process this fellow, he looks like he's dog-tired."

"Well, aren't you supposed to process people when they're tired?"

"No."

"Well, I never read about that anyplace."

And I said, "Haven't you received an intensive run bulletin — how do you give an intensive run?"

"No."

So I went around and I asked a couple of other guys if they'd received it. And it was sitting in the manager's safe in its original form because it was too valuable to be duplicated. He couldn't trust it to the secretary, you see. Now, that's what he told me; that's wonderful, isn't it?

So anyway, we were taking him out of the communication line amongst other people.

So many times horrible things would occur businesswise around, and you say, "My God, there's — material has gone out on that. The formula with which that's supposed to operate has already been released, everything is squared around on that." No, never been put around anyplace.

So, for processing and business alike, the stuff was running — and as I said, people resigned from the organization. People just left in all directions on the business line. And not because I was being nasty about it, but simply because bulletins and material and lists of names and things like that would appear on people's desks — because I went around afterwards and dropped them on people's desks. It was deadly, utterly deadly. It knocked practically all the chaff out of the early organization. Didn't knock it out quite soon enough, but it knocked it out. Because they couldn't stand the idea of fast communication. There wasn't anything wrong with this communication, it was just routine, you see, but they couldn't stand fast communication.

You'll find that an individual — well, let's take Johnny Q. Public out here — he thinks this book is a good book because it took seven years to write it. No, I can tell you right away that's a lousy book. It took seven years to write it. That clunk! I mean, the fellow never got wound up. He obviously never did get wound up; never got started.

"Gee," the public would say, "gee, what would happen if he'd had fifteen years to write it?" I can tell you what'd happen — nothing. It never would have gotten written.

Now, there's many a book kicking around — I could name several notable examples — which are kicking around as classic literature merely because they took thirty-five years to write or seventeen years to write or something like that. And these books are terrible! I mean, they don't even vaguely compare with anything.

Communication speed — it's not that I'm sold on communication speed, it's just — I'm just pointing up here a fairly fast size-up on a case. How much mest has he got between him and the communication he's trying to put out? How much mest has he interposed? Because he's interposed in exact ratio to the amount of time he thinks he's stretched over.

Now, some people think they're stretched over a fifteenth of a second and some people think they're stretched over a couple of minutes. And some people who are real bad-off think they're living simultaneously in a couple of hours. That's right, only they're in the sanitarium.

Now, there's communication lag, and that's what you're looking at when you look at a case.

Well, all right, you're also looking at a body here with Step IIa. Well, that's made out of mest. And we were talking about the genetic entity today. Well, when you get something that's that much effect and depends that much on applause, in the form of food, you're going to get a big communication lag — real big lag.

This process of stepping somebody out of the back of his head is just that kind of a thing. You're — he can step out of the back of his head as much as he doesn't have any mest on his communication line. I mean, these two things are proportional. He has as much difficulty in stepping out of the back of his head, you see — this is a rough proportion, this is not a straight law — as much difficulty there as he has comm lag.

Well, now if he gets his comm lag down to practically zero, why, he'll step out of the back of his head. Well, he's got as much comm lag as he has energy.

Now, we're talking more crudely. It is exactly proportional. The amount of mest the fellow has on the communication line is the difficulty which he is having in communication, since all communication is supposed to be instantaneous and he's having that much worry about being cause and effect, and about distance and about, everything else. He's having this much difficulty. How much mest has he got on the communication line? Okay.

Because it is to that degree (that he has mest on the communication line) that he believes that he himself is a piece of energy. His communication lag is as great as he believes that he himself is a piece of mest. And the slower his communication lag is, the bigger the piece of mest he thinks he is.

Well, now how many techniques are there to resolve this? How many processes to resolve this?

Well, the reason Step IIa is sitting there and the reason Step II of SOP 8 is sitting there the way it is, is simply because in the process of processing we have found out that that, to a large degree, belongs there as the next two: "Be three feet back of your head," he can't be; the next thing you would do in SOP 8 would be to say, "All right. Mock up your body in front of you and now step out of it." Well, this is elementary.

But here in SOP 8-C we go a bit further into this, and we find out that the body — the amount he believes he is a body — has a great deal to do with his ability to step out of his body. And he believes he's a body to the degree that he believes that he is matter. It isn't that he believes he is a body, so he is matter. This is different than that. He has the same difficulty of getting out of the body as he believes that he himself has mass. We don't care whether he thinks he's the body or doesn't think he's the body, that happens to follow as an accidental result. The more mass he has, the more likely he is to think he's a body, but this is incidental.

What we're interested in is, as always throughout these processes, we're interested in a thetan. And the thetan has a communication lag as great as he thinks he is himself mest. So there you are. He isn't something that's causative or creative, he believes he is mest. So he's effect. Now how much of an effect can he get? mest. That's effect — it's total effect.

If you don't believe it, go around and hit a wall and stand there and wait for it to hit back — it never will. Go around and slug some space, it won't ever hit back. It's only when you set it up in some combination of accident, for instance, so that you hit a wall and the roof falls on you. See, you'd have to kind of set that up, or not notice it's set up that way, in order to have mest hit back. But it uses no volition.

So the difference being an effect and being at cause — being pure cause is being total volition and being an effect is being no volition — total no volition. And then you've got mest. mest can be made to look like it has volition, as in an explosion. That's why a thetan worships an explosion. If he worships anything, it's an explosion he worships. So it looks like it has volition.

Now, engineers and many others and other religionists, other people in other cults, worship lightning. And back in the days of Jove, when people were leaping full-armed from the brow of Jove — they had to stop that, it was giving him a headache, I think — anyway, they worshiped lightning. And man has never really stopped worshiping lightning.

People down in Greece, for instance, they worshiped amber and it looked like lightning. Electra — it generates electricity and so forth.

It got them into endless trouble in South America because the Inca has a worship of gold — had a worship of gold. And the Spaniards came down there and — it's just because gold has some resemblance to lightning and because it's bright and so forth. This is a worship of energy. And that is carried forward today, and there is a church up to the north here known as General Electric; that's carried along in that church. And there's another cult, there's a communication cult — its god is Mercury, I think; it's named Bell Laboratories, and they have a goddess in there called Ma Bell.

And there — it's a — well, I don't mean to turn this off into strange religious practices, but these people do worship lightning. You can't get away from that. If you've ever watched an engineer drooling over his valves and test tubes and wondering just how much inductance to put into what resistance, we get this beautiful picture of the worship of lightning.

Well, that's a communication lag any way you look at it — it has a finite speed. And anytime you get anything pinned down into mest, it gets a finite speed and that finite speed is c. And we're not quite sure what c is since it has to be evaluated by itself. C is 186,000 miles as — per second or something like that, but it takes something — some mechanical means to tell you what a second is, and that mechanical means is in terms of motion. So we come around to find out that light is moving in terms of moving light. And that's very hard to figure out, but they manage to get complicated about it in some formulas.

You understand, I mean that very clearly: How can you say c is 186,000 miles per second and then compare it to anything, if that thing to which it is being compared is the second, which of course it makes. You see, it — you — no clock will wind or run or do anything else unless you apply motion to it, and you're measuring motion versus motion.

It takes so long, somebody says, for this particle to get from A to B in space, and that is c. Well, that's all very well. But you know, if you didn't have a clock running at the same time, it'd take forever, wouldn't it? I mean, there's just no comparative link here.

It's like the fellows try to play the "only one" with the Hebrew god Yahweh. They say he's the only one. And well, how great is God? Well, he's as big as he is. And how small is he? Well, he's as small as he is. And you say, "Well, how mad is he?" He's as mad as he is.

You see this — none of this runs on a double terminal, so they have to throw in the Devil in order to make enough commotion there to tell you how good God is. How good is he? Well, he's much better than the Devil. Right away you understand what that's all about. Very simple.

Now, when we go into all of our problems of reason, we have to go into dichotomies. And that whole business of the dichotomy is really these two terminals, which is the single unit of this universe, which is a unit of two. And that, in essence, is a communication line, isn't it? So the first terminal can be A and the second terminal B. Or the first terminal can be cause and the second terminal effect. And then the second terminal can be cause and the first terminal effect. And then the first terminal can be cause, and the second terminal effect. And so we get an electric current going zippity-zap, zippity-zap, zippity-zap. And we have a generation taking place, and it moves in proportion to the amount of space which is moved between the two terminals. You could take these two terminals and move them at each other. And move one — move the first terminal at the second terminal, you see, and then pull it back into place; and move the second terminal at the first terminal and pull it back into place. Every time one was cause, you would move it. And if you had two massive terminals there, you would get, whether you liked it or not, an electrical current with the application of this mechanical motion.

Mechanical motion then boils down to the ability to impose space, and that's all mechanical motion is. All right.

When space gets imposed on a communication line for a thetan, he begins to believe he's stretched out or he's elongated or he has a certain size or that he has to pay a nickel in order to talk to somebody — dime now, in most cities. The goddess Ma Bell, there, is demanding a bigger tithe. Practically everybody pays tribute to that temple, by the way. It is one of the more famous temples. It has sub temples all over towns and people go in there and they worship; they pay a dime and worship a few minutes. And they insist they can't communicate any other way than on a piece of copper wire with some electrons in it. That's kind of silly, but that's the way they do it. You'll have to become accustomed to the usages and customs of people here on Earth. They may be strange to you, but they — nevertheless, they do have these customs and believe in them thoroughly. And they think you're mad if you don't believe in them, which is their definition of madness.

Now, when we go into the whole problem of communication and communi­cation lag, we're into the problem of stepping a thetan out of the back of his head.

We say to this fellow, "Be three feet back of your head," and he goes chunk! and he's right where he is. What's his problem?

Well, Mr. Anthony, it is like this — he thinks he's mass. And if you asked him real quick, he would get the weariest feeling at the thought of moving a mountain. You'd say, "All right. Now you get the idea now of taking that mountain over there and pushing it three feet further on." He wouldn't like that. You'd say, "Now get the idea of the pyramids. Now get the idea of picking up one of the pyramids and shoving it into another pyramid." He wouldn't like that.

No. His — he's chosen as his randomity, work and effort. And he's thinking, then, in order to avoid work and effort. And if his thinkingness is to avoid work and effort, he's going to, of course, avoid terminals. He can't have — take two terminals and pull them apart, like his head and the body, because he'd get — immediate resultant of energy. And if he has to have energy before he can move anything and the energy has to be exteriorwise, why, he cannot possibly be three feet back of his head. You see how this would be? There's nothing to that. It's just how much space can he impose between two terminals, he thinks. He makes that mistake himself, you don't make it for him.

Well, he knows he can't hold two terminals apart, that's his problem. He can't hold two terminals apart, so he can't hold two terminals apart. So what? Does that really have anything to do with his being three feet back of his head? Well, not a darn thing, because a thetan doesn't have any mass. No mass. The thetan is not a terminal.

Well, how can't he be three feet back of his head? Well, he must be dragging something with him that is mass. That's what you immediately assume, and in practice it works out that way. He's carrying along an old Fac One body, or he has some clanking chains or something that he scared somebody with and thinks — still thinks he has to have around.

In other words, he's got a lot of mass which he is salvaging. And he thinks he is that mass, and he has agreed with the mest universe, and agreed with the mest universe. The more he's agreed with the mest universe, the more he thinks he has to have something from an exterior source, and the less he believes that he can create it when he needs it. As a result, he's bogged down. So you ask him to be three back of his head and he can't be three feet back of his head.

You get the "yoyo effect" — he goes back of his head maybe and snaps back in again. And he goes back of his head and snaps in, and out and in and out and in and out and in. What's he doing?

Well, if you didn't realize this factor about communication and mest, you might have a hard time doing it, unless you realized that he's trying to work with a problem of two terminals. And as he's trying to work with this problem of two terminals, he isn't a terminal; and there is where he — his logic breaks down. It only breaks down because he thinks he's a second terminal. If he's a second terminal, naturally there is energy and gravitic influences in terms of the body which are at work upon him, and sure they snap him back into his head. But this is just a matter of agreement with the mest universe.

Well, now how good is his perception? His perception is as good as he knows he's him. That's how good he is. That's how good his perception is. Because if he thinks he's a terminal, of course, he thinks all perception will be done on the basis of being hit by particles. And that isn't the way a thetan perceives, you see? So he's in bad shape there.

Furthermore, if he thinks he's mest, he becomes afraid to touch things, and so we get in immediately to reach and withdraw. And let me call your attention to that button, reach and withdraw. Formula H — the action of reaching and withdrawing, being the basic and native action of the thetan, when done in terms of processing, recovers material that is hitherto untouchable.

Reach and withdraw. You have people reach and withdraw for material, material reach and withdraw for him. And so we get — in all of the actions which the thetan is undertaking, we get him able to reach and withdraw, him able to take pictures of things or not take pictures of things; and we don't get a blessed thing which looks even vaguely like a valve or a rheostat or a resistor or a transistor or a biscuit — none of these things. He just doesn't look like an electrical gimmick. He isn't an electrical gimmick. He can create electrical gimmicks and he can create, better still, electricity.

But yeah, I can see somebody in public service saying, "Gee-whiz. Now let's see, how much could we cut down our coal consumption bill if we got this guy to (mumbling) so we could make a lot of money and pull in a lot of energy that we don't need." That's how they'd think, too. Anyway . . . That's the way they thought early on the track.

So here we have this problem of mass versus mobility and you could — anybody knows that he who travels lightest, travels fastest. And in the case of a thetan it goes up to instantaneousness. He can travel instantaneously who isn't packing mass. But he travels as uninstantaneously as he's packing mass around — in other words, as he has mest entered into him.

Well, so let's just get into this business of bodies, and after a thetan's been hanging around the universe for a while, don't think it was just bodies that made him believe he was mass. Distance was the first thing he confronted — it wasn't a lump of energy. He looked at distance and he says, "Oh, no!" And you'll run that on some preclear and that's just the reaction you get: "Distance? Huh-uh!"

The body — he's got to have a body so it can cover distance, and the better mechanical transport systems occur on Earth — the better the transport systems, the more comfortable it is to have a body; otherwise, the body is a terrifically limited thing. It can only walk at about four miles an hour and it tires itself out fairly rapidly at that. It can only trot at about eight, and I think it — the world's record is about half that of a running horse. I mean, it's not much of a vehicle. But it's better than nothing, and so the fellow gets around in this vehicle.

Well, to the degree that it will cover distance, why, he's fairly satisfied with it, and he only begins to get impatient with it when he realizes he'd like to go up to the nearest star and find out what's going on. And then he starts thinking in terms of the amount of mass it would require to lift a ship with enough supplies of air and water. And the reaction engine computation of the amount of mass necessary to boot that ship forward demonstrates to you adequately that it would have to pick up mass en route.

Furthermore, although I understand that his laws aren't effective beyond the stratosphere, there's a fellow by the name of Einstein passed some laws relating to the speed of light. And you get up to the speed of light, I understand, and you stop right there. And I hope that they don't hear about this out in the outer planets there, because they'd have to drop those speedometers off. Because these boys going two or three times the speed of light there, as they just start to travel, would be embarrassed if they knew they couldn't do that. And so somebody'd better inform them before they're embarrassed by having this discovered about themselves.

But the point is that no amount of mass will solve the problem of distance. There's no sense in just getting more and more mass into the problem — I mean, that's the wrong thing to put in it. What you want to do is start taking mass out of it.

It's like communications. Now, you could use — just to show you how workable this is, because those laws which work in the field of theta also work in the field of mest if you look close enough. If you could go down to the telephone company and just start looking through their equipment, ready with a pair of snippers and a truck to carry away the trash, you know you could probably speed up the whole comm system of a city quite markedly just by throwing out relays and pieces of equipment.

Now, this is just a guess, I haven't looked at it lately. But the tremendous amount of mass interposed in such a system is wonderful — it's just wonderful to behold. And what you'd be trying to do would be to take time out of the system. The more time you could take out of the system, the less traffic you would have to handle. But people normally don't look at it in this way. The "traffic engineers" as they're laughingly called — they are people there who are hired by cities to keep the traffic in the streets as long as possible so the people can look at the automobiles. These fellows routinely and regularly do the most fabulous job of holding up traffic.

Now, if you were to zone a city or fix it up in such a way that it had one-way streets and the traffic poured down these streets this way and back on the other streets this way . . . If you were to look — if you were to map up, rather, a bunch of particles or marbles that would do the same thing, you would see that they would eddy. And it would take a long time for particles to straighten themselves out in those eddies. And so it is.

So you go over and you want to stop at a store; and you come down the street and you want to stop at that store. And then you go round the block, and then you go around another block, and then you have to come back around two blocks and then go over kind of quick to the park and go around the turntable — and all this time all you were trying to do was to get back on the other side of the street; this was your total. . . And yet they have kept you on the street for a dozen blocks, or at the — more reasonably, four or five blocks sometimes you'll have to be on a street. You shouldn't have to be on a street those extra blocks, because that's just that much more traffic. So they have actually succeeded in multiplying traffic, these traffic engineers, all the time being very systematic about how they were multiplying traffic.

Sooner or later, if somebody wants to handle traffic in an American city, he'll have to find out how to take the traffic off the street and keep it moving while it's on the street. If you've got to do something about traffic — I don't know why people do, there isn't any reason why you can't park a car in the middle of the intersection, the way you do down in Texas, and hang one arm out the window and have a good long talk with the traffic officer. Nobody ever blows his horn at you, it'd be impolite. You just leave your car right where it is, you see, just back of his car, and walk over to the post office. And that's the easy way to do it — that's Fort Worth, Dallas — that's the way they do down there. They handle traffic down there quite well. Nobody ever goes anyplace.

But, the main thing you'd have to do is like Pittsburgh: One time I was going through a tunnel in Pittsburgh . . . They made an accident or something in Pittsburgh — a sign painter made an error in painting a sign and I think he said, "Nothing under 65." It was an accident, and of course it was on the city budget and so it would have had to come out of some politician's pocket. And everybody knows you can't get anything out of a politician's pocket, so they never could repaint the sign, so they had to enforce this law on one of their tunnels up there.

And I was going through this tunnel — I was traveling in a sport roadster and it was a rather fast little car. And I was traveling along, I thought, a pretty good speed. And I heard a siren go whining and roaring behind me, and a guy comes up alongside of me and sticks his brass-bound cap over the side of the car and he says, "Get a move on!" And I thought I'd misheard him and so I started to slow down, and he said, "No, get a move on!" And so I got a move on. And I looked at the speedometer and I was doing 60 when he said so. I was five miles under the speed limit, I think. So I put the thing up to 80 and he was very happy. So I've known since that the cops are crazy in Pittsburgh, in some fashion or another, because they're not like that in the rest of Pittsburgh — it's just in this area. There's some magnetic influence in the middle of the tunnel which affects their sanity.

But the point is that you've got to make traffic move. In France, by the way, they have no trouble with traffic — they never can find any. Traffic on the highroads there travels at the top speed of the car. There is no speed limit in the country. None. And you see stuff going by which would normally be traveling, and should be traveling, in a safety margin of about 25 kilometers an hour and it's going by at 200 kilometers an hour. They don't drift around — and that in amongst of a bunch of donkey carts and so forth; it makes life interesting. They love to live dangerously.

Well, but it does keep a lot of traffic moving. Of course, till you get to the outskirts of Paris, and there are enough American tourists in Paris to jam all the traffic there anyhow, so you can't get into Paris.

But traffic in any way, shape or form that you're trying to cover distance with mass, becomes a problem which is almost an unsurmountable problem, because it's in terms of a problem with communication. The more mass you put into the basic communication, the more difficulty there is in receiving it.

Now, we take an old-time spark set: At one time or another, they laughing — they had what was laughingly referred to as a radio transmitter. And these things, on a clear day, with conditions absolutely optimum and only burning, I think, something like about twenty-five hundred volts or something and about ten amps — or maybe it was a hundred amps … By the way, they had a transmitter that had a couple of big electrodes here, like some of the kids do up at MIT when they duel with those swords — they step on a metal plate with metal shoes and wired-up swords and they have this lightning bolt, and they'll duel with this lightning bolt and the public is much edified. Anyway . . .

The boys — whenever they introduce any mass, you don't get any distance. And this spark set is definitely such a condition. Because with this enormous input, why, on a clear day, they got about forty miles out of it. Boy, you talk about heavy juice — they were just trying to put it through raw, between two electrodes, and hope somebody got the magnetic vibration of it someplace. It was transmission by gravity or something — if you could move the Earth over to the right or the left. . . And, of course, nobody got anything.

Now today, they give you a little tiny transmitter and it's got practically no mass, and the signal has very little push behind it, and the darned thing — counting on skip distances and other things, boy, there's no telling where you'll wind up with one of those little tiny transmitters — a mobile transmitter and so forth.

During the war — last part of the war we had FM, and — FM telephones. They cost about thirty-six hundred bucks apiece, I think, or something like that. Industry would never duplicate them — it's only something that you could afford in an emergency. So these FM telephones, though, they're clear as a bell, they're just gorgeous. And the amount of juice in them, was just nothing.

You get these TBX, TBY — I don't know what that stuff was called — the early stuff, it didn't work, that we had. Walkie-talkies — the Army's still using them, doesn't work. Anyway . . . They break down — why, they're eight pounds of batteries to one pound of set; they're nice and heavy, you know? But these FMs weren't like that, they were tailored down. That's merely because there was a very — it was very accurate where it was going. It very accurately went to where it was supposed to go, and it very accurately was received when it got there. See, the accuracy was the point — not mass.

Now, the Army walkie-talkie — the first of those that we had anything to do with, they just plain went everywhere, and they got pulled in from everywhere. You were liable to be talking to pilots when you should have been talking to the sergeant and all sorts of things was happening there. That's because they weren't that directional. It wasn't that these things were directional, you understand, but I mean, it's just — it was only supposed to go so far and it was supposed to do just that, and so the engineer designed it so it would just go so far and so it would do just that, and it was a wonderful piece of equipment.

Well, get that in the line of theta: If the guy has accuracy, if he knows which way he's going and knows how far he's got to put it and he can tell with accuracy what's going to happen when it gets there — in other words, if he can predict the arrival of a couple of particles — boy, what he can't do with beams. He can also be three feet back of his head with great accuracy. Why? Because he's not thinking of himself in terms of mest.

Every time a fellow thinks of himself in terms of mest, he gets into bad stuff.

So we have here the handling of bodies. The most intimate connection he has with mest is a body. There is only one difficulty with this step and that is that it validates bodies.

Experimental procedures as they come along, and as they will be released — things that are still in an experimental stage — include exteriorization from other things than the body and various methods of doing this. And you, as auditors, now that you've got that much of a clue can go on and do it when it'll work. It has certain limitations. But it's interesting to exteriorize somebody out of a table. Getting the idea that he's in the table and all that sort of thing — it's a terrifically limited technique, by the way.

But here is a better technique — also one of these same experimental techniques. It's not that it's in an experimental stage, but it's just that it has not been released, it isn't up there to the front of the line. But it belongs right here in Step IIa, and I might as well tell you about it.

It runs on the basis of disabusing an individual from being mest and time, that's what it is. And what do you know, it comes under the heading of handling bodies. See? Communication lag, communication thing. He — this fellow that you're having trouble with is having an awful lot of trouble simply because he's walking around believing he's mass.

Well, you get him out of there as not being mass, and he'll be perfectly happy. But he just — all of his reality is tied up in being mass. And by the way, he can see all right when he's exteriorized and he'll very often exteriorize as a piece of mass. He's liable to exteriorize with a great big black body; he's liable to exteriorize with electrically rigged fingers. I think there's probably one or two people here that have probably done that. You know, exteriorize momentarily and flop back into the body again and say, "Oh my God, life's too dangerous and I'm liable to get destroyed."

How can a thetan be destroyed? He can only be hit as — in the ratio that he has mass to hit. So he's holding on to this body and protecting himself — what's he protecting? He's protecting something that needs no protection. He is the thing that needs no protection, so he must be protecting somebody else.

So it comes up on the line that there must be some kind of an affinity or sympathy between himself and this kind of a body for him to have this mass. So his sympathy for mass, in the final analysis, becomes his agreement with the mest universe and becomes in itself the reason why he believes he's mass. Sympathy for mass, believing that he is mass — same thing.

Well, a method of exteriorization which I'll give you now in its most elementary form, is simply you have the individual point around and find three objects which he is not. And you just keep this up in brackets until he's so damn mad at you, he could kill you. But you do it very mildly and you do it very pleasantly, because he'll get bored with this. Of course, he can't be three feet back of his head either — always remember that. He can only be three feet back of his head if he is not mass.

So here's an example of it. I'll give you that example immediately by giving you the process:

Give me three — three material objects in this room which you are not.

Three more material objects which you are not.

Give me three material objects in the past which you are not. All right.

You notice we've got this handled to some degree up here at Step Ia, but not to this final, horrible degree. Because here we're handling very specifically and specially the problem of mass, and there are other ways to handle it than just this way. We're trying to disabuse him from the fact that he is an object. So you could separate objects, as of in Step Ia, but you go further on this, you go further on this:

Have him mock up an object which he's not.

Mock up another object which he's not stuck in.

Mock up another object which he's not stuck in.

Mock up an object in which nobody else is stuck.

Now have somebody else mock up an object in which nobody else is stuck.

Interesting process, isn't it? Okay.

Now, we would just cover it from that basis and then we make him lie. The mest universe tells the truth, and here's where that step would vary from Step Ia. Step Ia, you're just going along on the basis of he's not here and there and so forth. Now we make him lie.

Give me three objects in the room which you insist you are. Sort of point at them and say, "I'm that. I'm in that, I'm in that, and I'm in that." All right.

Three more objects which you insist you are.

Male voice: Oh, no!

No! (audience laughter)

Male voice: I saw Shannon's pipe!

Okay.

Now point to three objects in the room which you insist somebody else is in. Okay.

Now point to three completely empty spaces in the room which you insist you're in.

This would be the way it'd go until you've just plowed a guy out, that's all. You make him insist he's mass. You make him determine that he is mass, and then you make him determine that he isn't mass. And then you make him determine that he is mass, and then you make him determine he isn't mass. And you just go back and forth that way. And you do it as much of a bracket as you can possibly put your imagination to, but you just keep this up. And you run the dichotomy, "I am certain I am the object. I'm certain I'm not the object."

But how do you do it? You do it in terms of spatial locations, and this is how you get him out of his body.

You also can have him mock up bodies and insist he's in those and insist he is not in those. Only you don't tell him modus operandi, you just keep going that way: "Three objects that you're not in. Three objects that you're in."

Now, so much for that — communication and the amount of mest in it.

Last night I talked to you about the granting of beingness. I want to show you that in action as a process.

Get three spaces out in front of you and get them granting you a license to survive.

Female voice: That's funny.

Get three objects in the room giving you permission to survive.

Three more spaces in the room giving you permission to survive.

And this is a real silly one: Make three motions with your hand that will give you a license to survive. There is symbolism coming up — hand rituals, hand signals and so forth — there's a lot of them. Enter doingness into it in terms of that. All right.

Now, here in Step II — that's part of Step Ia, but — where it would fit. But here at Step II, there's another one. There's another one. And boy, this is so much like Effort Processing that it's really remarkable. Here we've got — here we've got bodies needing applause. And this is why I didn't bring up this developmental-stage technique to amount to anything, merely because it hasn't been run enough, on enough people here at this time. But I want to give it to you so that you'll have it to work with.

And that is, you take the Applause Scale up there on the chart, and the Applause Scale is a very interesting piece of work, actually, if you start looking over this Applause Scale. Because you have up here under "applause" — up here at the top, let us say, going somewhere in the vicinity from 40.0 down to 0.0 — starting at the top and coming down, you have at the top that an individual performs for an effect and knows it is an effect. And a little bit lower down, he desires applause but he's unconcerned if it doesn't come. And a little bit lower down, he invites and requests applause. And a little lower down, he becomes angry in the absence of applause. And lower than that, he gets fear, grief and apathy because of the lack of applause. And below that is eating.

See? His applause now is getting condensed; it was condensed enough at fear, grief and apathy. Well, what's this but introducing mest into a communication line, see? And so we get down to eating, and you finally get into the final apathy, which is also starvation in the realization that there will never be any applause for any effect. Can't eat, so he dies.

Okay, in such a wise, you get a process which runs out, directly, eating. Now, I say it's very experimental, but it is useful. All right. Because applause, attention, see — I mean, we haven't got any real difference between those two things.

Let's get three spaces around you demanding attention from you.

Now let's get you demanding attention from three spaces.

Now let's get three objects in the room demanding attention from you.

Now let's get you demanding attention from three objects in the room.

Now let's get somebody demanding attention from somebody else in the room — I mean actual people. Put a feeling there. All right.

Now let's get you demanding attention from three objects.

Now three objects demanding attention from you.

And let's get an object demanding attention from another object.

Now let's get an object refusing attention from another object.

Now let's get three objects in the room refusing your attention.

And let's get you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And three objects refusing attention to you.

And three objects refusing attention to you.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And three objects demanding attention from you.

And three objects being bored while you demand attention from them.

And you being bored while three objects demand attention from you.

Now, that in essence, actually belongs under "beingness" in Step I. However, you run into somebody start having trouble with the body, he's having trouble with eating. So you be sure that you ask him what three animals he isn't. And just beat that one to pieces. And what three animals aren't three other animals. And if he can stand it, and if his sanity will stand it and so forth, why, you run this other one, about attention.

Now, granting one beingness is very often something that just turns on the lights in all direction and practically blows the guy Clear. So just don't — don't neglect it. And the way you run that one is:

Get three objects in the room — I've already been over this a moment ago. Give me three objects in the room giving you beingness.

And three objects in the room refusing to give you beingness.

And you giving beingness to three objects in the room.

And you refusing to give beingness to three objects in the room.

And get this conceptually: You refusing to give beingness to a preclear.

And a preclear refusing to accept you giving him beingness.

Of course, the final run of this is the basic aberrated postulate on this whole line and that is, "Nobody can give anybody beingness but me" — that's the aberrated postulate that anybody makes on it. And the other one is, "Nobody's going to give me any beingness." That's the other line. "Oh, help me, will you? I'll cut your throat."

Very often — this, by the way, is very high scale as an aberration. You very often find this in its most heightened form in a child. There is, by the way, the basic mechanics of independence. That's not the basic mechanics of self-determinism, that's the basic mechanics of independence: "I must get along by myself. I can only do it myself," and so forth. See? "I can only do it for myself" and that sort of thing. That's refusing to let somebody else give you beingness.

By the way, I ran into a pc not too long ago who had the most interesting angle on all of this. The pc was sitting there trying to find out what the auditor was going to do. You talk about a present time lag on this pc. The auditor was doing it, you see, but the pc spent his whole session trying to find out what the auditor was going to do.

As a consequence, the pc didn't do anything he was told to do because he just wanted to see what the auditor was going to do. Well, the auditor wasn't going to do anything, the auditor was there and so forth. And I explained this to the pc, with absolutely no change in the case: "All the auditor was trying to do was to get you to do the things the auditor was asking you to do." And this was over the head of the pc.

Well, now what's this boil down to? It just boils down to the fact that some­times a pc is being so darn protective, which is to say, the only one that's going to grant any beingness or prevent — he's the only one that's going to prevent beingness from being granted, that could be another twist on it — that he just never seems to get any processing. And that is above the level of "resist all effects." Many a preclear will sit around, and just sit there to resist all effects.

Now, sometimes a preclear will consider the auditor too enthusiastic — you know, the auditor moves and breathes, and this is too enthusiastic for them and so on. Well, when this is the case, the preclear's rocklike aspect has been assumed early in life in protection against somebody who just leaped at him all the time. You know, Mama or Papa or somebody — leap at him suddenly, beat him around, boot him around, do something, jump here, jump there, correct him, nervous tension, lot of anxiety and all that sort of thing roaring around. And the fellow, just to survive at all, he just sits into a stony, rocklike beingness, see? He isn't going to respond to anything like that.

And although this preclear may even dutifully run what you're telling him to do, he's running it with his primary concentration on "I mustn't give any beingness to this motion the auditor is making. I have to hold myself this way so the auditor won't go any further with this." In other words, he's running a "restrain the auditor." The auditor's alive, he's breathing. That's enough for many a preclear.

So you want to look at a preclear and see if he isn't putting out a few ten-ton beams for communication lines, so as to prevent you, an auditor, from stampeding him in some fashion or another. And this pc is liable to look very solid. He's liable to be a very solid citizen. He's liable to be solid enough to be measured as a cube. That's about the score on it.

Now, when you detect on an E-Meter that a pc has had in his past a very, very nervous, hysterical parent — one or the other — you can detect at the same time that he's going to assume this sort of a hard, solid aspect when there appears to be any slightest commotion. And he's liable to consider "a commotion" the fact that you're talking. I mean it's liable to be that bad.

But you learn to — you learn by looking. And you look at some preclears, and you see the way they look when they're processing. And then you just kind of think to yourself, you just say, "Well, now look-a-here, it says in the textbook this and that, but here I am sitting here looking at this preclear. All right, and the textbook isn't looking at the preclear, I am. Now, one, this preclear doesn't look to me like he's alive enough to have 8-C run on him."

Well, what do you do then? You just grab for some of the lighter processes, like "Let's remember something real" or 'What's the realest object in the room?" You just fall back to SOP 8, something like that, feel your way through the thing.

Another thing is to establish communication with the preclear.

Now, there's another aspect that you're going to miss occasionally. This rock-hardness has an opposite pole, it has the supernervous person. A person who doesn't necessarily giggle, but appears to line charge. Appears — this person appears to line charge on something. You think you as an auditor have hit a button, see? And you just don't progress. Now, why, why, why? This case doesn't progress. That's because what needs to be run on the case is just that — just that. The case is very tensely holding you off, and is readily showing you that an effect will be made so you won't go any deeper — and you won't get any deeper either. This is another method of resisting. You see that as a method of resisting? All right.

You could have such a case put that very nervous feeling in the walls, with considerable benefit to the case. You'll figure this case is line charging, but the case really isn't line charging, there's something wrong going on here. As an auditor, you just look it over and adjudicate it and just have what the case is doing and put it up in the walls. Duplicate it, you know, till the fellow's kind of discharged on it a little bit, and then he'll settle down to some processing.

But there's many a time when you won't get results on a preclear, when you could swear to golly that this preclear has gotten rid of more locks and done more things, merely because the preclear laughed and appeared relieved and agreed with you and said, "That's great," and so forth. All they're doing is agreeing with you. They're showing you that you're producing an effect, and their main concentration is upon you producing an effect. You see, they want to make sure that you're successful, so they let you produce an effect. And they just let you go on producing the effect. It has nothing to do with the case. Because that's what's wrong with the case — they let people produce an effect.

Well, there's a thousand ways of handling it, lots and lots of ways of handling that. You've got all kinds of technologies which permit you to handle it.

But let me give you this: In the line of communication, your preclear is in — uniformly introducing as much mest into the communication line being used in auditing, as the communication lag of the preclear is actually, and as much mass as the preclear himself actually has. He's introducing as much mest as is actually in the communication line.

In other words, he's putting up barriers between you and him. The first thing you should do, in looking over a case, is to pick up those barriers, whether — no matter what they are, and throw them away and then process the guy. Because by throwing them away, you take the mest out of the communication line. He's demonstrating it to you right there in front of your face, so why not take the MEST out of the line? Throw it away.

Hysterics? Rocklike stability? What is this mest that he's putting into this line so that you can't process him? It's up to you to throw it away. He offers it to you right at the first part of the session, right immediately. Why don't you just pick it up and throw it away? You got lots of means by which to do it. You can double-terminal it, you can do all sorts of things. You can put it in the walls, you can move it up as an idea, shove it around, do anything you want to with it.

But always make sure you're doing this with a case: Make sure you aren't processing somebody that's eight steps below Step VIII. And if you're processing him, strictly "What room?" and when you've finished "What room?" go off into the next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis: "Remember something real." You'll always win if you do those things.

Okay.