Okay. Now, second part of this lecture on November the 19th; continuing on cause and effect.

What do we mean by an effect? We mean by an effect, energy operating in space and time; energy operating in space and time. That's an effect.

Now, an effect, of course, can be a cause to a lower order of effect. You see how that is. Petrol goes into a lorry and is cause for the lorry's combustion. And so the lorry moves. But that petrol is actually a low-order effect, but it is being cause to an even lower order of effect. So we have, then, effect depending upon — the greater a thing is an effect, the more it is fixed in space, and the more solid it is.

Now, the greatest effect of which we know would then be the most solid matter of which we have any information. And what do you know, when we get down to a solidity — a low-level solidity — when we get down to a solidity of matter low enough, we get another explosion. We get plutonium and even hotter elements. And they're an effect at the low end of the cause of effect, but they can explode and cause more energy.

Now, this is no reason to suppose we're walking in a circle here. We're not. It's simply that you can compress energy down to too little space and in too much of an unstability and it'll expand again.

Evidently there's an optimum space for energy, and that optimum space for energy, when exceeded by compression, will cause an explosion. But all you get out of that is more energy. You get an order of cause, yes, but it is a cause which is so far below what we're calling "capital C Cause" that you mustn't consider that here we have space and then there's energy in it, and it condenses and condenses and condenses and condenses and finally you get an object, and the object becomes more and more solid and more and more solid and more and more solid and more and more solid and finally gets to plutonium and then suddenly explodes, and that we're at the top of the scale again. We're not at the top of the scale. What starts us out at the top of the scale is something which has nothing to do whatsoever with energy except to create it, and also to create the space and time in which that energy can exist.

Actually, the creation of the energy is what happens, and what we call time. Time is not a separate object or article. It is space and energy combining together in some fashion or another, and you get an enduring thing and that enduringness is itself time. Havingness is time.

All right, now. The kind of cause in which we are interested when we're working with the human mind is not a — really a low-order cause. The higher level the cause with which we can operate, the better off we are.

Now, the truth of the matter is that at this moment, the word "Cause" with a capital C is at our highest Q and is the highest thing we know — that we know we know. And we know what it does. We can investigate that in various ways. And we find out that this cause makes certain effects, and we can validate these effects, and we can achieve very miraculous things with the mind by just doing that. But what've we got then? We're not studying an effect when we're studying a human being or a thetan. If we insist on studying only the energy manifestations in terms of flows, ridges, facsimiles, secondaries, locks and engrams — if we insist on studying that only for one universe only, when we're working with a thetan, we are addressing a low-level effect — a relatively low-level effect.

Now, what we want to address is a cause. Now, it's true enough that your thetan is so immersed into MEST, at the moment you find this preclear, that he's in a body and thinks he is the body. Now we do that separation and he is a thetan and thinks of himself as energy and able to control and handle bodies. Now, you'd think this was good enough. In order to increase the force of this thetan, it is not enough simply to rehabilitate an energy unit as something able to handle more energy. That is not enough because it doesn't increase his force.

From whence stems his actual force? His actual force stems from actual capital C Cause, which is without wavelength. So therefore our Postulate Processing is a goal. But very often the thetan will step out and will be too low on the Tone Scale, as a thetan, to do anything like just postulate changing. And we have to handle energy, energy, energy, energy, flows, ridges and so on; but we don't handle them any longer than is necessary to give him some confidence and get him into postulates. And the highest process which we have at this time is changing of postulates.

Now, what do you address then? What do you address in the — handling the preclear? You address the highest level possible in terms of Cause with a capital C. You actually are doing a forcing operation yourself, to some degree. You are trying continually to get the highest level of cause you can reach. How do you restore a preclear's self-determinism? By reaching the highest level of cause which you can reach at that time.

Now, if he's in a body, the highest level of cause that you will get is he will be able to process energy as it manifests and effects itself upon the body. That's the highest level that you will be able to get, in most cases, if you just treat him inside the body and so forth. Therefore, this requires you to run facsimiles, to handle facsimiles and so on.

Now, Creative Processing comes in there, too, but it's addressed toward facsimiles. It's addressed toward facsimiles themselves. So that would be that level. Now, if we have him out of the body, we only have him handle energy in space and time long enough to get him up to where he can handle postulates. And we get him up to the upper scale and you have the Chart of Attitudes to do Rising Scale Processing. And Rising Scale Processing is simply to get the lowest postulate that you can get on this scale at the moment, and shift it upwards to a higher postulate. That is, it has nothing to do with running flows.

The lowest postulate he gets on the scale of knowingness is: "I don't know." And you say, "All right. Can you get that idea: 'I don't know'? All right. You got that? Now, let's shift it up to — how high can you reach?"

The fellow says, "Well, maybe I could know if somebody would tell me." "All right. Shift it up to that." Ptock.

Now let's make him get the first postulate again and shift it up to that again and then shift it up to that again, and all of a sudden he doesn't want to get the first postulate anymore. He wants to get the upper postulate. "I might know if somebody could tell me," is now the lowest one he's getting.

Now, you say, "Shift that up. How much higher can you get now?"

'Well, somebody knows. Somebody knows, and I might be able to communicate with him. Somebody might. know all the answers."

"Yeah, well, all right. Let's shift that up."

And you'll finally get him up to a point where he says — way up the scale. If you were doing this straight on up, you would get him up toward "I know." Because what is the top level of this scale of Chart of Attitudes? What is the top level of each scale? That top level is simply this: It is a description of the manifestations of theta. They are descriptive manifestations of theta. And the highest of them is not "I am" — that's low; not "truth" — that's awfully low; not even "know." The highest level of them is "cause," across that whole top band. "Full responsibility" is well below cause, because full responsibility is only force — willingness to take responsibility for force — which I'm going to cover with you this afternoon. All right.

When you're doing, then, Rising Scale Processing, the favorite one to hit would be the cause–effect. The favorite one, the one that you would favor more than all the others, would be cause and effect.

All right. You process the preclear at the highest level you can get him above MEST, in the direction of theta. And the way you determine that is just with our good old Tone Scale. Same old Tone Scale. In Science of Survival it's sketched out from 4.0 down to 0.0, sketched out pretty well. Now we have from 0.0 down to -8.0 and we have — with the addition of the Chart of Attitudes, we have it going on up toward the theoretical 40.0. So we've just expanded this same Tone Scale. And if you want to know the basic on the Tone Scale, look at Book One, graph one, and that is the Tone Scale. And we've been working with that ever since. All right. Now, that's the simplest form of the Tone Scale and I call it to your attention, for your examination.

By the way, any philosophy anybody ever had is on that little graph, if you want to look at it and figure it for a while. It's a tricky little graph; very simple and very tricky. All right.

Cause has, as its first test — as its first test (which is why you see full responsibility as south of cause) — first test: "For what am I willing to be cause? For what effect am I willing to be cause on all dynamics?" Now that's your first question there, on cause and effect. "Am I willing to be cause of new space? Am I willing to be cause of objects?" (I mean objects just out of whole cloth.) "Am I willing to be — to cause perception to take place at a vast distance? Am I willing to cause energy to flow this way and that? Am I willing to create, conserve, alter or destroy along these dynamics?"

Well, your highest cause, theoretically, will do any of these things and to be ethical — which it is, oddly enough. It's not, by the way, the bumbling, stupid, fall-all-over-everything thing that mud is. It's quite different than mud. If you examine cause, you'll find out it behaves quite differently than mud. Mud doesn't care who it splashes on or who throws it or anything. Mud just doesn't care. Well, cause does care. Criterion of cause in terms of theta is judgment-and its estimation. It has direction. It has purpose. It can figure a purpose all out and put it into effect.

Now, we have, then, much lower on this thing: "Am I willing to be bad cause?" And you can put that down in your notebook, because it's quite interesting.

"What am I willing to be bad cause on?" The fellow will say, "Nothing!"

You go, "Aw, now, wait a minute. No, you're willing to be bad cause on something."

"What do you mean by bad cause?"

"You know, this is very destructive."

"Nothing."

You've got a sick man if he says that. You've got a Homo sapiens. "What am I willing to be bad cause on?" A Homo sapiens is so unwilling to be bad cause that he has a thing … Now, listen, you wouldn't believe that. When I tell you some of these things about Earth, you'll think I'm romancing. You'll think I'm telling you long, drawn-out stories and things when I tell you they have what they call a court of law that has nothing to do with ethics. Now, don't laugh. I mean, it's true. They have courts of law which have nothing to do with ethics but have only to do with arbitraries. I know, you think a society can't be that bad and still be a society, but it's true. They do have.

These courts judge solely on the basis of whether or not it has been written down someplace, not on whether or not it's bad cause or good cause. And this whole thing is devoted to just answering this question: "You were bad cause, but was it justified — not by reason, but by something somebody wrote in a law book?" I know this sounds awfully scrambled to you and I'll just pass it over because I can see you're incredulous.

The point I'm making here is that bad cause has to be justified. But look, let's look at this. Let's look at this for a moment. If a person is high enough up Tone Scale, he wouldn't have to justify his actions, would he? He could act without justification, because what does Cause with a capital C do? It acts without a prior justification. It requires no precedent for its actions. And an artist is as good as he can originate and communicates as well as he can re-form his originations into the communication levels of his audience.

But don't get those two things confused, because they're not confusable. And when you're dealing with an individual as himself; you are essentially dealing with an artist, because he must be at least the architect of his own universe to be alive at all. He is as alive as he is the architect of his own universe. He is not as alive as mud tells him to be, and that is the final abandonment of all responsibility. "I'm just what mud says. That's all. That's all I am. I'm just what mud says. I have no responsibility for anything. I don't cause anything. I'm just Willy-nlly, stimulus-response, stumble around, falling flat on my face." Why, that's mud that does that.

That's the stimulus-response theory, it's: Man is incapable of causing anything so therefore he is not to blame for anything. There was a bit of this in the first book. It adequately let people apologize for their crimes by saying, "It was done to me. I didn't do it." Therefore, the first book had a very wide appeal, if you look it over.

Oddly enough, man is so scrambling for justice that when he can figure this out from this angle — when he's permitted to figure life out from this angle .. . Somebody just tells him, "Now, look. You can figure that out from this angle if you want to." Gee, he's relieved. Now, well, that's a fact. He comes way up Tone Scale! And you've got, a really, a quite superior being if he can just say, "Well now look, I . . ." Nothing else — you've given him this one phrase: "I have a right to blame somebody else for something." Now, if you can get him up- that high you've taken him quite a distance. Doesn't sound like very much of a distance, but believe me, it is!

All right. Now, effect, then, is actually in terms of space, energy, matter. Effect is in terms of space, energy and matter. Now, theoretically, because we work with gradient scales, there is no such thing as an absolute cause. There could be more Cause with a capital C or less Cause with a capital C. So therefore, effect still could lie within the nonenergy-above-space spectrum. Effect could still be there as being the effect of a much more — higher cause. We could have, then, a god and demigods, none of which have anything to do with space, energy or matter. And the god would be the effect of the — I mean, he would be causing an effect on the demigods.

There's — actually, when you come to zero and infinity, there's plenty of room for a gradient scale. Your gradient scale depends essentially on having a gradient scale of something. And so when I tell you that there's a gradient scale existing in nothing, it should be very remarkable to you, but I — it is quite remarkable, but it also is very theoretically possible.

But for our own — for our own benefit and for most of our processing, you can follow the fact that effect is, for our purposes, in the band of space, energy and matter. All right.

I'll give you an example of an effect. Here's a low-level effect. You decide to strike a match. And so that decision is actually slightly in the future of your striking the match. Why? A very simple why: because you wanted an effect. Well, your cause must always be senior to the effect.

Now we come to "Do cause and effect lie in a line continuum of time?" Mm, it's — very horrible happens here, is there isn't a line continuum of time; there merely appears to be. And prior cause is the biggest illusion possible in man — prior cause. He says, "There's prior cause to every effect; prior cause to every effect." He has to assume that there's a line continuum of time and he has to assume also that there's an infinity of priors in order, then, to have a reason. And out of all of this hodgepodge he gets what he laughingly calls "logic." And that is the basis of logic. Logic is the study of prior cause.

And if you start "logically" following down any track, you will simply branch out and wind up either at a point of your own pre-choice or you will wind up all over the universe or some other universe, all by gradient scales. A logical approach is not very good with which to sort out the factors necessary for the solution of really good-sized problems. It's a rather bad factor. Intuition is as bad. Somewhere in betwixt, something sensible takes place. But logic, "as logicized," is something like a fireman who rushes up to the top of the ladder so he can rush back down to the top of the ladder again just to tell you that there's a top to the ladder.

Logic depends on similarities and . . . An unending stream of similarities, if they are similar enough, can pass as logic. But any unending stream of similarities in imagined time strata can pass as logic. Logic assumes that time exists, and then it plots facts against time. And this is all very neat, and it makes for communication. And we've agreed that that's the way we can communicate and so we can communicate that way, but don't for a moment suppose we're communicating in terms of MEST. We're not!

These thoughts are impulsing into an electronic mechanism, a voice box, and is — that is translating into sound waves and these sound waves are impinging in your eardrums and that agitates an electronic receiver of quite pleasant and intricate design and that impulses on in through a hearing system and winds up where? Impinged upon your energy as a thetan, and is there differentiated — and started here in static and wound up with you in static, with the whole MEST universe interposing in between. Now, there's no reason why communication has to be this indirect. As a matter of fact, a very low order, for it to be indirect.

So logic — logic, you see, would assume that indirection. The human mind is a servomechanism to every logic, to all logic; the human mind is a servomechanism. It is part of the logic. It's part of every mathematical formula that has ever been written. And has to be. And what do you know? We find out that the time-space actuality of the human mind is zero, so we have put a zero in every formula. Everybody knows you can't equate with zero. That should amuse you, because it's a mathematical horror. The thought that a zero exists in an equation will drive most mathematicians stark, staring goofy. Some will compromise by saying, "Well, it's one over infinity." That's not true; they know it isn't. But they work with it once in a while that way.

And here you've just said, obviously — and I can prove it to you again — the human mind is a servomechanism to every mathematical formula. Who wrote it? A man wrote it or a being wrote it. All right, if a man or a being wrote it, who's going to read it? A man or a being of some sort is going to read it. How is it employed? It's employed by men or being — and therefore, you're employed at all levels by a human mind. Human mind in its highest essence is a zero, compared to this universe. So we have a zero to every mathematical formula.

Therefore, no mathematics is necessarily true at all, but it happens to form the life continuum on which we have agreed in this universe should be granted to fact. And so it agrees with an abstract parade of (quote) real (unquote) fact, and this "real" fact, then, is reducible by similarities and condensations into data which themselves add up to or don't add up to answers. Actually, that is not the way the mind thinks on its highest level at all.

The mind does not think mathematically. If it thought mathematically, you'd never get anything thought. To be convinced of this, you would have to know the subject of symbolic logic, or the German mathematics invented about twenty-six years ago, twenty-seven years ago, called topology. Wonderful mathematics — completely incomprehensible. Just a dream, just a love, a duck, as far as the German is concerned. That really floors them. Actually, topology solves a tiny portion of a problem to solve the whole problem. And sometimes by solving the tiny portion of the problem — the tiny portion only covers a ledger!

Now, symbolic logic goes on for pages and pages and pages and pages and pages to accomplish what? Hm. To accomplish the number of thoughts or actions necessary to butter a piece of bread. Now, if you just add that up into mathematical symbolism and so forth, you'll find readily that nobody ever buttered a piece of bread, obviously. Nobody ever went through this many steps and yet all those steps are necessary to the solution of the problem. Symbolic logic is wonderful. So, you see, the mind doesn't think that way.

Now, in view of the fact the mind doesn't think that way, how does the mind think? The mind thinks in desire to cause effect, in its highest level. On a lower level, it thinks — desire to prevent being an effect. On the lowest level, desire to be as pleasant an effect as possible. And below that, dead. Now, there's your more-or-less gradient scale of the thing.

Now, if you worked out logic from this angle, you'll find out you get entirely different setups if you don't put time in there. There's no reason why this — see, in this universe, because we've agreed to it, it is one of the things we agreed to — that you can't decide now that you ate a steak dinner yesterday and go home and find the steak bone. We've agreed — we've agreed on this time span. You couldn't decide (because we've agreed to this in this universe) that you call a taxi a half-hour ago because you want a taxi this instant. And you say, "Well, I called a taxi a half an hour before, therefore, it's here," and sure enough, the taxi arrives. Only you're not supposed to do that in this universe. This universe has got to go by logical sequences. And that is one of the most maddening things to preclears, is they think it's all got to be done at once. They can't see why, if they postulate something, that it doesn't instantly come into existence. And if it doesn't instantly come into existence, as it should in their own universe, they practically go mad.

Actually, the criterion of a criminal is just this. When he wants something, he wants it now. He doesn't want to go through the gradient scale of building it, working for it or obey the laws of this universe. He doesn't want to obey the laws of any universe. He says he didn't agree to this. You'll think he was fairly high toned. He sure isn't, not when the police get through with him. The police actually are serving the MEST universe, they're not serving the populace. They're saying, "Agree. You disagree, you're all sunk."

And the criminal, the criminal will just fly all to pieces perhaps — as a child, he'd fly all to pieces because he just couldn't have that thing that second. He thinks of a hobbyhorse and he doesn't have a hobbyhorse, and he just says, "Boo." Then you can try to tell him, "Now, look, if you would go to work and get some laths and things like that and a little paint and so forth, you could probably build yourself a hobbyhorse," and so on. No, he doesn't want to do that. He's incapable of doing it, actually, because he's never adjusted to this time span. It actually is a lower-level anxiety. Because one could do it in one's own universe, one must be in the delusion that this is his own universe, and on that conclusion, that this whole universe is his but it's — but it must be being withheld from him, that he is going continually through a mutiny inside his own universe. And undergoing this mutiny in his own universe, must then and there experience a terrific revulsion every time he can't have simultaneously with desire.

And of course his time span is in terrible condition. And you'll find people who have time spans that are in horrible condition, they can't do anything with time or anything like that, you'll find out they can't do anything with objects, either. Should tell you a lot. And also, they won't take responsibility for a single darn thing, and the reason why they won't — the reason why they won't is very simple, is they see no necessity for and have no employment of the gradient steps called energy. And they have an awful time with energy. They can't work. They can't employ. They will not estimate force. They don't like energy. So this can stem directly from having been hit with so much energy that they just abhor energy. And so they can become a criminal.

If you process a criminal, process that: having to have things instantaneously and refusing to take responsibility for having had something. And slant it all toward energy. Now, here is your energy factor then. Your energy factor is a very interesting factor. If your being in this universe is well, it is because he can handle energy. If he can create his own universe, it will be because he can handle energy of his own creation in space of his own creation, and with that creation achieve matter, which in itself gives him the effect of time. But if he cannot handle energy, he can't be responsible, he can't have any time in this universe and he must resort — either criminality or insanity. In order to gain any time track, he has to steal, purloin. Then he only gets there by stealing and purloining because he cannot acquire in the normal sense. In other words, he can't go down here and work for a week, make some money, and then buy it, because that would be handling a gradient scale of energy toward the attainment of the object.

And you'll find that many times, a process — a preclear has to be processed on this level: He believes he has to work for everything. And he believes he has to work for everything so thoroughly that he thinks he has to work for a state of being Clear. And just brace up now and take a good listen at that, because that's awful important; it's terribly important. He thinks he has to work to become Clear. All his life he's had to work. For everything he has ever attained, he has to work. He knows he has to work. He knows that's the rule of the universe. He hasn't maybe found out that the harder you work, even in this universe, the less you get. The really arduous, hardworking boys in this universe are not paid at all. They're slaves.

So, to live in this universe prosperously requires an optimum adjustment of one's energy gradient scale and havingness to the needs and requirements for one's pleasure and maintenance. That's optimum. You put out as little energy as is necessary to gain as much as you need. And if you work more or less on that basis, why, even an engineer, you see — an engineer works solidly on that basis and that, for the mind, is conservation of energy. You get the mostest for the leastest output. And you'll never get something for nothing in this universe.

The criminal may attain a Rolls-Royce and mink coats and if he's a criminal in politics, he will eventually attain a firing squad or disgrace, invariably. But don't depend on this universe to hand out justice, because it doesn't. It will be some ethical, high-level being that will knock him off out of sheer impatience — if he's knocked off. Don't sit around and say, "Well, justice will catch up with them in the long run. Cause is elsewhere. Cause is elsewhere and there is a divine court of inquiry that has to do with the study of the ethic level of Homo sapiens which will eventually catch up to this guy." No, your philosophy doesn't happen to work in that direction. And one of the darnedest things that ever happened to your preclear was the first time he discovered this wasn't so.

He kept sitting around, waiting for the lightning to strike Mr. Zilch. He knew Mr. Zilch was a crook and he kept expecting the lightning to strike and expecting the lightning to strike, and what do you know? It never struck! And Mr. Zilch became more prosperous and he went up in the world and he seemed to be very happy, and obviously Mr. Zilch was a bum and a criminal. And this preclear — practically any preclear you run into has got this datum unresolved. It's an unresolved problem. It's a big maybe somewhere on his track.

Now continuing this lecture of the 19th of November on cause, effect and responsibility.

Your key processes will centralize in toward cause and effect. Now, there are possibly better ways to meet cause and effect, better ways to get to cause and effect, very possibly. But I know of none nor do I know of any faster approach than the one which I mentioned in the first half-hour of this lecture, which you mustn't use on a Homo sapiens, because it'll blow him out of his head — and that is, process responsibility.

Responsibility. Process it from — with brackets, overt act, motivator, just brackets, flows, postulates, mock-ups, any way you can mock up a mock-up about responsibility, and you will find your preclear will blow. If you ran it — I don't care how long you run it — if it is run with any degree of acumen whatsoever, you're going to get somebody moving out. And the reason why you're going to get somebody moving out is because you cannot — you cannot address this without directly addressing the subject of force and energy. When you address responsibility in the material universe, you address instantly responsibility: you address energy, you address responsibility; you address force, you address responsibility. And if you address force and energy by addressing responsibility, you're going to pick him up to a point of awareness with regard to energy — which of course also includes space — to a point where he'll be able to get out of the limitation of the space of his own body and he'll be outside. I won't say what condition he'll be in, but if you just start processing him and you just start running brackets on the joy of irresponsibility …

Brackets, you understand — you know what a bracket is. A bracket is: it happens to the preclear, and the preclear makes it happen to somebody else, and others make it happen to others. It's the various ways that actions can take place. Somebody does it to the preclear and the preclear does it to somebody else, and it's run on positives and negatives. All right. That is to say, it happens to the preclear or it doesn't happen to the preclear. The preclear makes it happen to somebody else, he doesn't make it happen to somebody else. Other people make it happen to other people, and other people don't make it happen to other people. And those are the angles of a bracket, and that's the way you run these things.

There's a six-way. And there's also "restraint" can be run in there: trying to keep from doing it to somebody else and trying to keep from doing it to self and so forth. Restraint goes on that same line. Restraint also takes in "conform," takes in some very — other interesting buttons that you'll run into, but you'll run into them more or less automatically if you just hit responsibility.

Get the joy of irresponsibility. Get the joy of responsibility. Start running Black and White, beauty and ugliness. The beauty of responsibility; the beauty of irresponsibility. The fellow says, "What do you mean, the beauty of irresponsibility?" It's the same thing as the beauty of going insane, and you say, "All right. Run the beauty of insanity."

"Oh, no. I couldn't possibly run such a thing."

"Did you ever go on a vacation?"

Fellow will say, "Yes."

"Well, how'd you feel?"

"Mm, it felt good and happy and so forth."

And you say, "Well, why did you feel that way?"

"Well, I didn't have to do my … Oh, I was no longer responsible, and therefore . . . Hm."

"All right. Run the feeling you had when you went on your vacation. All right, get that feeling a little deeper. A little deeper. Get it a little more. A little more. Now let's run other people feeling how they go when they go on vacations. Now just run it a little more," and all of a sudden, you're getting the glee of insanity off of this fellow. What do you know? Very fast process.

"Now, get the beauty of responsibility."

And he'll say, "There is no beauty to it. It's very ugly. I don't like responsibility. I don't want anything to do with responsibility. Responsibility, blah, blah." Well, he might as well be saying, "I don't want anything to do with energy. I'm not going to move out of my head." He might as well say, "I don't want anything to do with force." He might as well be saying, "I don't want anything to do with objects." "Oh," he says, "you mean run 'I am to blame.' "

Now let me show you responsibility on a Tone Scale. It starts out down here at the bottom — starts out down here at the bottom, way subzero, with irresponsibility. Now, because the thetan can go below the level of zero, you get on those lower bands with the greatest of ease — oh, with just great ease — you get insanity, the glee of insanity. And when you run a preclear sometime, he'll suddenly make this remark to you, quite spontaneously: "You know, there's some horrible glee connected with insanity." That doesn't mean that all joy is insane. There is a sane level for joy way up here someplace.

But anyhow — oh, the biggest operation that they can pull on you in this society is: "You're working too hard. You should have some relaxation. You should get out and you should have an avocation." You can kill a man that way. What you're telling him to do is favor the joy of insanity, the glee of insanity. And this fellow's been awfully interested in his work, and that was his fun. That was his fun, to paint for twenty-three hours a day. And as long as people leave him alone, he'll stay in pretty good shape.

But you — they watch this — what they've watched is another manifestation. The fellow paints for twenty-three hours a day and somebody sooner or later is going to say, "Ah, bait!" And then say it with all sincerity, "You're working too hard, dear. You're working much too hard, much too hard. Don't you think you ought to have a rest?" It never occurred to this fellow that he needed a rest. He could probably go on this way for the next forty years. But at that moment, this enters into his mind: "My, I am working hard. I ought to have a rest." What they've keyed in is the joy of irresponsibility, and he goes right on down Tone Scale from there.

And then when he finally gets around to being diagnosed, why, somebody says, "And he works for twenty-three hours a day, and obviously the fellow has worked himself to pieces." Because the truth of the matter is that he was disarmed and unmanned by this "you better rest; you better take a vacation; you're working too hard," and all this philosophy, so-called, back on his track is keying in madly. And the truth of the matter is that that philosophy reduced his physical stamina to a point where he can no longer go on.

And so, the horrible part of it is, the only thing you can do for him is to make him take a vacation. You see, that is the therapy when it gets to that state. But it starts at another point. "Oh, dear, you're working too hard and you're liable to burn yourself out." They say this to "boy wonders" until they finally do. This boy wonder is able to play chess up to the age of fourteen and beat anybody in the world, and then one day he said, "I'm tired." Well, if you ever have to rehabilitate a boy wonder, just start picking up — this fellow, he's now twenty-seven, he used to be a whiz-bang, he graduated from Oxford when he was eight or something — pick up this fellow and just get this: "Now, who first started in saying you had to conserve your energy and so forth, because you were liable to burn out? Who started telling you this?"

"Oh, nobody — well, except my — oh, yes, yes. There was a very good friend of mine and so forth, and my father was worried about it and my mother was worried about it and then there's — oh, come to think about it, these other people were worried about it. Hey, was there anybody who wasn't worried about it? The only person who wasn't worried about it was me, until they got through with me. And now here I am today and I can't — not only do I feel kind of burned out, but I would no more look at a chessboard than I would blow my brains out. And if I did look at a chessboard, I probably would!"

This is what happens to high-pressure, high-tension people. They are not operating, initially, from an aberration. They're just operating at high speed. But the first thing you know, this other operation gets worked on them. And another thing happens: They're running at a higher speed than the universe around them, so they keep colliding with the universe around them and they'll get stopped, stopped, stopped, stopped. And after he gets stopped enough, that's . . . What is stop? The gradient scale of stop is the gradient scale of decay, and final stop is destruction and death. So people kill them by stopping them.

All right. Now, let's just take this gradient scale of blame. And boy, don't ever make a mistake on this scale, because your preclear is making a mistake on this scale. Here's 0.0. Now, up — this level is — this whole level is really "glee of insanity," "irresponsibility," "apathy," "done for," "don't want anything to do with it"; all of that level, it's — there's no question of blame down here at all. This is just irresponsibility, from -8.0 to 0.0.

Now, let's start up the scale up here, and what do we find as a gradient scale? First, the first level we find is where we find an awful lot of Homo sapiens, particularly those with a completely occluded time track. We find them . . . This is not a condemnation; this is just what has happened — and that is, "It wasn't mine, I didn't do it and they were to blame." This is what he supposes. And all he's looking for at that level is something really to justify this attitude. And if he can find something that adequately justifies this attitude, he'll come up Tone Scale, not down.

All right. So at this level is "they were." Now, oddly enough, just above that is the exact opposite flow: "I am to blame for everything that happened." He reverts — he reverses himself as he goes downscale. It becomes unsupportable to him to have himself to blame for everything, you see, because blame infers bad cause. That's the same as saying, "They were all bad cause and all there was, was bad cause," and above that level he is saying, "All right. I admit it. I was bad cause. I am to blame. I caused all these bad things. The things which I cause are bad. If I cause anything, it'll be bad. Any time I do anything, it just seems to wind up wrong." That's on that band.

All right. Now, just above this level, is — this of course is "I was blame." And just above that here, we have "I was bad cause but they were bad cause, too." This probably could be figured out and juggled around for accuracy, but this is a good enough rule of the thumb. It fits the order of magnitude for which you want it. "I was and they were, too — bad cause." But we've got bad cause there, so we're still sitting here below 2.0 — there is no good cause on anything. And that's what's wrong with your people below 2.0. They say, "I can't have any fun because — the reason I can't have any fun is," and so on and so on, "is because I have to be responsible for."

Well, now, that's a heck of a thing. The guy is saying — he's saying, "I can't have any fun, really, except the glee of insanity. I can't have any fun except insanity." That's what he's saying, because he's saying, "Those things for which I am responsible, I am so anxious and concerned about that I can't enjoy. I can't enjoy those things for which I am responsible." That's what he's saying.

Now, let's get up above this level — your gradient scale is sort of going on a flop, back and forth. "I was blame" and "I was and they were, too." That's your propitiation level. That's generally along 1.1, something like that. "I was and they were — plus them."

Now, let's get up above here to anger. Boy, that isn't unspecific at all. That's "You are!" It doesn't matter who "you" are on any dynamic, it's "You're to blame. You're bad cause. There is no good cause, you understand, and everything has to be stopped because it's all bad cause, and you did it." It doesn't matter whether "you" is a door post, a car motor, a sheet of paper, a piece of correspondence, a person, a dog — nothing. It says, "I have to stop everything. The reason I have to stop everything is everything is bad cause. And it's what I immediately address at the moment that's bad cause. We don't have to go back into time to look for bad cause. We know what's cause, and you are!" It's right now.

And this is — 2.0 is: "I'm being responsible, and I'm going to force you to be, too. You sure you're being responsible? Now, you're probably going to be bad cause, but, if I force you to be, you might be good cause but only if I force you to be." Now, that's the level of responsibility at that point.

Now we go up from there and we get into a little bit happier — we get up above that. "Some of the things I did were good cause." Let's get it to 2.5. At 2.5 it's: "Well, there probably isn't any good cause, and there probably isn't bad cause, either — there's tolerance. There's tolerance. Really, probably, nothing's to blame. Probably everything's more or less to blame. But it isn't very serious. There's just nothing to be worried about."

Now, we get at — up here, as we go up to 3.0, it's "There probably is good cause if you examine it carefully to find out and make sure that it isn't bad cause. And it probably is shared equally by other people and by yourself, but you have to be rather careful about this to — in order to engage in action on it. And you can do all right if you're cautious," you see?

Now, you get at 4.0 and he's saying, "Now, look. There's a lot of bad cause around here, a lot of bad cause around here. But you and I, we're good cause and we're going to get out there and we're going to pitch and if we all get together on this thing, we can make good cause out of it, you understand? And the way to make — be responsible for the whole thing is just to get in there and pitch and get a lot of forward motion and you get a lot of forward motion, you're going to get good cause out of this." You've got that angle. It's an enthusiasm toward good cause to avoid bad cause. But you understand that 4.0 has to assume that there's bad cause in order to continue toward good cause.

And now we get up into the higher and more esoteric bands and we begin to see reason. Now, reason tells you adequately that cause is — bad or good — is a matter of viewpoint; and the higher you go, the more the criterion is to achieve an effect from pure cause which is not judged by bad or good, but is merely judged by "is it effective?" Is it effective? And so we drop bad and good out, up the band. We get into pure action at 20.0, and you sit around and try to talk to a man of action about what's bad and what's good, he's liable to be very bored. The only thing he's asking is, is it effective. Now, his criterion is, is it effective on - really — on this optimum equation; on the equation of the optimum solution: Is it less destruction on the dynamics than it — than it's constructive? Is it more constructive than it's destructive? Well, all right, let's go. It only has to be 49:51 to get him into action — 49 percent destructive, 51 percent constructive. He'll favor that, but he'll still engage in action at 50:50.

Now, all angels have two faces, and when we go up above this level of about 8.0 on the Tone Scale, we have to start examining angels and find out what is the anatomy of an angel? Because that's kind of low level for a thetan — angel - because an angel is always flapping around and using up energy and doing this and that and so on. So, we find out all angels have two faces.

In ancient times, gods were customarily sculpted with two faces, and the reason why you get tragedy — comedy. It's actually a symbolism of the two­facedness of gods. Any god is capable of wrath or a vengeance or bad cause, or a beneficence, bounty or good cause. He is capable of what people below him on the Tone Scale would consider good and bad. He doesn't consider either of them good or bad. He has no consideration of the two. But the people below the Tone Scale model him with two faces, because according to their viewpoint and according to their criterion, the things which he does are bad or good. And he wants to know whether or not they're effective. So they're not operating on the same communication channel at all, not even vaguely. And they're not liable to get into communication either. Which is why it seems so natural to people not to have a direct telephone wire to the switchboard in heaven, because they know they can't understand that level of cause anyhow.

So we get the — angels have two faces, black face and a white face. Now, this is so heavily — heavily on the track that you will very often find it used in electronic implants. They make half a person black and half a person white. If you want to know what's wrong with your preclear sometime, you'll find out that at some high level on the Tone Scale, at some point way back on the track, he elected to be good only. And of course he put himself immediately below 8.0 on the Tone Scale. He just delivered up half of his force. And by golly, because he keeps watching force do bad things, he'll have to come to the opinion sooner or later that force is bad. The second he does, he goes below 2.0 on the Tone Scale.

That is your power dive. That is a power dive. The fellow says, "I am only going to be good cause," he puts the throttle all the way up into the panel and pushes the stick all the way forward, because he's on his way. And you can pick up this point on the track with great benefit to your preclear. He decided only to be good. And he never bothered to define what "good" was — except that he did define what "bad" was, and "bad" was force. And sure enough, he looks at force — whenever you say "force" to him, he thinks in terms of whips, guns, stockades, stop motion, hold motion, kill, maim, force, blows, heavy. That's his idea of force.

Actually, force is simply a sentiently directed energy. And wisdom, as far as the human mind is concerned, would be the level of cause. But thinking, thinking so-called, is the estimation of force. A person is as good as he can estimate force. He estimates the force necessary in the future. He estimates the force necessary in the present. He'll walk out of this room . . . You reach ahold of that doorknob there — what would you think of somebody who customarily walked across to that door, hit it on the wrong side, bounced off, hit the table, fumbled around, hit the table again, bounced off the other side, fished around, finally struck the doorknob and then couldn't get it to turn, couldn't get it — perfectly easy turning doorknob, and then suddenly came down on the doorknob, crunch! and pulled the doorknob off? Well, now, that's merely bad estimation of force. It requires a very nice estimation of force in order to get up, walk straight to the door, straight to that point in space and touch that knob with just the right amount of force to open it and pull the thing to you.

How wrong can you get? How bad have you estimated the force? So that "wrongness" has as its basic definition, poorly estimated force. And when you have two athletes — you say one is the winner and one is the loser, you have said at the same time one was right and one was wrong. And two athletes are only as good as each can estimate force. But it might be an athletic tournament all arranged and beautifully arranged around tatting. Now, you just take tatting all by itself or embroidery work or something of that sort — that can be a contest. But the working of the needle in the execution of the design is an application of force. Force is a physical science definition of energy, amount and direction of. It's directed energy.

Now, Homo sapiens — you just say the word, the only really explanatory word for the estimation of energy, you just say "force" to him — he jumps a foot. You say, "Well, you'll have to apply …" What if you were talking to somebody and you say, "Well, you'll have to apply force to that problem." Why, he'd think you meant a hammer or something. You're going to bust this problem up. You say, "Well, now, you take this problem with your mother; you'll have to apply force to that." Sure enough, you will have to apply force to it. But just going and talking to her is applying force.

So you get how far off a person could shy if a person suddenly says, "Force is no good"? He will then say finally, "The condensation of force as represented by objects are no good," which immediately says . . . Because what time is, is the object. All right. He immediately says then, "Time doesn't exist." And he says all sorts of things the moment he says, "Force: no good. No force." Second he says that, he's a gone duck and he will behave accordingly under processing. He will behave accordingly. He will process as easily as he will use force.

So you have to rehabilitate force with an individual. What is responsibility? Responsibility is the degree of willingness to handle energy and space. A man's degree of responsibility is his degree of willingness to handle energy and space. And it will include objects, it will include energy, it will include 1.5's idea of force — which is a club. It will also include the 4.0's idea of force, which is enthusiasm. It will include the 8.0 angel's idea of force, which is simply — well, let's say, oh, let's — "I'm on this side." "Why are you on that side?" "I'm on that side for randomity's sake."

Where the person is on the Tone Scale is a gradient scale of two things. One is primary, the other is secondary. Primary is his desire to cause an effect. How much is he willing to effect? What is he desirous of effecting? Now, and the other one is, of course, how much MEST universe force in space, loose or condensed, is he willing to handle? And those two are exact. And how easily does a person get out of his body? He gets out of his body in proportion to the amount of force which he is willing now to handle. Now, that's just the open-and-shut gradient scale of the thing and therefore you cannot process a preclear on responsibility and irresponsibility without blowing him out of his body.

Now, you get this level of responsibility: You have a preclear with a blank track. All right, you get assignment of cause. "All right, let's run all the people to whom you've assigned cause." That's not a very good process, by the way. But what do you know? He'll start to get visios, of all things. Of course he'll get visios; he starts to handle energy. In order to get a perception at all, you have to be willing to handle energy. So if perceptions are off, it's a direct index as to how much force this person's willing to apply. But get this: Don't try to estimate the effectiveness of this person by that, because this person may be low on the Tone Scale and be a magnitude of something else — the Q. And so you have very low-level, completely occluded persons who are willing not — not willing to take responsibility for anything, apparently, and so on, who can just cut the darnedest swaths in society. It's magnitude of cause. So unwillingness to handle force must be compared to magnitude of cause possible.

Now, you can get somebody — you can get somebody who's pretty badly occluded who has an enormous magnitude of cause and he's still moting, because there are an awful lot of forces he's still willing to handle. But in the main, he's occluded. Another person of his same level would be dead. You get the idea? It's how much force is he willing to handle? Well, how much force, potentially, can he create?

Well, let's say two preclears, and one is unwilling to handle 50 percent of his force and the other is unwilling to handle 50 percent of his force, and one of them can blow a building over with a sneeze and the other one can't walk downstairs. It would just be ability to create force. And that is a variable factor, person to person.

Now, it ought to be all nice and equal, but it isn't. That's one of the first things you learn in processing, that sometimes you're processing a — the main power station for London, and the other time you're processing some fellow who will — when cleared, will make a grasshopper's leg twitch. Horrible. I wish for the sake of Voltaire and some of the other people who have written in the past that all men were created equal and had an equal amount of theta and had equal potentialities, but it shows that there is a quantum in theta itself above the level 40.0, which is interesting. That's a clue. It's a clue. You'll see this in action.

Now, all of our processes, then, sum toward and come back to cause–effect above space, space, energy, objects — all these processes. And when I'm talking to you about this particular process, I am talking about the main highway that drives straight through the preclear's ego, alter ego, libido, port lights, starboard lights, harbor entrances, ranges of mountains and so forth. It's a four-pass, express, thousand-mile-an-hour highway. And you want to be — I tell you this because you can orient your processing around this without going wrong.

Now, I'll give you a better process than I just gave you, just "joy of responsibility" and "joy of irresponsibility," and so on. There's a better, refined process on this, is: "What has one refused to take responsibility for that he himself has done?" Can you run this: "I didn't say it. I didn't see it. I didn't feel it. I didn't hear it." Hm, starts to look familiar on that one, doesn't it? "I didn't hear you." "I didn't hear you, Mother, that's why I didn't come in. Heh-heh." — little liar. Now, you'll run those in terms of concepts and feelings and you'll find some interesting things happening on the case.

Now, "desire to be effect." You have always three stages on the Tone Scale. Up here above 2.0 you can consider it crudely "desire"; and below that, below 2.0 down to about 1.0, you can consider it "enforce"; and from about 1.0 down to 0.0, you can consider it "inhibit." So you can always put desire, enforce, inhibit on anything. You can put that on a — put each one of those on a bracket. "When did you desire force?"

Now, when you're talking about force, look, you're talking about ARC. ARC is force; it's energy; it's energy flows. And a person can't perceive unless he is willing to handle energy flows. And what's the worst thing he could do? Well, religionists have said it down the track: If a person denied himself, he would do himself in. And you just find where this preclear's denied his own actions, his own perceptions; he's denied receiving them, denied saying them, and you will find major aberrated points.

And I'll give you a little bit more than that and make it just a little bit stiffer. You will find the major aberrative points of his current lifetime on those buttons. When did he refuse to acknowledge his ownership of his own force? "I didn't perceive it," in any one of its brackets. "I didn't do it," in any one of its brackets. And what other two? Of course, to have force you've got to have location and time, so you say, "I wasn't there. I didn't go there. I went elsewhere," and "It was another time when." All of these (quote) lies (unquote) demanded by the family or social courtesy have been directed squarely at the individual — individual's denial of self.

Now, conversely, if you can get an individual to admit or state that he didn't say something that he did, you can finish him. That's the fastest way to kill a man next to shooting him that I know. You could just work on him, just work on him until he would deny having done what he did, and just work on him, and finally, so he'll have peace or so he'll have something or other, get him to deny that he did what he did. Get him to deny that he said what he said. Get him saying, "Oh, I didn't mean that." Make him very angry and make him say something he didn't want to say and then say — force him then, to say that he didn't mean to say what he said. It'd kill him. Those are the major aberrative points.

You find the person in a preclear's life who made him go through those gyrations and you'll find the main aberrator of this current lifetime. Who made him go through these gyrations? How many people did? Who was the worst one? Put him on an E-Meter and find out and then process it. And what's he doing all this time? He's saying — what he should be saying is, "This is my force. I am free to use force as I please." He's saying, "I didn't mean to use — this was my force but I didn't mean to use it." He is saying to himself — all the time he's making new postulates saying, "I don't know how to apply force. I don't know how to apply force. I don't know how to apply force. And oh, I don't know and, oh, I just do these things and I'm not quite sure why I do them or how I do them, but I do them and I just do them. And I just guess I can't trust myself anymore."

Now, get that. What is trust, then? Trust is the same as competence. Trust: "I can trust myself to properly apply force." And when you find an individual no longer trusts himself, it's only because he has denied that his application of force was proper. And what do you know, it's always been proper. It's never been otherwise than proper, no matter what he did. Because he, at that time, had a computation which told him that this, by the limit of his understanding and ability, was the only course he had to survive. He has been trying his best all the way along the track.

At any given instant a man is doing his best to survive. And when he has — can be convinced that he did wrong to survive, then he has to go back into the past and unhinge the past from his own ownership, and so every facsimile he's got is then, thereafter, free not to have an owner and to make him an effect. Only when he says, "I am not responsible for what I did" can he then have his facsimiles operating against himself. And facsimiles which are not owned are fully free to punish the individual. And only those facsimiles which are punishing the individual are aberrative.