It's a real good thing you're here tonight. We're going to talk about Technique Zed.

Audience: No!

Everybody that's been in an ACC knows about Technique Zed, but it's Technique Zed that we always talk about when they're absent; and we always tell them when they're absent that we have just discussed Technique Zed and so on. This leaves them well up in the air, you see? Well, Susie was absent the other night, so I told her, "Good heavens, you've missed Technique Zed." And in all seriousness she came into the Instructor's conference and she says, "Quick, tell me what Technique Zed is!" She fell for it, hook, line and sinker. But there really is a Technique Zed.

Tonight we have some interesting material for a change. I notice people trying to hold their hearts and so forth.

This is the tenth lecture of the 18th ACC, July 26, 1957. Come up to present time. Anybody hearing this on the tape will have to go back, won't they? Well now, that's the subject of the lecture tonight. The anatomy of the mind of Homo G. Sap.

Picanthropus erectus didn't have any trouble with the mind; he only had trouble with teeth. But when his teeth receded sufficiently to get these teeth confused with the mind, he thereafter started biting himself with something he called a mind.

There were some old witch doctors back along the line; I knew one of them, a lazy, no-good dog he was, but he actually did have something — to be technical — did have something on the ball. He used to lie up on a rock. And when the sun was shining he'd lie on this big flat rock and watch everything that was going on down in the caves, you see? And he had a couple of boys that had been orphaned by too fast a spring by cave wolves and saber-toothed tigers and so forth — and he had these two boys and they'd run around and he had trained them to listen very, very well. And everything they heard they brought back to him; and then he would have seering sessions in which he would sear the people good and plenty, castigate them for all the things they'd been doing wrong and they would not know at all how he came by this information. But he had to have a solution before he could do this. He had to have the solution to this problem: how can we make people retain guilt?

In other words, before it did him any good to pick up these bits and pieces, he had to get people to retain guilt so they would thereafter be reminded and would walk the straight and narrow and would not forget to leave the haunch of venison on his rock. Very interesting.

Talking to him one day — has an office on Park Avenue — and he told me that this whole subject of guilt was a very engrossing one. In fact, it was all there was to psychotherapy. Guilt. And in a session whereby you were "psychotherapeuting," all you had to do was pretend to plow up guilt and thus get people in the frame of mind that they could feel guilt, and they would separate with a lot of gelt. Actually, his tactics hadn't varied at all over a great period of time, even though he was now on Park Avenue.

So let's begin at the beginning, and let me show you that guilt has nothing to do with it. Guilt has nothing to do with it. Memory does. That memory which makes a person feel guilty is simply an inflowing memory which he cannot confront. That's all there is to guilt.

Well, we've polished off Freud's psychotherapy and the rest of the things. What else will we talk about tonight?

Oh, if you think it over very carefully that is it, see: an inflowing energy that one cannot confront, you see, and that would be guilt. Now, if you restimulate this, the individual keeps getting inflows that he can't confront and he goes on feeling guiltier and guiltier and guiltier the more we talk to him about guilt and the more we look for this thing called guilt, right? The more we look for this thing, the more we restimulate these inflows, because the guilt ain't. See, that's just another consideration. It isn't. Guilt isn't. And when you search for something which is not, what do you get? You get a lot of things which are not, and none of them are the correct not, and all these things together form a very large knot. And this is what is called the human mind, and which man wrastled with there back in the Dark Ages; way back, way back in the, I think, twentieth — twentieth century, if my memory fails me.

Anyway, the mind has been very, very engrossing mainly because it is the primary control mechanism by which men seek to control men. And when they go all out, when they go all out on control, then they start fouling up people's minds any way they can think of.

Now, if you wish to bring any release to this situation, or any freedom to it at all, you actually have to go into the business of freeing minds. Because all abilities, capabilities, physical energies and everything else depend upon this thing called a mind, which has a high monitoring value, or had, on Homo sapiens.

Individual feels down today, he feels upset, nothing is happening — today is like yesterday, as far as present time is concerned, but some other factor or influence enters in.

Now, we could go so far as to say we don't even know if there is such a thing as bacteria, but we'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say, "Well, there is such a thing as bacteria that is itself not generated by the body." The body, you see, can generate bacteria and can generate bacteria of very many types and classes, all of which are tremendously fascinating — which can even be viewed under microscopes. And I think this is very smart of bodies to be able to do this.

But bacteriology, a subject which was discovered to save the French wine industry, would have had people believe that these things somehow or another floated through the air in some fashion. And of course you can grab a bunch of spores out of the atmosphere and plant them and things grow, but there is no complete proof of this transfer as such. Now, as soon as I tell you about this, this whole subject of bacteria starts folding up on you and it's very unsettling. And if a bacteriologist was listening, he would be more surprised than you, because he doesn't know this. Why do they believe that injecting somebody with some germs or blowing them into his nose or something like that causes these germs then to breed, as such? "Well," you say, "well, they make cultures of these germs and they pour them in." That only proves that germs grow; it doesn't prove that they breed.

I'm not dragging a long point here. You can produce various phenomena with cells and small animal organisms and so on. You can do some wonderful things, but I don't know that any of these diseases are done by any of these germ strains. I'm not sure of that at all. And I think the only reason anybody else pretends he is sure of it, is he's got to have some explanation. And you can mock up the whole concatenation of logic and rationale of bacteriology and you can wind up with some of the most beautiful results and gorgeous experiments that you ever cared to inspect, so long as you don't enter this particular datum: the body itself is capable of generating bacteria.

Oh, you don't believe this, huh? You don't believe this.

Well, it can generate any kind of bacteria you ever heard of, totally independent of any other kind of bacteria it ever heard of. What's the proof of this?

All right. Shoot a man in a nice aseptic sand, totally purified area in Arizona. Hot day, you see? You have him fall in the middle of this totally purified plot, but the sun is shining brightly. And I assure you that this fellow will putrefy.

Now, very few people have conducted this experiment. But it's a logical experiment to conduct. The body can, when it wishes to get rid of some excess part, generate putrefaction, which is to say, a conversion of parts into pus-like matter. Well, you can do other things to the body and cause it to generate other things, all of them more or less in the direction of putrefaction. The body can putrefy itself. Well, if it can putrefy itself it can obviously mock up bacteria, all on its little old lonesome. And if it can do that, then we have to ask the question: is it then possible for it to mock up everything else whenever set an example?

When set a proper example of tuberculouses, will it then generate tuber-culouses? Is it the tuberculi which generate tuberculi, or can the body counterfeit tuberculi? Well, that line of questioning and that pursuit is — not been adequately followed at all. There — we would find then that very probably many diseases, if not all diseases, were autogeneric. Set a proper example, the body goes on and does them.

Well, the only thing that opens this up — is because Dianetics and Scientology have presented too many examples of diseases that just went pfft! And the auditor wasn't auditing the bacteria. Let me point that out to you. He was not auditing the bacteria and yet the disease vanished. Well, he was auditing the person. Well then is it possible that a person generates diseases, completely irrespective of the body? Is this amongst the capabilities of life forms? Well, it evidently is.

A live being is capable of generating destructive measures. We have to assume that. And a little inspection of life, if anybody ever got out and looked at it — and they didn't there in the twentieth century. Most of the people in, practically, early part of the twentieth century, never looked at life. But if you go out and look at life rather directly, you will find all around that life generates, amongst other things, destructive methods, destructive measures, destructive procedures of one kind or another. We go around and look in a city where they have a — had a slum of one kind or another and we find the contractors there busy tearing up slum dwellings — they're going to build an apartment house. Well, life has to destroy in order to build on that site, according to the postulate. They just were very backward in those days and they had to do everything according to the mest universe laws. And what is this all about, then? I mean that if life — why do we balk at this idea that a live form can generate a destructive measure or method? Well, it obviously can. It obviously can. And this trick of putrefaction is just a trick of getting rid of a body which would otherwise lie around and clutter up the streets.

Somebody calculated one time that the forests of the world, were there no dry rot or other wood-destroying measures — we won't say bacteria because we don't know that's there, but we do know that the wood-destroying measures and methods are there — somebody has said that the world would be about a hundred feet deep in undecayed timber if no termites or anything ever came along and chewed it up. Clearing away the debris is evidently one of the methods of life, and clearing away debris is rather easily done with bacterial means, if you want to call it that.

In other words, life does not only mock up life, it mocks up death. And in view of the fact that life, a living being — by which we mean a thetan — cannot die, it's very obvious that death is some kind of a consideration or another that is simply mocked up and whammed into something. It's an agreement of some kind or another. It's an agreement based on: "I've gotten tired pushing this mock-up around — I think I'll get another one."

All right. The methods of getting rid of the old mock-up also include destructive measures. Well, destruction is normally chaotic. Chaos, destruction — these things go rather hand in glove. These are quite similar phenomena-chaos, destruction, confusion, that sort of thing. You surround a human being with enough confusion for a while and he has a tendency to sort of go to pieces. We've all observed this. You take soldiers in battle and that sort of thing, they have a tendency to age enormously. For instance at Dunkirk, the evacuation of troops from the Dunkirk beaches found amongst them many young men who had become gray haired overnight.

Well, Dianetics and Scientology had another look at this and found out that this destructive impulse, just as such, was reversible — you could take care of the thing and many people who have gotten gray haired, under auditing have had their hair turn back to its natural color. This has happened many times. Matter of fact Susie gets a kick out of me. She can normally tell when I've been working too hard or something of this sort because the gray in my sideburns goes up and down like tide, having nothing to do with the growing of hair. The hair doesn't wait to grow, you see? It's just a straight, outright mock-up. And my hair'll be gray way up into the hairline very far and then I'll get a couple of days rest and it won't be gray and it's very silly. Well, when I got away from corvettes in World War II, I had gray hair. Well, we've many times reversed this process in preclears. We sometimes don't do it with great certainty. Sometimes we set out to give somebody brown hair who now has gray hair and reverse the thing. And we very seldom wind up with a redhead but we may not be totally successful in this. Well, why wouldn't we be totally successful in this? Well, something has something to do with this and that's all I'm getting around to.

Medicine had the idea that structure monitored function at all times. That's their basic teaching. When you're talking to somebody in medicine you're sometimes talking at cross purposes because he doesn't understand this primary thing. I remember in Kansas City I was giving some lectures, a medical doctor came up to me and he said, "Even though I have to unlearn my basic principles in medicine, I'm going to. You've sold me on the idea that something else is possible." And I said, "What do you mean by the basic principles?" And he said, "Well, I was educated in medical school and ever since that structure monitors function." In other words, the body would monitor the mind. Fellow is [un]happy when he doesn't feel well; therefore you cure the body and the mind is better. And he said, "Now according to you this is reversed and you say that function monitors structure." Well, that's a fair statement of it, but not a totally accurate one.

The actual statement is this: life monitors structure. And naturally there's an interchange between the two, so to some degree, structure monitors life. Got that? Well now, if you take life on an Axiom 1 basis, and 2, you will discover then that there's an interchange between matter, energy, space and time, and this timeless being — this timeless living being. There is an interchange between the two. So we're not going to be very definite anymore and say totally that function monitors structure. We're going to say that structure can be clarified through life. In other words, you can handle structure via life. And you can also handle life, until it gets wise, via structure. In other words, structure can monitor livingness, and life can monitor living-ness and you have an interchange of livingness when these two things are together. Right?

Well, what's in between them? There must be some gradient scale of a solid gold brick and a massless being. Yes, it's a gradient scale of matter, energy, space and even time. And that interconnecting link by which life handles small energies and thus handles larger and larger and larger energies and thereby gets a gradient scale of response, we call the mind. And this mind is capable as it is energized by a thetan or as it is monitored by structure (see, it can be handled either way — life on one side, structure on the other side, mind in the middle) why, it is capable of anything that life could do or anything that structure could do. See, it's a sort of a mystery sandwich. Well the meat, the mystery meat, actually was the mind; and an understanding therefore of this interlink, on a totally functional, structural, mechanical, draw-a-map-of-it basis, is absolutely necessary to a living being who is trying to live. If he's got a missing link in there that is a total mystery to him called the mind, he's going to be at best poorly oriented. He doesn't know how he's connected to that stuff, how he's connected to mest. He doesn't know what keeps dragging him along the time track. He doesn't know why he's there; he gets very confused.

Now, there's another scale called the Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit Scale — the CDEI Scale — and this scale is one of the more interesting scales because it tells us the cycle of response to havingness. One first is — it's also a cycle of response to a lot of other things, but particularly it matches up with the Havingness Scale.

A person is curious about something, then he desires it and then an enforcement to have it occurs, which winds up with his not wanting anything to do with it and being stuck with it.

A fellow will listen to a sales talk — he's got a 1938 Ford and nobody will buy it off of him and he — you keep asking him, "Why don't you just run it off the road someplace and forget about it?" And he says, no, he can't do that and there's no sale for them these days and he goes on and on like this and he just can't get rid of this car. Well, to some degree he's stuck to the car. What stuck him to the car? Actually all the experiences he's had with the car. Call it nostalgia or anything of the sort. Now, he's gotten down to a point of where he doesn't want the confounded car and he can't get rid of it. And this is the "I" point of the line-inhibit.

All right. This tells you that there must have been a CDEI on this thing called the mind, this interconnecting link between structure and life. There must have been a CDEI.

Now, we can theorize in many ways as to the creation of the mind, but that would be theory. We are much more interested in the workabilities of this. Of what is the mind composed? Well listen, after this midpart of the twentieth century, don't let anybody push you around into believing it's composed of impulses or repressions or guilt or something — you know, a bunch of considerations. Because the thing — anybody stating it like that is simply saying he doesn't know a blasted thing that he's talking about. Of course a mind contains thought. That's very obvious, isn't it? In other words, there'd be more stored thought as it comes up toward life than there would be mass in it, right? Well, it's got thought in it. Why then give these thoughts a bunch of control designations? Somebody could say it has reverence in it; it has — "A man is no good if he is not reverent." "A man is no good unless he can experience guilt." "You must be able to apply yourself so that you will think the right thoughts." Oh, balderdash.

Let's not characterize the mind in such particularized control terms. Let's just say from the point of livingness as we proceed towards structure, the first entrance in is thought — thinkingness. And as the thinkingness gets more and more fixed and solid, we eventually come to the first points of energy, nebulous little bits and parts of energy, and then this goes over into more and more solid masses and when we have a fairly solid mass with — like a mental image picture which contains a lot of significance, we have just about got the middle ground.

Now, that's a facsimile. We call it a facsimile — mental image picture. We have had to make up our own terms for these things merely because man had never noticed them. He had never thought it worthwhile to look at this; he was too interested in a bunch of control mechanisms.

Now, the mental image picture has been mentioned in literature many times, but the anatomy of it never included the fact that it was. People thought they saw these things. People imagined. One line I quote directly out of a very old textbook, about 1949 I think, something like that — December 49. This textbook, by the way, came off of the American Book Company lines, the last volume of that text came off the lines immediately before the first volume of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health rolled off the book rollers. It was very funny; here was a psychology textbook — I beg your pardon, I — it wasn't a psychology textbook, it was published by the University of Illinois; I don't know what they teach out there. Anyway, just as this last copy rolled off, I was standing right there and the people of the American Book Company were showing me what a beautiful, fast job they were doing on my book. They were being very nice about it. And I saw these blue books coming through the rollers and I picked one off the line rather loosely and looked at it. And so help me, it was the basic textbook of psychology, or whatever it was — of the mind, of the University of Illinois. And it was rolling right along and the last of these went off the line, clunkety-clunk, and the first of my book appeared, clunkety-clunk. And as the first copy of my book rolled off the rollers, it knocked the last copy of that book on the floor. So I picked up the blue book and I said to the fellow, I said, "Can I have this copy?" and he said yes; as a matter of fact it used to be in the old Foundation libraries.

But anyway, this book — this book was very nebulous about all this, but I quote all it said about mental image pictures: "Very often, small children and morons think they see pictures." End of observation. They think they see pictures. Well, I don't know what people think's biting them when they've got a nice big juicy facsimile hanging around their ear giving them an awful earache, but it certainly isn't something they think is there! It's there. It is.

In other words, we first have to grant isness to the mind before we can recognize any part of it. It is. Just as much as mass in the solid form is. Isness. We have to say it is. Not somebody thinks it is, or dreams up these things or something of the sort. We have to recognize that it's there. Now, if you're going to repair a radio set, you're not going to get anywhere handling one that is not on the bench, that you just think is there. You'd be balmy. You'd be utterly nutty. If the little boys in white suits came by with their butterfly nets, you'd go; you'd be standing there at the radio bench repairing thin air. Screwdriver, you know, and pliers and soldering, you know, and so forth. And wouldn't be a thing in sight. And the little boys in the white suits would definitely break out their butterfly nets and you'd have had it. In other words, people that try to repair things that aren't there are crazy, aren't they?

You got it?

Audience: Yes.

So if the human mind didn't exist and had no anatomy and had no mass and wasn't in any way, shape or form, anybody that repaired it, before Dianetics, must have been nuts. Isn't that right? And they were. Naturally. You start to look at something to which you're granting no isness at all, you're trying to look at something and all the time saying it isn't, you wind up in an awful state, right?

Well, now we see this mistake being pulled on the walls. People go around all the time and they're saying, "Well-1-1-1, it's not very real-1-1, but… It really isn't there, but. . ." you know. You know, they walk down the street and the sidewalk isn't there and one day they get hit by a taxicab that isn't there and they lug them off to the hospital and sort them into the assorted parts bin.

Now, here we have, then, a very fine example of what not to do. If you're examining something, why, grant it some isness. Now, science learned this trick in the material world a long time ago. They learned this quite well. They said if there's a ghost knocking on the windowpane, there is something there. And that actually is the basis of all physical sciences which have been with us now for a couple, three hundred years. All right. If something is knocking on the windowpane, it is there.

Now, they went whole-hog and they said there is no such thing as a ghost. This is an unwarranted assumption. I could say easily that scientists very seldom see well enough to see ghosts. When I first heard that ghosts didn't exist in this century and place, I wondered if I'd gotten the wrong address. I felt awfully invalidated. And everybody was telling me when ghosts did exist, that they were very afraid of them. Invalidate, invalidate, invalidate. But science tells us that if something is knocking on the window, there is something knocking on the window, that it is done by physical means. Now, stage magicians, which in other times didn't have to resort to these physical means, were forced by this to actually practice entirely with physical means. But it still is a fact that even in stage magic, or ancient magic, that if something happened, there was something there, don't you see? And when there is something there and you say there is nothing there, you're either being crazy or just hopeful.

Now, the study of the mind then must have been very vastly impeded by an unwillingness to grant beingness to structure. And it worked this way: people who became incapable of seeing that wall, looking more shortly, thought they saw something and then tried to disprove it and that was the only basic information we had on the mind. It had to be a good, straight look. We had to look at the mind and we had to say, "What's there?"

Well, all kinds of things are there. These mental image pictures are there, and the — you might say, the machinery that handles them, the cross-interlocks of pictures of one kind or another, the various basic mechanisms of structure in vignette. We see the physical universe out here big and bold, and then shut our eyes and we see a picture of the physical universe. Well, that isn't any decay of vision or other things I've heard it called — I think "optical persistence" is its name. It's not optical persistent, it is a picture of the wall. And if you were to measure the exact mass of the picture, you would find out that it did have a tiny little bit of mass. It was a thing.

All right. We found out then, about the mind, that it did have structure. And for somebody to say, "Well, the mind is function and structure is structure," is a misnomer. Houses have carpentry work in them. Houses have beams and two-by-fours and eight-by-sixes and so forth, don't they? Well, so does the mind; so does the mind — except they're interlocks of pictures of one kind or another. Some are on the massive side, some are on the very, very light side. These pictures have thought in them. It is easier to associate a picture with thought than it is with mass, to tell you the truth, because they're closer to thought than mass, when they are closer. But on the lower end of the spectrum it is easier to associate some pictures people are dragging around with the structure end of the thing.

Well now, when one of these lower ones gets into restimulation, moves itself off of its assigned place on the time track and snaps against somebody's nose, his nose hurts — and that is the final test of it. You hit somebody with a two-by-four and he'll get a bump on the head. You hit somebody with a mental image picture and he will get the bumps indicated in it. It says you get eight bumps out of this picture, you slap it against him, he'll at least get seven.

I remember when Dianetics first came out, I received a tremendous number of letters. I haven't received too many letters quoting on this same phenomena since. But for. some reason or other, people were obsessed for a couple of years with throwing their wives into measles engrams and then taking them to doctors who would then say, "Your wife, I would say, had the measles except there is no respiratory congestion." Had all the spots, had the fever, had everything else and it'd be a case of measles that lasted about three days. A fellow would hear about the time track, he'd decide well, the proper place for a wife of course is in a measles engram if they exist. And he'd shoot the girl down into a measles engram, the spots would turn on, fever would go up and it never occurred to the silly bloke to run the rest of the engram through like it said in the book. He'd lug her off to an MD who would diagnose it as measles without any germs or respiratory difficulties.

Well, what had he done, in essence? He'd taken the pictures made by the girl when she was a little girl having measles and he'd taken these pictures and he'd simply splashed them up against the modern body. That's all that happened. And when this juxtaposition of space between present time and the old picture was made, the body — call it structure — reacted to the content of the picture, just as easy as that.

Now, in view of the fact that people live many wild, wide and variegated ways and they have tremendous numbers of very interesting experience — except mostly what gets wrong with people is they don't have enough happening to them and so they get bored to death. That's factually true, you know. If you want to give somebody trouble with the mind, don't give him any place to put his pictures, such as up against the noses of highway robbers, you know, and mutinous crews and — no drama, no drama. And he has a — too many drama pictures, he doesn't know what to do with them and life is too boring so he pulls in some of the drama pictures to have some drama close up. You can say that this sort of thing happened — it'd be much truer, by the way, than the fact that he got the pictures because of guilt. Now, let's — he's just bored.

I was talking one time — I investigated the police one time or another and it was a very interesting job. I wanted to find out what policemen thought of criminals and what policemen were; and I went down and got myself a badge and became a police officer for a while. And they never got wise to me. They thought I was a good cop, but I never used to get into fights and this mystified them a little bit and they thought I must be bored with life. And it didn't upset them a bit when I left the force. I used to see them afterwards from time to time and say hello. It didn't upset them a bit that I left the force because they knew I must have been leading a very, very bad time. I'd been on the force for months, never been into the hospital, never had to have my fist bandaged up, you know? It didn't occur to them that there was any other way than all this superdrama to handle people in a drunken area. And all — they thought well, you joined the police force, you get all these fights; cops and robbers, cops and robbers, cops and robbers, cops and robbers, television, television, we got it now. See? Television. And we thought that if we didn't get that drama, well, you had no reason to be police and Hubbard just wasn't getting any of this drama so naturally he left — he went out and did something more interesting. He's just unlucky — lucky. Criminal walked up to him, would never draw a gun or anything like that, the fellow would say hello and go on his way — or walk down to the jailhouse.

I had one of them discuss it with me when I was resigning. He said, "Well," he said, "you'll do something else, you'll get some more excitement." He said, "Don't feel bad about it." He said, "A fellow can't live in the middle of a vacuum forever." Never occurred to him there was any other way to handle life, than just handle it, see? You had to handle it with drama.

Well anyway, an individual, for whatever reason or rationale, does make pictures of what goes on or what he does. Now, we say he makes pictures — let's say he permits them to hang in suspense, or he permits something to associate itself like pictures, or he permits a picture phenomena to occur. And in the early days we just characterized these things as pictures and that was that. Well, actually it's a little more simple mechanism than we thought it was. Really, he's just sort of stuck around in that moment of time, and the scene has gotten very thin and this is a picture. And he, by changing space slightly — because thought can be everyplace — of course can see this picture right in front of him at any time.

Now, the funny part of it is he also has the capability of mocking one up out of whole cloth. He just mocks one up. Well, telling the difference between one that was mocked up and one that actually happened, people think is the cause of it all. They say, "Well, he hallucinates. He thinks the pictures that are not real are real, you know, and it never really happened, but he thinks it happened and he's crazy and so forth." Well, putting this in a picture category, a picture is a picture regardless of what it's of — it is just a picture. Now, you say it is of something that happened, well, then we would have to say well, it must be a special kind of picture which is the residue of what happened. Say that's all that's left of what happened. Or we'd have to say he mocked it up. But it nevertheless is an energy mass and does have very many purposes. It has a tremendous number of purposes. And we look at CCH and we find most of these purposes in CCH — the purposes of the pictures. The pictures have thought in them.

Now, some of these pictures are clean out of sight — they are there totally, but they're missing. The individual went unconscious but the picture stayed there anyhow. Well, for sure an individual who goes unconscious will get the picture because the picture's totally collapsed upon him. Then with great surprise, as you start to audit him, he sees these things peeling off from him. Well, they moved all the way in and then there was a total space closure between himself and the picture. You got that?

And that's what unconsciousness is — being totally reached. Didn't want to be reached, but was reached. The individual's final retreat is not away in space, but down in awareness. Therefore, when he totally refused to confront something, he really got a picture. See, he just wouldn't answer up to it at all; then it's almost totally there all the time.

Well, that's actually all there is to the reactive mind, the unconscious, the subconscious or any other of these things.

Now, because these are all violent experiences, when they restimulate they generally cause a person to act in a violent way. And thus people like Freud make the statement that the unconscious or reconscious or something of the sort contains nothing but bestiality and man is basically an animal and he raves and screams and has these horrible impulses and so forth. You couldn't say any such thing. You could merely say that most of his violent happenings, those things which happen to him violently, are capable of being dramatized.

Now, the funny part of it is, it isn't what happened to him that counts in therapy. It's when he reached past the picture. Well, this is a violation of his inability to confront it, so he couldn't confront it but he reached past it and did it to somebody else and it caused the picture just to really snap in; in other words, he just started to confront the picture. So all the key-ins on these things are — you might call overt acts and give us these ideas of guilt complexes and other things. You can look at this anatomy rather interestingly, but it's the same darn thing we're talking about. We're talking about the bridge between life, a massless, thinking, living thing capable of creation and so forth, and the structure which it has created. And those impartial viewers looking at this would immediately have to conclude that it was just a gradient scale between thought and structure. And where it sort of disappears out of view and the general ken, we call it the mind. And it's that part of that gradient scale that's missing in normal observation. You look at Joe, you don't see this thin little structure sort of thing, the bridge between himself and how he manages to stand on pavement, which is quite a trick. And so we say, "Well, he's — it's his mind."

Well, there's only one thing wrong with the mind and that is the fact that a person has lived. There really isn't anything wrong with the mind. And if there's any basic postulate at the bottom of all of this series of pictures, it would be just this one: he wanted to keep a record. You can Straightwire somebody on that question — you'll get some very interesting results, you see? "Can you recall a time when you wanted to keep a record?" "Recall another time when you wanted to keep a record." And "Recall another time when you wanted to keep a record." And all of a sudden these pictures will start peeling off and going in all different directions, because he started parking remote vision points in front of all these old scenes. You see? He'd say, "Well, you know, I don't have that battle anymore and I don't have a battle now — I wish I had that battle back. The next time I get a battle I will keep some portion of the battle so that I can look at the battle and when I don't have a battle I'll have a battle." See? And therefore he'd haul one up and then there'd be this battle and that battle and then he'd say, "Well, I think I'll bridge the thing over into women," or something like this and he'd have a picture of one woman, another one. And then he'd say, "Well, I think I'll start keeping records of financial transactions," or something of the sort. And he starts getting all of his pictures — pictures.

In other words, he doesn't do it by recall, he does it by pictures. And when he does it very thoroughly by pictures, then he begins to depend upon similar pictures to handle similar situations. He does what happened then. He knows what happened then, then he puts this on automatic and he says, "Well, I don't have to handle any existing situation," (inability to confront) "so I will use a picture to handle the situation. Pictures will now confront for me."

There we get the mind in action. The individual doesn't have, he thinks, capability of handling structure directly. And as a matter of fact, structure is a little bit hard to handle directly with no intermediate step. And so the individual puts structure on automatic and he said all the structure will be handled on a gradient scale and here we go, and "I won't have to put out any effort and I can just sit here and not confront anything and be dead in my head and life will go on being lived." He does this for a few years and then he says, "You know, I'm not living." This occurs to him suddenly. He says, "You know, I'm not living, I don't have anything to confront, I'm not getting anywhere in life," lots of other things.

But the use of the mind or its disuse, the use of life or its disuse are, alike, enervating. That is to say, one totally uses and only uses mental mechanisms to remember things for him and one day he gets down to a point of where he can't remember anything unless he writes it down on a piece of a paper and then he gets to a point of where he can't remember anything unless somebody else writes it down on a piece of paper — he can't do that anymore either, he — somebody else has got to do it now — and he's just passing on out through remote stages. By stages of confrontingness, or failure to confront, he's getting more and more remote. Well, the mind naturally lends itself to this kind of thing.

Now, the mind has vacuums in it wherever it had a picture with a vacuum in it. Masses of pictures can — just as such — can evidently be influenced by other energy masses and you get all sorts of things. Energy influences energy, space influences space, energy influences space, time influences energy. You get an interconnection of matter, energy, space and time any way you want to look of it — at it, and any interconnection which is possible in the universe is also possible in the mind. It is just a study of the interrelationships of matter, energy, space and time and thought. And when these things are very thin you have the mind.

All right. Now, how does a person keep a mind in restimulation? Which is to say, how does he keep pieces and parts of it that close to him to be in present time? How does he keep whistling these things in? How does he make this thing stand in suspense on the time track?

Well, we have many processes, amongst them ARC Straightwire, which demonstrate to an individual that the time track can be unraveled. He's got it all jammed up and he starts — you start asking him to confront this and confront that about the mind and all of a sudden he begins to have space where he didn't have space anymore. So he feels better, he says it's gone into the past. Well, I don't know that it's gone into the past, but it certainly is further from him. You've asked him to confront parts of his mind and so he has been able to confront parts of his mind and all the mind would be, in essence, would be failures to confront or things we want to keep on confronting, either one. There are people who keep pictures around just because they're so nice. And after a while they wear them out, and boy, are they disgusted.

Now, here we have — here we have the mechanism of memory by pictures, and we also have along with that just the mechanism of memory. So that keynote here that threw everybody astray on the subject of the mind was this whole thing called memory. One remembered things. Now, let me show you this trick. How do we keep one of these minds in suspension? How do we keep it near and jammed up and quickly available and all that sort of thing? Well, we alter-is every picture. See, we alter-is every picture one way or the other, that keeps it in suspension. In other words, it isn't just a direct picture of the mest universe, it is a picture alter-ised in some fashion; we have changed it around. How've we done that? We've kept it forever simply by changing our minds about it. How did we change our minds about it? Well, as we looked at the wall we felt in a certain way and afterwards, why, we recalled just looking at the wall. Now, how did we feel while we looked at the wall? What did we think? We thought we were in present time, didn't we? What did we think when we looked back at the picture? We say it's in the past, don't we?

Get that? That's the basic alter-isness. Very basic. Get that? We look at the wall and we're in present time while we're looking at the wall. We say this is present time, we "look at the wall." Now, when we remember having looked at the wall, we say, "I looked at the wall in the past." This would also apply to the future. We say, "That will happen." "That wall is going to come down" and we very often will kind of mock up a picture of the wall coming down when we say this, and we say that it is in the future and we get another type of suspension that is much less generally used.

But this "past" mechanism is the real trick one. And a person can get himself pinned on the time track like mad. Every consecutive moment of time contains in it an awareness of the present. And if we only remember it as the past, we have alter-ised it most gorgeously.

Now, here's a rather curious thing. If we simply have somebody recall a time when he was in present time, we get a whole interesting series of pictures which are rather interesting mechanisms, I mean because we are recalling the single consecutive common denominator postulate to every picture, which is what? Present time.

Now, if we ask a person to recall a time when he was remembering something, we run out this other mechanism. And when we say — ask the person to recall a time when he was planning something, we get the future mechanism. And so we get the three things that would bring this to view. And one is recall a time when he was in present time or experience a present time in the past or something of the sort, you know? You get these consecutive present times. You see, in any instant you are in present time while you are looking at present time and your feeling is thereness, see? Your feeling is thereness. And then you say, "Well, I'm — I — " you remember the incident and get not-thereness. See, that's past. "I'm not there any longer," you say, but the postulate which the picture contains is thereness and you remember it with not-thereness, don't you see?

And similarly with the future. You plan something to happen in the future, but you plan it with an "it will be," and when you hit it you see it with a "will be," so your picture — or pardon, you hit it with an "is." You say it will be and then you get there and you say, "Well, it is." And so you keep the future in suspense too. And these two things together tend to jam a track. Quite interesting isn't it?

Well, you'd have to ask these three auditing questions evidently — just a cursory glance, this has never been audited on anybody, it's just a demonstration — you'd have to ask him for a time when he considered himself in present time. That's not the auditing command, that's just the gist of it. You'd have to ask him for a time when he considered himself in present time in order to really strip a picture out, and then you would — we did that, by the way, with Dianetic return; that was one of its basic mechanisms — and then we would say — we would ask a person for all the times he was remembering something in the past and he would pick up all the times he was worried. Quite interesting.

And we'd ask him for all the times he was planning something or looking forward to something or dreading something — regardless of — dependent on where he was on the Tone Scale — and we would get those moments stretched out too and the three of them would perform the thought as-isness of the pictures. But wait, that's just the thought as-isness of the pictures. All right, although thought is the creative end of the effect line, we nevertheless wouldn't get the pictures gone because there's mest on the other end of it. So there'd still be the mest to handle. Well, that could be handled in various ways. You could tell him to look around and find something he wouldn't mind having created. And you get him over his allergies, one way or another, to this continuous hanging on to things or creating a universe or doing other things that he's doing.

Well, you could also do something like this: you could say to the individual, as far as the future was concerned, you would say to him, "Tell me something you aren't dreading." See, you could handle the immediate future. Or "Tell me something that you wouldn't mind forgetting." Or something of this sort.

Well, oddly enough if facsimiles are thinnies this would be the technique which would produce the structural end of the thing and occasion a reorienta-tion. We'd ask an individual where he wouldn't mind being, as though he were right there, right now, and we would of course pick up all sorts of pleasure moments on the track. Now we ask the individual where he'd certainly hate to be, right now, and we'd pick up all these remote viewpoints that he's left parked around in various sceneries and he would view these things again. And we ask him where he would dread to be and we're liable to go on the backtrack and pick up things that he was dreading to be, way back when, forward from the time which is now past, from where he is right this minute. Very confusing, isn't it?

Well, there are a lot of ways of handling this — we have lots of processes that handle this. Then and Now Solids handles this very, very well; but the purposes of the pictures, the purposes of the pictures must be given some attention. And these pictures do have purposes.

They make, as I've already gone over — they have automatic responses, tells you how to behave in a situation where every time you see a green wall you behave in a certain way and there you have a picture of it and it runs off as a behavior pattern and it's all very well done. But you've got automatici-ties galore which can be used in the picture lineup.

But there are other things that you can do with pictures. You can find an area where you just don't want to be at all; you can always get a past picture of an area where you've been and be there for a little while, sort of, kind of. Yes, very fascinating. But the technique, no matter how good it is, won't overthrow the need of pictures, fancied or real, by a thetan. He does have a feeling that he needs pictures. He uses them for various things. Actually he handles, to a large degree, a body through a gradient scale, of which pictures are an incidental part. And he handles the wall through a gradient scale.

And now, we spoke of destruction very early and when he meets some being that he doesn't think should go on existing he's got pictures and he's got all kinds of things and destruction and bacteria and other things that he can mock up and throw at this other person to get him out of the road. He thinks that's the way to handle this person. Way not to confront again is to make somebody sick or lame or give him a bunch of pictures that'll blow up in his face or mess up his bank in some fashion. A lot of thetans, you know, still slide pictures into your bank. It's quite an interesting phenomenon. But in the final analysis it is a defense measure, and a person who is not himself, as a thetan, very confident, will use pictures for defense of one kind or another. Either give him service facsimiles so people will feel bad or so he can control other people, numerous other things — and these defense mechanisms are all very well. He uses pictures on the reverse vector — now, this is throwing pictures at people, see? He uses that, therefore he thinks he needs pictures.

There's the other receiving end of the situation which pays off almost equally. And that is, he keeps bodies and people from going away with the opposite vector. He also, on a higher level, holds them still and makes them more solid and does other things. But keeping the body from going away is one of the basic functions of pictures. An individual uses his mind, this thought-energy structure, in order to keep the body from going away. Therefore, he as a thetan doesn't have to be aware of the fact that he's always hanging on, himself, to a head, to a being. He doesn't have to get this idea of association with structure all the time because he's got a lot of pictures of the association, he plasters these on the structure, associates himself with a picture and sticks.

But to strip somebody totally of his mind, it would then — the harmful content of it — it would only be necessary then to get him up to a point where he didn't have to use these pictures. Now, that would be in making a record of the past. He wouldn't have to have them in order to have a record of the past — he wouldn't have to have these things in order to handle other people because he could directly. And he wouldn't have to have them to keep things from going away because he could keep them and position himself rather easily and well.

And you get him over those things, you would still have his idea that he should have some mass, and you'd have to get him to recover from his ideas about needing mass before he'd be willing to give up all sorts of pictures in all directions. But given those four things and perhaps one or two other minor ones that would turn up, special considerations he had — but given those four basic things, why, you would then be able to get a thetan to give up or disentangle this thing he is laughingly calling a mind and which in the final analysis is only an outward manifestation of his own weakness. So we get him to recover from his weakness — I could shorten it up — his feeling of weakness and inefficiency and he would of course give up pictures and he would then get out of trouble.

Thank you.