Okay.

R2-61, Good and Evil, and R2-62, which consists of the overt-act-motivator phenomena: These two processes are interlocked; they're inter-dependent, one on another.

One of them — R2-62 — is Remedy of Havingness with a specialized significance, and R2-61 is Spotting Spots. Every one of the Route 2 processes depends on Straightwire, two-way communication, Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots. Every one of them fall into those categories. So let's not even vaguely get confused about this tremendous number of processes, and feeling that you were taught certain, fundamental processes, and then that this has immediately been changed by the addition of all this R2 line.

This R2 line consists entirely and completely and utterly of two-way communication, Elementary Straightwire, Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots, and particularly two particular processes which are in that R2 line which are also basic processes, but which don't need any further amplification. And that, of course, is R2-16 and R2-17 — Opening Procedure of 8-C and Opening Procedure by Duplication. So we don't need any additional ramification of that. Everything else in that list is dependent on these basic processes of two-way communication, Elementary Straightwire, Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots.

And the only thing that the R2 list does is give some specialized significance, some facet of human behavior, and each one treats a highly specialized, specific phenomenon, which is actually necessary to the mental disinvolvement, you might say, of the preclear — every one of these.

Actually, there are many phenomena involved in the mind. But the basic operation of the mind responds to two-way communication, Elementary Straightwire, Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots, and the specialized processes, Opening Procedure of 8-C and Opening Procedure by Duplication. These are highly specialized processes. They need no further amplification, and are done without any significance.

Well, what, by the way — just off the beat a little bit — what special phenomenon does Opening Procedure of 8-C address? The special phenomenon is that human beings consider present time to be communication with the physical environment in the instant of its existence. And the phenomenon more particularly is that there is an instant of existence known as "now" in each successive instant in the physical universe, and present time is a contact with the "now" of the physical universe. So that is a phenomenon, and it is best remedied by the Opening Procedure of 8-C.

I say that completely unqualifiedly: It is best remedied by Opening Procedure of 8-C — without frills. Opening Procedure of 8-C has been working itself into a very interesting state of prominence.

Now, Opening Procedure by Duplication does this one: It takes the present-time phenomenon and adds to it the fact that a person can have things happen again in present time, by having him duplicate.

Now, once more, the basic phenomenon is the fact that life is in contact with present time as long as it is in contact with this environment in its instant of now. There is that one and an additional phenomenon used, by duplication, only in that the communication formula, to have a perfect communication, must contain duplication — duplication at effect of what was at cause. And that is a perfect communication. So duplication occupies, there-fore, that prominence. So we have run the most significant portion of the communications formula — duplication — in on present time.

So, the first one, 8-C, is the only one that really gets him in contact with present time. And the other one remedies experience. The individual is convinced that it must not happen again, and you show him that he can go on doing the action again and again and again.

Now, if he can't have things happen again, he cannot communicate at all. And to teach somebody anything — if that person is unable to duplicate — is not only arduous, but impossible. And for a person to live and be unwilling or unable to duplicate is very, very arduous indeed. And if he is totally unwilling to duplicate, he is dead.

Shock, in all of its considerations, is simply this: an expression of an unwillingness to duplicate, which leaves him in a state of abandoning the situation which he is being called upon to duplicate. Too much for him to duplicate — that's shock. And so he just abandons the whole thing. That's, actually, merely a consideration. It isn't even mechanical.

I've known men, by the way, to be perfectly able, and walk around until they looked down and noticed the injury. And then have them fall flat on their faces. Curious, huh?

All right. Let's take up -61 and -62 in the knowledge that all we are doing in -61 and -62 consists of two-way communication, Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots.

Now, Straightwire comes in to this degree: When you start to spot spots, certain amounts of past are going to jump into view, and the process itself might make things sufficiently unreal about the past, that you might care to go into some plain ARC Straightwire. You know, "Let's remember something real," and so forth. He might get so foggy that he'll start to go so far out of communication — and something might happen on it — that you could ask him to "Remember something real about it," or "Remember a time that is really real to you." You could vary that one in there.

Actually, it'd be, really, a little bit bad processing to do so. But if a pre-clear was not really able to run -61 and -62 when you started it, you could get into a situation where your only remedy would be to snap in with some ARC Straightwire. Make it real to them. You follow me?

You might be able to shove them right down through the bottom. You would notice this happening. They would simply go out of communication with you entirely. For the first hour it'd be fair to consider this as something like a communication lag. But for the succeeding hours, you could assume that they were really out of communication.

Now, in Good and Evil, R2-61, we would find this somewhat to be the case, and we would handle it in this fashion: After we've run R2-61, and if he just got foggier and foggier and foggier and foggier, we might say, "Re-member a time now that's quite real, when you believed that you had harmed someone. Let's see if we can get a recall on a time that you really decided that you had harmed someone. You know, an incident that's real to you." And the jam is liable to come apart. So we're using Elementary Straightwire there.

See, you could just use ARC Straightwire and get something that's real to him and snap him up the line if he were too depressed to run it. Now, the only reason I bring this up at all is because it's kind of a tossed coin whether you run R2-61 or R2-62 first.

These are very, very rough processes and would never be run on any-body who hadn't had an awful lot of R2-16 and R2-17. You savvy? I mean, there are a lot of other processes that we would run on them, particularly those two, before we'd tackle this.

Why? This is entrance to the MEST universe and the reason why they're here — R2-61 and -62.

All right, let's take up -61. I mentioned it before, but let's take it up from this basis: good and evil. Now, you could say about this universe that it was obsessed with the idea of good versus evil. And out of this comes the fact that it becomes good and evil, colloquially speaking.

The fact is that this is the primary fixation of philosophy and is very often the primary fixation of the preclear. There'd be several ways that you could run this. The best one I know, however, is by spotting spots.

"Let's spot some places where you decided you had done harm. Let's spot some places where other people decided they'd done harm." We'd do that by having him spot the spot, and spot a spot in the room. And spot the spot, and spot the spot in the room. And spot the spot, and spot the spot in the room. You know, back and forth. Having found one, we would get him to spot the spot, and find a spot in the room; spot the spot and find a spot in the room; spot the spot and find a spot in the room, until he got that spot into present time over there. Because that's the one spot that you would find hung up on the time track.

Now, do you remember in Dianetics, old shame-blame-regret? Hm? Well, all of that phenomena is associated with good and evil. Now, when a person is really degenerated, he has decided that he is evil. He's pretty badly degenerated. And when he goes downhill from that, he quite commonly decides that he is good, and he will be good.

So, we have a sort of a sandwich, one of these multiple-decker sandwiches, of which the bottom strata would be just nahhh. And immediately above that strata, we would have a good slab — he's deciding and acting good, now — and above that strata there is an evil one where he's really … you know, he's decided, well, it's too evil for him to do anything about. He's evil, and so evil … It's all bad over there. It's all .. .

What I am telling you, by the way, connects intimately with 16-G of the Journal of Scientology. Remember that essay in there on the subject of "It's bad over that way. It is all bad over there," and so forth? Well, of course, that is just a declaration of evil or harm. Bad means it can harm you, or you can harm it.

All right. So we have this second sandwich up from the bottom, the layer would be evil, you know. And immediately above that, why, he's good, you know. Sort of beautifully sad, a mucky sort of a thing. You know, the "Dear Souls" area, way back on the track. He's good. You know?

And above that, he is covertly evil. Now you're recognizably on the Chart of Human Evaluations, aren't you? Covertly evil — covert hostility, 1.1.

And right above that you quite commonly find one of the more evil people, 1.5, being so confoundedly mean and evil because they're trying to make everybody good. You know, that's just a complete mixture, you know. They're doing all these evil things because the end justifies the means, be-cause in the end everybody and everything will become good.

Hitler ran on this computation exclusively. And all his acts were good and necessary, and that was why he had to burn all these Jews in lime kilns, you know? And that was why the Schutzstaffel, and so forth, had to exist, and … You know, I mean, it just runs out in this idiotic, insane patter of "We've got to do all these evil things so as to make everything good." You know?

Everybody was very confounded about this thing and they kept writing essays and wondering whether or not this might not be true. And everybody could get confused. And at 1.5 we have an utter, tumbling confusion of good and evil.

And that's what's the matter with 1.5. You know, he "Grrr-grru, it's good, it's evil. Ur-grr, it's all grrr-mmm! But I'll have to be angry about it unless it's good." You know?

Now, here's the catch at 1.5: The second that it becomes good, he will work like mad to make it evil. Whatever it is: what is good, he makes evil; what is evil, he makes good. He tells somebody he has got to work. The second the person starts to work, he stops him from working. The second a per-son has stopped working, he tells him he has got to work. But the second the person starts working, he tells him he has got to stop.

If you move, you're wrong. If you move, you're wrong. If you're motion-less, you're wrong, see? — good and evil. He just really will evaluate anything as good or anything as evil to permit him to give off this amount of emotional discharge.

We go upscale from there and we find out these things are lying still in sandwiches. We find out up around the level of boredom, if anybody did any-thing evil, it would be sort of insouciance, you know, and be considered the smart thing to do. But it's really not very evil. You know? And if they did anything good, they would negate against it. Here we have another hold-point, where good and evil are all mixed up.

Now we take enthusiasm. The only trouble with enthusiasm is that if you put somebody on an E-Meter and asked him how he feels about enthusiasm, you'll get a death tick. The death bop starts hitting an E-Meter.

Yeah, it's the death-facsimile bop, you know. It's a little hunt. It's a little nervous twitch of the needle back, bop-bop-bop-bop-bop-bop. And you just say "enthusiasm" to him, and he will immediately get this death bop.

He doesn't like other people to be very enthusiastic. This is quite uniform amongst preclears. This is very amazing. But the only trouble with enthusiasm is we have merged up there with a band where this individual claims it's good. See?

It would be good to do this. It would be good to destroy that. It would be good to do this. It'd be good to do that. Whatever he's doing, he's in there fighting. And generally, right at that band of 4.0, he will only fight for things which he himself considers good and, actually, will not go willfully over into evil actions.

It's enthusiasm. And this is just a terrible thing to most people — enthusiasm. Especially if they are below that scale.

We move on up the line from enthusiasm, and there is a band up there of the most insidious, overt, complete cruelty that you ever wanted to notice. It is vicious. There is a band of cruelty above that — evil. There would be harm and evil simply for the reason and purpose of harm and evil.

Here you have the great criminals of history — quite normally operated in that band. They seem to be tremendously high-toned people. Now, when I say "great criminals of history," I'm talking about people like Alexander the Great. This man was no less a criminal simply because he was Alexander the Great.

The Twelve Against the Gods, by Bolitho is an index and discussion of this personality. But it's above enthusiasm. These people were tremendously effective. They were way above tone of the human race. But what they did was very markedly harmful. But they didn't seem to have any conscience about it at all.

Well, watching this, the human race will try to pull people out of that band down into the lower tones. And then they will really do evil things. It becomes much more evil as they become less alive, and it becomes quite insidious. There, you go downscale and get a scorpion, and so forth.

Well, anyway, above that band there is a band of overt goodness which would be too tough for most people to face. In fact, anybody coming along, lucklessly showing up the fact that he had a body, would be liable to be crucified if he appeared and represented that particular band. Because it would be a very, very interesting band. It would be a band of sufficient power that all he had to do was look at somebody, you know, and give him a perfect duplicate of his ills and put goodness in there as a mock-up, and the guy would buy it. You know, they'd pick up their beds and walk.

Well, people would be upset about that band, too, because that is starting to look like high electricity. It's starting to look like lightning bolts. They will associate it immediately with God. And the superstitious people have always associated lightning bolts with God.

All right. We go upscale just a little bit higher than that, and we find a gradual fading out of what you might consider harmful. You would not find a concept of harm or a concept of good as we move up out of that upper band that I've just been discussing, which, by the way, is probably around 8.0 or 10.0.

And above 8.0 or 10.0, you would just fade into no definite consideration about this thing. Because you would get up to a level of rationality which saw immediately that all things have their ingredients of good and all things have their ingredients of evil. And good and evil would not be a pressing problem at all — so that you would not get conduct evaluated against a conscience. Things would be done for no reason at all or for the reasons connected with games, because we've passed out of the band, then, of fixed evaluation, haven't we? And the second we've gone out of the band of fixed evaluation, then you would get a freedom of action.

But that freedom of action, oddly enough, would be in the direction of constructiveness, keeping life going, keeping the ball rolling. Because some-body up along that line isn't worried about stopping it. He doesn't consider that it's any threat to him, and it's just a good game.

And this is a great puzzlement to early and primitive peoples — very, very great puzzle — how God would come along and make a wolf, and make a rabbit for the wolf to eat.

Now, anybody making a wolf and a rabbit as two different species (if we grant this as having stemmed from one God, or something of this sort), making two different species of this character which are counter-opposed — then this individual making both species certainly would be able to understand and tolerate the evil in the wolf, very definitely. And be able to tolerate, also, the goodness in the wolf, and see it. And tolerate both the good and evil in the rabbit, because rabbits are not 100 percent good. They're nuts, for one thing. You eat rabbits at certain times of the year in seasons and they'll kill you deader than a mackerel. They also carry certain diseases, and they over-run certain parts of the world, and they're awfully hard on plant life.

And if you were to line up a bunch of cabbages that could talk and ask them to vote as to whether or not rabbits were good or evil, they would tell you immediately that rabbits were evil. And the farmers that grow the cabbages would say the same things.

But here would be somebody who was able to tolerate these different values, and would see them so clearly that they would not particularly puzzle him or worry him.

The one thing he might get puzzled about, after a while, would be the fixation that certain people had on certain actions as evil and certain actions as good. This fixation might titillate his curiosity. How did they get so fixated on this idea that this action is good? Because observably this good action has many evil facets.

Well, philosophers (whether upscale or downscale, we don't care) have uniformly gotten, one way or the other, into this puzzlement — a discussion of good and evil. But your preclear is definitely in that kind of a squirrel cage — good and evil. Your preclear is definitely there.

He believes he himself is fairly evil. But he knows he intends good. But some of the things he's done are evil, but was Mama really good or evil? Now, which one was Mama? Was Papa good or evil? Which one?

And these are big maybes, because he has to make a pronouncement and he's not free to do so. And so he's pinned on the track by such stuck considerations.

Well, here's good and evil, merely meaning — as far as we're concerned, as far as good is concerned — survival-assisting. That'd be good. Evil would be survival-desisting, or succumb, see. Does it have succumb potentials for others, or self? You know, well, that's evil, then. That is the degree of its evilness, when we evaluate this thing by survival — so that we would quite commonly have to evaluate it from a viewpoint.

You see, creation can be both good and evil. Destruction can be both good and evil. Wiping out bubonic plague — that is a destructive action — could be good for the people being threatened by the bubonic plague. It would be evil for bubonic plague.

And the second we move over into good and evil — now fan your ears on this one — the second we've moved over into the field of good and evil, we have moved over into the field of one-sided determinism: self-determinism as op-posed to pan-determinism. For pan-determinism, the values of good and evil practically vanish. In self-determinism, good or evil are simply established by the self one is protecting.

Now, that should be easy to grip there. Creation of a type of grass that would sink all the farm fields of America eight-feet deep in indestructible thorns, and so forth — inedible grass — the creation of such a grass would be very, very evil to people dependent upon grass, to animals dependent upon grass, to people dependent upon fields, and so forth, in order to sustain them-selves. This would be an evil action, wouldn't it? So there is a creative action which is evil.

So evil does not mean destroy, and good does not mean create. You see? Create means both good and evil, depending on viewpoint. Destroy means both good and evil, depending on viewpoint. And that viewpoint is modified as to whether it is contrasurvival, you see, or prosurvival, depending on the viewpoint.

If you move out of good and evil as consideration, you have, of course, moved out of the viewpoint which is a highly specialized viewpoint — so that a superspecialized viewpoint brings about the considerations of good and evil.

And when an individual is only able to occupy and protect the substance around one viewpoint, he then becomes beset by the riddle of good and evil. He's trying to protect the viewpoint. Therefore, anything which threatens it, of course, is evil; anything which helps it is good. And as long as he is protecting it, this is a very powerful consideration with him, and modifies and monitors all of his works and actions.

So therefore, from a man's viewpoint, we could rack up with great positiveness and certainty the evil factors which beset man, and the good factors which man would like to have — do this very easily.

But try and do it for man and ducks. Try to do it for man, ducks and bacteria. Now, let's draw up a list of evil things from the viewpoint — valid in each case — of man, ducks and bacteria. You try to draw up a list, and you see that it becomes an incomprehensibility.

What is good for bacteria is not good for man, because you have counteropposed viewpoints. So people, when they try to move up into pan-determinism, get all mixed up in, primarily, pro- and contra-survival. And this is what we mean by good and evil: They get mixed up in the problems of pro- and contra-survival, and so they cannot assume these upper pan-determined lines.

And this is the line that stops a person from becoming an Operating Thetan. And this is all the line that stops him from becoming an Operating Thetan. This is also the line which stops a person from perceiving. This is the block, the consideration which primarily blocks perception, because individuals conceive things to be bad and try to unmock them, and unable to unmock them, they occlude them. You see, they just say they're not there, even though they know they're there. And they will perceive, with such avidity, things which they consider good, that they as-is them — you know, they wipe them out.

The buffalo was a good beast for America, and he sure got wiped out, didn't he? All right. Everybody thought he was far, far too delicious. And the more repeating rifles they got, why, the more buffalo they killed. They killed them for hides — bones, so forth, latterly — and finally wiped them all out.

It's almost as if they were running a program to exterminate buffaloes. But if you'd ask anybody who was hunting those buffalo about "were buffaloes good or evil?" — "Oh, buffalo is a good animal." See?

But he as-ised them, mechanically. Not just by consideration. They were as-ised. They were wiped out. They were quite acceptable, buffalo were. The only reason the Indian didn't wipe them out priorly is he didn't have enough weapons or arrows.

When you think of a herd of buffalo crossing the Missouri River so thoroughly and at such length, and so many buffalo getting drowned in the river — you know, a negligible percentage of the herd, but enough buffalo getting drowned in the Missouri River to impede the progress and navigation of steamboats — you get some idea of how many buffalo there were.

And the Indian used to drive them over cliffs. He'd have a thorn Y, you see, which would have at its apex, instead of a stop point, a cliff, and drive a herd of buffalo into these wings. And the herd would just simply condense down, down, down, avoiding the edges of the, you might say, corral, and simply go right on over the cliff and bang! And that was the earliest way that an Indian hunted buffalo.

The reason I'm talking about buffalo is not because this is the West; because there was an entire civilization based exclusively upon the bison.

Buffalo fat, buffalo bones, buffalo horns: all of these things — quite in addition to buffalo meat, the skin and so on — made up practically every implement. The buffalo made up almost every implement and practically all the diet of an entire race of people. All exclusive with this.

But that race of people would have as-ised the buffalo to the last buffalo, had they been able to manufacture enough arrows or enough corrals or enough cliffs. You see?

White man came along, he couldn't do anything about the buffalo until 1874, really. He didn't really make an enormous dent in the buffalo of the West. They were doing pretty well. But not until they got a Henry repeating rifle — and all you had to do was jack another shell in and fire, and jack an-other shell in and fire — could they wipe out the buffalo.

It's astonishing that the buffalo once ranged clear to the Atlantic Coast and were common in Virginia — very common. And the early settlers were very thankful for the buffalo. So they wiped them all out. You see?

Now, here is a case of as-ising a goodness. A preclear can do this with his bank and is doing it with his bank, and that is primarily what's wrong with his bank. He's as-ised all the goodness in the bank and he's left all the evil. And now you as an auditor come along, and you will find this preclear telling you, "I have had nothing good ever happen to me in my life. I have never been well." Well, every time he sat down to think — early, when he was a kid — he used to use facsimiles. He sort of ate them up, you know, and he'd think about that fine time he had with Johnny — slurp, slurp — and there went that facsimile, you see, and didn't mock up another one to replace it.

He gets to be an old man, you know, of twenty-one, just entering college, and things aren't looking quite as bright to him. He's being more cynical about life. And he has become very conservative by the time he's about twenty-eight, you see — become pretty darn conservative. And by the time he is forty, boy, is he conservative.

What has this got to do with it? Life is done, as far as he's concerned. All that has happened is he simply as-ised all the goodness out of his life. And this leaves nothing but the postulates and considerations and memories of harm, which are occluded. They're all occluded. See? Because he has got to push this harm away and under cover, and it's not edible as far as he's concerned.

A facsimile of an inedible devil is itself inedible. This is not true. This is an error. A facsimile is edible, no matter what it's of. But a facsimile of a devil is, of course, considered by him to be inedible, simply because the devil is inedible.

All right. Now we turn around and look at it the other way, and we'll see that we have really got a very fine problem on our hands here. The individual requires, at the same time, an enormous number of justifiers. So completely aside from as-ising all the goodness in his life, he's adding up all kinds of justifiers to add to his bank — hallucinatory or otherwise — to justify all of his own unmotivated acts.

And remember, a thetan can't be guilty of anything but an unmotivated act. I mean, he can't have any other kind of an act than an unmotivated act, really and truthfully. He can add it up in the woof and warp of a society so that he actually does have motivators and overt acts, but it's kind of like isness. It's an apparency but not an actuality.

Actually, a thetan, not being able to be harmed or even located until he located something and touched it, he then cannot be guilty of anything under the sun but an unmotivated act. He cannot be guilty of an overt act, because there was no first motivator.

Now, the motivator always has to precede the overt act. Let's get that: has to precede the overt act. A justifier always succeeds an overt act. It succeeds an unmotivated act. The sequence, plotted against time, is first there is the unmotivated act and then there's the justifier.

All right. Otherwise, in the band of the condition of isness — you know, an apparency but not an actuality — there is a motivator followed by an overt act, you see: Johnny hit you in the nose so you hit Johnny in the nose.

Well now, life can live with that one. That's perfectly all right. Johnny hits you in the nose, you hit Johnny in the nose. Okay. You're right now. You're all right. You have simply remedied an evil.

Okay. How about this other condition? Well, the other condition goes wrong and won't go into line because it goes unmotivated act, justifier. An unmotivated act is followed by a justifier. And a justifier is a mocked-up motivator. But it's after the fact, always.

So it won't line up with the bank, and time starts to run backwards. And that's what you get as regret — shame, blame and regret. That's why they run backwards, is the unmotivated act is followed by a justifier which the individual recognizes full well belonged before the unmotivated act. So he has just reversed his time sequence, hasn't he? Completely reversed it.

And you'll find out that an individual running a great deal of regret — you know, "I have done an overt act," you know, "I have done an unmotivated act" (that brings about regret) — will actually be able to run the facsimile backwards with great ease but will not be able to run it forwards. He's trying to get back there and get the justifier into line.

Well, you could simply run it backwards and wipe it out as an overt act, or you could have him postulate before it — since time is only a consideration — you could have him postulate before it, the justifier. And you could have him go on and mock up enough justifiers until he had knocked out the imbalanced condition of being guilty of nothing but unmotivated acts.

Well now, an individual cannot be (quote) "guilty" of an unmotivated act, and thus in need of a justifier, unless he has first bought the consideration that there can be harm. An overt act, a motivator, an unmotivated act and a justifier are, all of them, dependent upon the consideration that harm can be done.

Now, if you will demonstrate to me how you can actually, actively harm something which cannot be reached, such as the thetan, himself and intimately … How you can harm him exceeds, actually, anybody's imagination, unless we have simply been riding forward on the consideration that evil and harm could occur.

Did you ever step lightly upon the toe of a little child, and brush him away immediately afterwards? You have not injured that child, but the amount of scream which meets your intention to harm is all out of proportion to the injury. And so it is with every thetan since the beginning of time.

The amount of howling which he does in the face of his enemy is very convincing but, itself, not properly motivated. "I'm killed, I'm killed, I'm dead, I'm dead." Now, I have played a game with kids of howling and protesting madly every time they touched me. And they eventually built themselves up into such a belief of power, they got quite well. But there was a decaying element kicking around with it. That was "they could do harm." I noticed a little kid the other day, that I'd played this game with a couple of times, didn't want to do something I was leading her toward. You know? And I had the lightest possible hold of this child's wrist--featherweight — and this child, "Ow, ow, ow, ow. Don't, don't!" You'd have thought I had a dull butcher knife in the child's spine and was one by one disconnecting the vertebrae on the amount of "yow" there was there.

All right. Early on the track a thetan learned how to howl loud. And he finally howled so loud that he convinced himself that he could be harmed, and made a second consideration besides the consideration of communication. Here's the consideration of communication: "I can communicate." The next communication consideration would be "I can be harmfully communicated with. I can communicate harmfully. I can communicate destructively." And we go down into the field of viewpoint and out of the field of pan-determinism, and we more and more specialize in specialized protective viewpoints, you see, until an individual spins right on in — all on this basis of harm.

R2-61 spots the spots where the person decided things were harmful or somebody else decided that harmful things could exist, see — especially, harmful communications. But then a decision of harm is what you're looking for — a decision that harm could be done. You could have him spot spots where somebody, himself included, decided that harm could exist or harmful things had been done.

This is so high a level of consideration that it depends more upon the understanding of the auditor and his ability to communicate it to the preclear than it does upon the sharp meaning of a word. You follow me?

So we could put it down as a very, very set pattern. But because it's such a sloppy consideration, an auditor is going to have to go into two-way communication about it. He simply can't tell somebody command such-and-suchyou know, you just arr-owr and expect the preclear to get this. Because the preclear won't start to talk about it right away. He'll have more conditions around this. "Now, what do you mean by really harmful? Harmful of what?" So the auditor counters this simply by using the dynamics. "Let's spot a spot where you considered you harmed yourself." He can't find one. You say, "Well, spot a spot and maybe one will show up."

"No, I can't find one."

"Go on. Let's see if you can find a spot, anything like this, where you harmed yourself."

"Ho . . . Yes!"

"All right. Where did that happen? Okay. Let's spot that spot. All right. And let's spot a spot in the room. Now let's spot the spot where you considered you harmed yourself. Spot the spot in the room." He'll finally blow it clear.

You'll find it was quite aberrative. Go up to the second dynamic — "where you harmed somebody sexually; somebody harmed you sexually" — and that one has enough charge on it to make a very, very interesting session all by itself.

Now, as you spot the spot, and spot a spot in the room, your preclear is going to have a dozen, dozen other spots show up. He's going to start to get spots all over the place. In that case, what spot do you have him spot next?

He just spotted this spot and now he tells you twelve more incidents. You have him spot the same spot he just spotted. This was the tenuous thread that was holding together an enormous package of reversed time. And that's why things free out of it: time reverses — shame, blame, regret. That's be-cause the unmotivated act precedes the justifier, and he wants the justifier to precede the unmotivated act. Those are his considerations and the laws he's playing the game by.

So when you spot a spot where he decided something was harmful, you know, or he decided to harm himself or decided he had harmed himself, and then a spot in the room, you're always going to get some more data, that you have him spot that original spot again — until you've got his time straightened out. Because it is in present time, when it should be in the past. And that is what gets it into present time, is the fact of shame, blame and regret.

Now, after you've spotted this a few times, after you've worked with this a little bit and kind of flattened the comm lag on maybe one dynamic — you know, flattened the comm lag on one dynamic — it might be very well for you to run into and use R2-62. Because this is the same breed of cat, only we remedy havingness with justifiers.

We spot spots concerning harm to any one of the dynamics. But we want the decision about harm or the consideration about harm, not the action of harming, and we spot that. Well, that's Spotting Spots.

Now, the havingness remedy that goes along with it is to mock up sufficient justifiers earlier on the time track than the unmotivated act — and on all the dynamics — so that your preclear eventually surfeits himself with justifiers. But a justifier placed before the unmotivated act makes the justifier into a motivator.

So although he mocks it up, although the truth of it to him is not apparent, we still tell him to mock it up before the unmotivated act. And the next thing you know, his time track will turn over. You'll get the same phenomena.

You do it the same way. You mock it up and pull it in, see, and mock it up and pull it in and mock it up and pull it in. She had an enormous amount of trouble with her fourth husband. See, her fourth husband was very mean to her. And this was quite aberrative to the preclear.

She's come into the session. She's telling you, "Well, if it just hadn't have been for William, you see, I would have been all right today. Because, you know, he was so mean to me. You know, he used to take me and hold my head in the toilet stool for two or three hours at a time. And he was very, very mean to me, and always …" And you listen to this line for a while and … If you were asleep all through this class you won't know this, and that is simply this: Their whole object in telling you all this is to mock up enough justifiers. And it tells you, boy, do they need them. You got that?

If they're giving you this line, they must be justifier hungry. You could also call that motivator hungry, but you couldn't be motivator hungry unless you were justifier hungry, so it's really justifier hungry. They're just hungry for this stuff, and so they're trying to mock it up while they are sitting there on a two-way communication line.

Well, it doesn't remedy very well. It's much easier simply to let her have the justifiers, prior to the time.

"Let's mock up your fourth husband, William, cutting your head off when you were two, and pull it in. Now let's do that again. Pull it in." "But I didn't know him when I was two."

"That's perfectly fine. Mock it up and pull it in." The chances are they won't protest, because it is exactly what they have been trying to do.

You mock it up when they were two, and pull it in to the time track. And the later time track will suddenly unfold and straighten out.

A grouped track is nothing but this action of trying to get a justifier prior. And the whole track will collapse.

A fellow by the name of Shakespeare said, "Methinks the lady protests too much." Well, that's certainly applicable to a preclear. But that in itself is a magnificent diagnosis for an auditor. This preclear is protesting. When they protest — believe me — understand that they are protesting too much only where they are in desperate need of justifiers.

So, R2-62 is: You have them remedy the havingness with mock-ups pulled in, which are so obviously prior to the unmotivated act — whatever the unmotivated act was — that they're quite acceptable to the preclear. He could put anything on his past time track because all he has got there is not really past incidents — they're not flesh and blood — he's got facsimiles, and they're trying to unwind.

All right. You do this by the dynamic. Do this by the dynamic. Now, you could start out with the second dynamic with some preclears. If you had somebody who was a homosexual, for heaven's sakes start out with the second dynamic.

"All right. Mock up your mother raping you a hundred-thousand years ago."

"What mother?"

"Your present mother. Mock her up raping you a hundred-thousand years ago, and pull it in. Do it again. Do it again. Do it again. Do it again. Do it again. Do it again."

"Oh, well, she wasn't a bad old lady — I mean, in a lot of respects." Anything you would care to do on a line which would get a justifier in there ahead of the unmotivated act would straighten out this homosexuality. That certainly is an indicated course, isn't it?

Actually, homosexuality is very easy to solve. Old 8-D, which is simply "Spot where such and so would be safe." And just take any item connected with sex, you see: "Spot where that would be safe. Spot where it'd be safe again. Spot where it'd be safe again." Got a case report in here, by the way, from Washington, DC, that he has straightened out one of the worst ones he ever ran into, simply by running the second dynamic, parts of, with 8-D — spotting spots where these various things would be safe. This guy had turned completely normal and gotten in decent condition.

It's a longer process, however, than the one I'm telling you about right now. This is a much shorter process.

All right. Here we have a process which would take up, dynamic by dynamic, any possible justifier that you could dream up or the preclear could dream up. Now, it's better if you let the preclear dream them up. But just like we run 8-C — A, B, C, D — it's probably better for the auditor to make up his mind what to mock up, and have the preclear mock it up; whether it's reasonable or rational to the preclear or not, see. Just like in Part A, we find the spot and tell the preclear to touch it; so, we might give him, the first run over on this sort of thing, the incident necessary.

But let me tell you a key incident. Simply tell him to mock himself up sitting in another universe, minding his own business, and the MEST universe moves in on him and starts to crush him. Mock that up. Pull it in. Mock it up. Pull it in. Mock it up. Pull it in. Mock it up. Pull it in. It's an incident that never existed, and he has been looking for it for seventy-four trillion years.

That is the overt act against MEST, and I am talking to you, oddly enough, about the resolution of gravity. The overt-act — motivator/unmotivated-act-.justifier phenomena itself is responsible for the agglutinousness of MEST. The overt acts against MEST are actually — by the thetan — of course, unmotivated acts.

And he has it happily considered that there is no such thing as an unmotivated act against MEST. You can walk over and kick as many walls as you like, and it will only hurt you, your mother told you. Only that's not true. Every one of them is an overt act if the individual has any idea that he could harm anything made out of MEST. And when every kid is a little kid, he gets punished for beating up his own toys, doesn't he? You know, he gets scolded and pushed around for his mishandling of MEST, his cluttering up of spaces. And he's given the idea eventually that he can harm MEST and harm spaces. And he is taught harm consistently and continually, and will stick in his head and will invert.

And the mechanism of inversion: It would be a series of unmotivated acts which eventually reverse time for the individual, so that when he wants something, he can't have it. This is the type of consideration that comes out of it. Everything will go backwards on him. It'll all be a 180-degree vector. When he tries to be successful, he fails — all this sort of thing. Why? Overt acts against the physical universe, overt acts against space.

Mock him up there — the MEST universe presents him with all this space, and he fills it all up and wrecks it; he ruins it. And it presents him with some more space, and he ruins it. And if you did that a few times, your pre-clear would practically spin in. Because what are you giving him? You're having him mock up unmotivated acts.

But have him mock up sitting there, comfortable, not troubled by it all, and suddenly the MEST universe puts a lot of space in there and stretches him out to eight times his size. Got it mocked up? Pull it in. Do it again. Pull it in. Do it again. Pull it in.

I had an interesting real-life experience of ending a cycle with a justifier one day. An individual who had been in dealings with a partner of his, and who had been gypping the partner most gorgeously — you know, tapping the till and falsifying books, and so forth, and had finally driven the partner down into almost complete destruction — the individual who had been doing this, all of a sudden had a nervous breakdown. Barn! Went very, very badly to pieces.

Now, you say, "Well, of course, he did this many unmotivated acts to a guy, and he knew it was harmful. He'd been taught to be honest, you know. It was harmful to do this to his partner. Went on this way, and he went on this way for years. Sooner or later he'd crack up, inevitably." But would anything in life itself ever set him to rights? Well, it would be an unusual circumstance which did. An auditor could set him to rights simply by having him mock up all kinds of overt acts, you see, by the partner against him prior to the partnership.

That's why people will tell you sometimes that you killed them 180 lives ago. They'll give you awful silly stories about this sort of thing — past-life phenomena mocked up. They're just justifiers, you see.

The past life is there, but their justifiers are so hard to come by that the memory is all reversed and scrambled and occluded.

All right. All right. This guy had an actual incident occur in real life which set his bank to rights. He found out that his partner had been shacked up with his wife since early college days, and that his first two children had been fathered by his partner! And the second he discovered this and con-firmed it by blood test so that it was absolutely convincing, he himself be-came completely cheerful and well.

Now, the way man would think of this ordinarily, you'd think that would just add insult to injury — the fellow already nervous over his business, you know, and he'd just have this much more bad news, you know, and that would cave him in.

But it didn't. It made him perfectly well. Now, you understand how this sort of thing would work out? But it'd be a very, very unusual sort of an existence which would actually right with an end-of-cycle, this sort of thing.

End-of-cycle for the unmotivated-act — justifier action would be for the justifier, by mock-up or actually, to suddenly jump in before the unmotivated act — and as a result, of course, straighten out the unmotivated act by giving it a motivation prior to the fact.

You can do anything with mock-ups, and you can do anything with a bank. It should tell you that if a bank and regret can reverse, if a bank can get grouped or run backwards, that you could do anything with a bank — it ran backwards, didn't it? Any way you want to mock up a bank, it will re-solve. Now, do you have to have the same duplicated action? No. Anything will satisfy this sort of thing.

Now, the guilt that Mr. Freud talks about … You knew, of course, that Freud was forbidden to be a doctor. The medical profession was very mad at Freud all during the years of his life, practically. He was an outcast from the field of medicine, although he himself had been to medical school. He dared invent something. Freud had a tremendous fixation on guilt.

Well, he was living in a Victorian sort of an age, and boy, the amount of harm which could be done by jilting a girl at the altar, you see, was the stuff really sung about in the textbooks and the romances. And there was always somebody around who had been ruined, in fiction or in life — and people lived these things in their lives — had been ruined by some betrayal of some sort or another. Nobility was the high note, and nobility righted wrongs, and people could be so harmed so easily — you could harm people mentally or emotionally with great ease in that period — that he became quite fixated on this whole idea of guilt. And he keeps talking about guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt. Fantastic, the amount of discussion he gives guilt, and the tremendous emphasis he places on the remedy of guilt.

All he wanted to do was expose the guilt to light, and I guess the sun or something would make it evaporate. But the truth of the matter is, guilt is nothing but the unmotivated-act — justifier sequence, you see. And guilt is re-solved simply by mocking up the justifier often enough to remedy the havingness of the facsimile which is held in.

Mocking it up and pulling it in, and the unmotivated acts themselves will demonstrate themselves to view, and the individual will start to let go of the overt acts which have been done to him. See, things done to him will start to let go. And he'll stop talking about being victimized by life. And he'll stop discussing how horrible Papa and Mama and everybody else was to him. He stops being justifier hungry. In other words, he stops being guilty.

Spotting spots in space, of times he's been guilty, would be the same thing as spotting spots in space when he decided something was harmful. You could solve all of Freud with R2-61, which is simply "Spot all the spots in space where you've been guilty." It would be an interestingly simple process.

However you express it, you're simply talking about the concept that something can be harmed when you are doing R2-61.

Okay. We got these two? Fine.