What is the mechanical definition of a postulate? A postulate is something not connected with mechanics.
That's it.
Male voice: All right, can I rephrase the question?
Yes, you may.
Male voice: Define a postulate?
Well, a postulate is an idea, origination, intention emanating from a thetan which, when continued, becomes a consideration. Doesn't even necessarily belong to you. You know, "I have a postulate" does not mean "I originated a postulate."
Male voice: Okay, thanks. I can't define that.
No, that's the definition of it. Look it over . . .
Male voice: Well, it's . . .
. . . before you crack on it. Look it over.
Male voice: Well, it says what it is, but it doesn't say . . .
Come on, what do you want?
Male voice: I want to be able to answer this question of students who ask me, that's what I want.
What is a postulate? A postulate is a postulate.
Male voice: I agree.
It's an origination, an idea, a thought emanating from a thetan.
Male voice: Okay. How would you define an "action postulate?"
An action postulate?
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Now you've invented one. It would be a postulate which — the end product of which was action, of course. A mass postulate, I suppose, if you wanted to go into that — you would find it was mass and so on.
But now you're talking about the effect of a postulate, not a postulate, see? The thing which is pursuant to a postulate is the thing, not the postulate. And you actually have just gotten across the whole field of Buddhism, Christian Science — everything. The basic differences between Scientology and these things are many, but the most easily elucidated one is this: to a Scientologist, mass is; to a Christian Scientist, it's the postulate.
Male voice: Okay.
Got it?
Male voice: Thank you.
You betcha.
Male voice: Regarding — oh, quick thing on this: One of the definitions we had was a postulate is a decision regarding beingness, doingness or havingness. That was one of the old definitions.
Yeah, that's very good.
Male voice: But regarding these flows, little by little . . .
But it's for sure an origin from a thetan.
Male voice: Oh yeah.
Yeah, but of course, that would — is a sloppy definition because it would make everything a postulate.
Male voice: Yeah.
But you have to say, then, it's an idea or a thought or an intention emanating from a thetan. Yeah.
Male voice: Okay. On these flows, little by little, some of my memories are coming back on when we used to run them. And it seems to me that when we would run a flow, we would find that in a flow-type arrangement we would normally start out where a flow could only be run a very little way and then it would stick, and then you'd have to go to the other side, or another side . . .
Yeah.
Male voice:. . . and as you continued, you could go longer and longer and longer and longer on any one flow and eventually you . . .
That's right.
Male voice: . . . process would work up to the point where you could go an indefinite period on any leg without. . .
That's right.
Male voice:. . . sticking it up again. All I've developed here is an easy rule that fits with an E-Meter.
Male voice: Yeah. Okay. The question, now, is how far should you go on this Help? Should you just get it so that it is free on each one or should you try and get it up to the point. . .
No, I've given you . . .
Male voice: . . . where it'll stay free for a while?
I've given you the safe limits. I've given you the safe limits, that's all. Any time you free up the needle, you're all set.
Male voice: Okay.
Now, you can run it longer and longer and longer and longer, so that at first it has to be a flip-flop, you know? You run one question, bridge; one question, bridge; one question, bridge. Then you could run two questions, two questions. And then, having noticed which way that the flow was stuck, having isolated it because of his comm lag — he's taking awful long time to answer the direction it is flowing. If he's stuck on an outflow, then he's taking a long time to answer an outflow question. Get the idea?
"How could you help another person?" See, he's taking a long time to answer this. Now, "How could another person help you?"
He says, "Well, I just — that's easy, another person could help me. He could polish my shoes, dust my hair." You know? And he tries to answer four or five times for every question you ask. Well, you for sure have run into the direction there that is trying to flow back at him. And you'll get into a total automatic that way.HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING: Q&A PERIOD
But you can run it longer and longer till finally you can build it up, run it an hour on each leg. And there is the smooth way of running Help. I should have covered this last week, but then I should have covered this whole subject years ago.
Male voice: On this question of postulates, seems to me that it's — for example, we were looking at this the other night — it's fairly feasible to be able to mock up some money . . .
Uh-huh.
Male voice: . . . provided there's some sort of an agreement. For example, one can postulate a preclear and have some money.
Right.
Male voice: Or you could postulate being in a certain area where preclears look as though that's where they are and you would get some money. This level of postulate.
Sure, but that's the postulate by agreement.
Male voice: Yeah. Well, then there's the next one, which is just postulate some money.
Yeah, that's right.
Male voice: And this is the level.
Female voice: This is the one we just did.
Male voice: And we were looking at, well, which is a postulate? Is it a postulate consideration? Is it a postulate with agreement?
Well, I should . . .
Male voice: There should be something above that where just — money.
That is why I did not find — did not define a postulate as a direct thought or origin, because you can postulate by a billion vias or a dozen scales.
Male voice: The most usual one seems to be postulate by agreement.
Yeah, well that's common at this time. Roman didn't do that at all. The police don't do that — they don't postulate by agreement.
Male voice: Well, they don't postulate.
Oh yes, they do. They say, "You're guilty." And then they carry the rest of it out by force and weight.
Male voice: How can anyone below "Lines"postulate?
They can.
Male voice: Dyuhh!
This is one of the most amazing things. A garage mechanic — this is the liability of being aberrated — garage mechanic hurts his hand. Auditor audits him. In the process of running out the engram, we find the point where he decided to hurt his hand. He said, "If I change that differential, I'll mangle my knuckles like I always do." The postulate was unfortunately effective, but he had no control over it.
And oh, we've run into that lots, haven't we? It's fabulous! It's horrible. This government down here is postulating, "Well, we go to war with Russia. Well, we go to war with Russia. Well, we go to war with Russia." Fortunately, there isn't much Russia.
Yes?
Male voice: On this matter of flows, when the — is this what changed when the person can run a flow longer in one direction, is that he has increased his ability to create on the subject therefore he can maintain the flow longer because he's creating more of it rather than relying off of some — something contributing to him?
You're very correct. It relates to creation.
Male voice: So then when you can run Help, for example, till he could run a long ways or indefinitely in one direction, then you could say he could create help.
Yes, for sure. Yeah, that's right. Very good.
There is no finite flat point on Help. I don't know how far it'd go. It might go all the way to Clear. You know, it just might keep on going. Then eventually it'd probably run out and fall out as just pure survival postulates. That'd be it. But it's not been done, and the mechanism of "Mock it up and keep it from going away" has created them.
Yes?
Male voice: It's a question on Connectedness. If a preclear can't repair his havingness and the command is used, can we alter it as to the way it was originally introduced: "You make that object connect with you"?
Oh yes.
Male voice: Good.
That is, of course, a different version of it, but when we say Connectedness, we're talking — we're paying you a compliment of talking about a family of processes. And they include a tremendous number of processes. I don't know how many of them there are. I haven't even bothered to count them. It would take some doing.
Male voice: Well, I'm very — mostly interested in — uh — repairing the preclear's havingness.
Yes, all right.
Male voice: With the present command, he cannot repair the preclear — the preclear's havingness.
Oh, I would not say that. I wouldn't go so far as to say that bluntly.
Male voice: Well, I mean, he doesn't get too much of a lift out of it. That's why . . .
All depends on where he is. All depends on where he is.
Male voice: Yeah.
If you want a repair of havingness out of Connectedness, then you have to run a version that will repair the havingness of the preclear. I'm not being sarcastic or anything — I mean, that's true.
Male voice: Yes.
And I know that preclears at different parts of the scale respond to different commands. And it's a job somebody's got to do one of these days of finding out exactly where on the scale each one of these processes repairs havingness, you understand? We just simply take the broadest one that is most likely to do so and do the least damage, which the preclear can do.
Now, "You make that object connect with you" is all but impossible for some preclears.
Male voice: Yes.
And if carried out to the fullest, would result in a yo-yo. You'd be pulling him out and in — out of his head, don't you see, to really obey the command.
The best of the Connectedness processes is, oddly enough, "Look around here and find something you could have." That's the best Connectedness process. Of course, then we go on off into Trio, and the last part of Trio is not a Connectedness process, oddly enough.
It's interesting — the wilderness of the mind. These vast stretches of blank.
That answer your question?
Male voice: Yes, it does.
Good. Yes?HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING: Q&A PERIOD
Male voice: As a preclear, I had rather peculiar phenomena this morning on Creative Processing. When watching the auditor and mocking up in various places with my eyes open, the auditor disappeared and another person seemed to be in his place, or other clothes seemed to be there.
Right.
Male voice: What is that? Is that fixing. . .
That's a flip on terminals. This was covered in the 1st — no, more importantly in the 2nd ACC, under the heading of "ghosts." People walk around with other people with them all the time. And the second you started to come upscale on this, a terminal appeared, and you got the same Reality Scale I was just talking about, and you start to move up into "Terminal," only — I mean, on this particular subject. You see, anybody can be down on any given subject. And as you came back up the line, before you got the real terminal, why, you got an unreal one. Now, if the thing that showed up was another auditor from some other place . . . Was it?
Male voice: No, it wasn't.
It wasn't.
Male voice: No.
Well, if it had been some auditor from some other place, this still applies. You would have — you would have had this: You would have just run out a "stuck" on the time track.
Oh, there's some wild phenomena that will greet the eye on this sort of stuff. On some of these processes, the whole physical universe has gone askew. The corners of the room suddenly go out, and the other two corners come in, and the floor will go out of plumb and just stay that way! You know, the guy sits there and he looks at all this, you know, with his physical body's eyes.
Another one, a much more common one — it squares around on the same process, so you don't have to worry about it, it's just phenomena — another one, he's mocking it up and you say, "Well, mock up something and make it a little more solid," you know? "Mock up — in front of that body, mock up a pole and make it a little more solid," you know? And he does. And he looks at the pole, and the pole has blanked out the back end of the room. In other words, he can't see through his own mock-up, and the actual room area back of it has disappeared, and the auditor has disappeared back of the mock-up. You get the idea? All right.
Now, if you had an obsessive mock-up going on that was being made real solid, and it's — got triggered (snap) and you came up past that, then it would appear. Got the idea? And it would appear in lieu of or in front of what you were really looking at.
The only time you want to worry about blackness — as a person, not as a case or in auditing — is when it obscures the environment. In other words, a screen has gotten so huge that the environment is obscured.
One famous case: A guy — every time he looked at his wife, he saw this huge black screen — I mean, just as you're looking at the wall there — this huge black screen right in front of his wife. It scared him. He was scared. He was a shaken boy when he came to me and said, "What can we do about this?" Oddly enough, I did it with Creative Processing. We found out what part of his wife he could mock up until we mocked up the whole wife, at which moment we had no longer any screen.
In other words, we did a direct terminal address to this, where as a matter of fact it was a problem in postulates. We could have said, "How could your wife help you?" We would have run into a champion comm lag. See, and he eventually would have answered this. And then we'd say, "Well, how could you help your wife?" just to get that off, you know?
And he'd say, "Oh, I could help her in lots of ways. I could buy her fur coats, I could buy her chocolates, I could kill her, I could shoot her."
By the way, have any of you run into the inversion whereby you get propitiation which goes into destruction, which then goes into help? Hm? Well, there's a point of worship in there you should notice. Just as propitiation fades out and as destruction comes in, you will get worship — obsessive worship.
The deification of women: I imagine if you'd have taken any knight of the Middle Ages and run him on Help — "How could you really help a damsel?"
Why, he would have answered it something like this: "Well, I could rescue her from a dragon. Ah, yes." And big comm lag. "I could rescue her from a black knight. I could — I could — well, I could build a temple to her. Yes, and I could — I could write poetry which made everybody understand she was a goddess."
And you say, "Boy, this is — this is getting too pure, this is getting too wonderful. And the process obviously is flat. From the viewpoint of the Middle Ages, you see — I mean, that was where we're supposed to be."
Trouble is, the next command would have been, almost in the same tone of voice, "Well, I could have thrown her to a wild boar. I could have torn her head off and dried it carefully so that I could hit people over the head with it." And then he might have gotten emotional about it: "And I could kill her!"
"How could you help her?"
"Well, I could kill her!" See? "I could strangle her!"
I guess those dames back in those days, they weren't too smooth, they . . . (laughter) You girls back in those times had it too good. You spoiled it. Because the general attitude of worship was an attitude of unreality, and when anybody took a square look at a girl, he generally ran her through with a spear or something. You get the idea? I mean, the habit pattern followed this, and you got all these wild tortures right alongside with this tremendous worship. You get the idea?
And sometimes you improve somebody on the eighth dynamic, you say, "How could you help God?"
"Oh." He's an atheist, you see? And he'll go right along, the next few answers — atheism, atheism, "God doesn't exist," you know, and so on. And then eventually he'll come up to saying, "Well, I could worship him. I could pray to him. I could burn votive offerings. I could burn my wife to him."
And he'd go on up the line and then, "Well, I could tear up all the Bibles. I could tear down all the churches. I could convince everybody he doesn't exist. I could destroy him, destroy him, destroy him, destroy him, destroy him." And then finally, "I could give some sermons telling people about God."
See, there's this weird inversion. And if you look on this and see how easily it flips on Help — it's just the power of the button, you see? It flips quick. An auditor has to look fast to see this phenomena. But don't forget that all of this phenomena is heavy enough to be heavily dramatized by the preclear in his lifetime. You're looking straight at crime, so forth. You're looking at a tremendous number of behavior patterns.
Yes?
Male voice: I was — suddenly snapped to something on the way over this morning — that Help would be a real fast valence-buster run on a five- or six-way bracket. The individual would be . . .HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING: Q&A PERIOD
You're absolutely correct. It is the fastest valence-buster there is at — there is none faster. It is a valence killer. And it's a little bit odd to me that John was on Step 6 when he had a valence lingering, see? Because Help undoubtedly had triggered this, and the Mock-up Processing he was doing then brought it into view. His auditor actually ought to check that area of Help that he was last running because there's something — something there to be seen, which he may have already overcome with the mock-ups, but same time . . .
But you're right — it's a killer. It'll even separate the valence of the machine. Remember the machine valences we used to have so much trouble with — bedposts and so on? So much so that if you wanted to get somebody off a professional nuttiness or you wanted to get him out of a psychosis where he was running an obsessive beingness, that's the process you would use. I'm very glad you mentioned that.
A painter, of course — paintings.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
A typist — typewriters. And right on down the line.
Male voice: An auditor — auditors.
Second male voice: Preclears.
Yeah, you don't know with what relief it was when I ran this particular one, to find out that auditors didn't, and weren't aberrative. I've said that before. It doesn't run — that's one of the weirdest things. It straightens up a few little things, but just — nothing.
But a cook and food. By the way, there is a stuck flow to end all stuck flows. He cooks it, he serves it; he cooks it, he serves it; he serves it; he serves it; he serves it. And you get a cook after a while, and he's on such a stuck outflow that. . . Well, as a matter of fact, I knew a ranch cook one time, that — he had an apron on that was coal black and he wore a butcher knife stuck in it. And he was an interesting cook. Cigar — short stogie, derby hat — typical. Wore his hat all the time while he was cooking. He wrecked more food — cigar like this.
I said to him the next day or so after I saw him doing that — I was just a little fellow, and I said to him, "Gee mister, I'm glad you don't chaw terbaccer!"
The following day he was chewing tobacco!
All of this stuff we've said about professions and straightening somebody out professionally and so forth, applies on this Help button. Wonderful button.
Yes?
Male voice: If you run a flow too long in one direction, you get anaten, right?
Right.
Male voice: What happens when you're running a preclear on Control Connectedness and they go very anaten ?
Yeah, well, you've got so doggone much . . . This is basically an inflow universe, and you've got so darn much flow to work on, if you're running an inflow, that an inflow will generally work out in the end as being the direction it's got to go. And there's tremendously more inflow on the case, or more "to me" on the case, than there is "from me to."
But apparently on flows, they'll get jammed up, up higher than this with outflows and inflows. Those get undone — the basic one to be undone is that. You'll find out, however, that a person should be able to outflow forever or inflow forever. He's got ideas about the inertia of particles. He's got ideas that if he puts something out, why, he ought to get something for it.
I cured somebody of worrying about a court suit by convincing him that all of his difficulties had stemmed from trying to get something out of something. I said, "Now, the reason you're worried about this court suit is because you're trying to get something out of it."
"Yes," he says, "that's right."
I said, "Well, that's why you're worried about it." See, I wasn't auditing him, I was just coming over him — using a rule by definition.
He said, "Well, I don't see that."
And I said, "Well, have you ever tried to get anything out of anything?"
"Yes, yes. Tried to get something out of my father."
"Did you ever have any difficulties with your father?"
"Yes."
"What else have you tried to get something out of?"
"I tried to get something out of something else."
And every time I could show him — of course, it didn't follow, really — but I'd show him he'd been in trouble because of this, you see? And I finally got him convinced that he shouldn't be trying to get something out of something via a court, you know? And he decided at that time that there wasn't anything he could get out of it. He decided to go on with it, not so he could get something out of it. He was tremendously, overwhelmingly successful in the action.
Male voice: To supplement the question, would you just continue running Control Connectedness if the preclear . . .
Oh, for sure. Don't ever run "Throw it away." See, you're dealing with terminals there.
Now, when we're talking about flows, we're talking about a lower phenomena. And we've already gone downscale to a point of where it just doesn't matter. But it's just particles, it's just flows. There's no terminals involved. You try to get somebody to throw a terminal away, and you've got him in trouble at once. You see that?
Male voice: Yes.
Flow is a different set of stuff than masses.
Yes?
Female voice: I've sometimes heard that it isn't too good to go around adopting or considering reasonable Tone 20 attitudes when you're not an OT and you're not Tone 20, obviously.
Well, I don't know, if you continue to postulate something, it'll eventually materialize. Well, you'll run out all the times you have postulated it, it'll make you feel like hell, and that you keep on postulating it you'll come back up to it.
Female voice: I see.
So I suppose somebody on the downgrade of this look has found out it was pretty horrible.
Female voice: Well, on this "contribute to," why, I've heard that, you know, somebody in real good shape repairs his havingness by contributing. That sounds kind of reasonable, I mean, everything goes well. But you know, that's other people, and you're not up there, kind of.
Well, livingness isn't auditing.
Female voice: Yeah, that's true.
Truth of the matter is, the giving of something is a very high goal. You have to be in good shape to give things. If you're in good shape, you can,HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING: Q&A PERIOD without any liability at all. You should be able to. Why you want anything in the first place, I wouldn't know. This is a big — a big "poozle." I don't know what you want with anything.
I remember clearly, the most — the most wonderful ocean voyage I ever had, as I walked aboard a transport. And I think I had an extra shirt and a portable phonograph. My baggage had all been lost — every lick of it. No, I think I had an extra undershirt. That was all I had.
Midway in this very long, thirty-day voyage, one of the ladies on the thing sewed up my pants where they had come ripped. I remember the captain finally issued me a pair of sailor's ducks out of somebody's sea bag. I didn't have anything! I didn't have any money, I didn't have any clothes. Had a wonderful time — absolutely wonderful time. Landed on the China coast — I didn't have anything for a long while.
But I used to play bridge in those days. It's an old game, maybe some of you've heard of it. And always used to be able to make enough off bridge to eat.
Female voice: It wasn't a very serious question . . .
No, that's a very serious question, on the contrary.
Female voice: . . . now that I've looked at it.
Nope. Nope — it is. A person has to get into terrific condition in order to give. And as a person postulates himself — supposing you just went around postulating yourself as Tone 40, and weren't? Why isn't a person able to do this? That's an interesting mechanism. It's because he runs it out before he runs it in.
Female voice: He stops along the line, like.
No, he's long since postulated it, and then he had a tremendous number of failures, so he stopped postulating it, that he was so high-toned and so forth. So he starts postulating it, and of course this runs him into all — through all of his failures, and he'll feel like hell. Sooner or later he'll give up postulating it, won't he?
Well all right, that's just when he should have kept on. And he goes on — and he postulated long enough, you see, and acted on it often enough, he would eventually come up to just being a total postulate on the thing, you see, and he'd be all set all over again.
It's not a facetious question, nor a facetious answer. You're looking straight at the guts of what we're doing, when you're looking at that sort of thing.
And when you look at this thing of giving things away, why is it that you can't throw something away? You got a lot of things you don't want and you don't need. Throw one away sometime. You'll need it the next couple of days. (laughter)
Now, there will probably be an invitation to some of you to do a little more auditing and get this thing leveled out.
Remember, in this Unit we were merely trying to get as many to make it as we could. That was our total goal. We weren't trying to clear the whole unit. And if we'd cleared one, I would have been gratified very happily with your auditing, but you're auditing better than your cynical Instructors believed you would. My faith in you is boundless — somebody has to check it! (laughter) And I think that you'll be able to get a longer look on this, here, before the Unit is out.
How many — how many believe that it ain't possible? Come on, be honest with me. Well, there's why he's not making it. Who's auditing him?
Male voice: I'm an auditor this week, sir.
Oh, that's a rough deal. Get a little more auditing.
Clearing up this factor is clearing up the Help factor. You see, "no cure," "no remedy," are run by "no help." You got that?
Male voice: Hm.
Hm?
Male voice: Yeah.
No cure, no remedy. Now, a person who has had too many remedies fail has to have Help beaten to pieces. Got that? I mean, that really has got to be swamped up. That's a long job. Got that? But it'll be effective because we've already taken care of this in a couple of cases. Was just wow! you know. And we finally really straightened it out. Took quite a while. Took a very expert lot of "quite-a-whileness." Funny part of it is, the more they had, the better they felt about it.
Remember now, any preclear that conies to you under protest, that is brought in by the husband or the wife or somebody, you know, and doesn't want auditing, will clear up on Help. Remember this. Got the same phenomenon being taken care of by the same button.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Audience: Thank you.