All right, this is the first of the new Professional Course series and it is expected at the time the student reaches this level that he will be very conversant with the following tapes and data:
He should be very conversant with those and he should have studied, with his instructor and assisted by whatever tape might be here on that subject way back from 1952 — and there are some tapes here on that subject, if we could fish any of them out; it isn't important to have tapes on that subject, by the way — the Axioms. And he should have some conversance with these things and then he's right here at this level of Professional Course.
And I am going to assume now that we have some conversance with the basics of Dianetics and Scientology. And just to make absolutely sure I am going to give you at this moment a very fast review of what this is and what it is that is Dianetics and what it is that is Scientology and what's para-Dianetics and what's para-Scientology.
It will be shortly announced in the magazine Scientology, published in the United States, that Dianetics stems from this base: The dynamic principle of existence is survival. There are eight dynamics. The purpose of the mind is to pose and resolve problems. The principles of ARC combine into what we know as understanding and logic. Self-determinism is the goal of the auditor. You've got it right there.
And anybody that comes out and says, "We have now discovered that the first principle of existence is sneeze," isn't practicing Dianetics or searching in Dianetics or researching in Dianetics. I don't know what he's doing but he hasn't anything to do with Dianetics.
That would be legitimately para-Dianetics and let me tell you why this is. You don't go into the science of physics which is proven empirically over and over and over and over and is being used by thousands and thousands and thousands of people and say, "Now, we're going to teach you about physics," or "We're now going to do physics. Now it so happens that to get anything to balance, a fulcrum at the center of a lever to balance must have five times as much weight on end A as it has on end B." And then tell anybody that you're practicing physics because, of course, that won't balance. That's the end of that.
But you would be perfectly — perfectly in your rights to say, "Now, we're going to form some kind of an organization of knowledge out of the subject here which has for its basis that it takes, to make anything balance, five times as much weight on one end of the scale as it does on the other end of the scale and five times as much weight always balances one fifth as much weight." You could call that paraphysics or metaphysics.
You know what metaphysics means, by the way? It means "after physics," because the original classes in it were given in the period which immediately followed the physics period. That is where that gets its name because it was the unexplained and inexplicable and upsetting things that nobody knew the answer of.
Well, we do know the answer. We have proven it time and time and time again, we have proven that we are on the right path, on the right groove when we say, "The dynamic principle of existence is survive." We're on the right path there.
And every time I get off the path and go wandering over the hills and far away and get to fooling around and wondering whether or not preclears, if they were knocked out with a cosh (for the US, that's a blackjack), wondering whether or not these people if stacked up in the corner might be able to reorient themselves better or worse — that has nothing, nothing to do with the alteration of the basic principle. And after I get fooling around and stir-ring up preclears one way or the other, and so on, I want to know what's wrong with what I'm doing and why it doesn't work, I have only to ask one question about it: Is this in keeping with these principles — survive, the 8 dynamics and ARC?
And any time I part off of those principles (boy, this is an old hand talking to you about this!), any time I go over the hill on these principles, I'm lost! I'm over there sitting there with no compass, no map, no stars to shoot, with a half-dead preclear on my hands. I say to myself, "Now let's see, hmm, there's probably some new and unknown and terribly important and very upsetting principle that I don't have any finger on and I need that principle before I can do anything for this poor preclear." And as long as I continue in that frame of mind — search, search, search, look around, look around, look around — nothing happens with the preclear.
Till all of a sudden I pull out this road map. And this road map says, "The dynamic principle of existence is survive. There are eight dynamics. There's ARC." Zong! Oh, there's the highway. And we're right back on the groove and what do you know? Out of all of an ocean of new data discovered, a few facts will evaluate themselves on those basic principles and fit into place. And the rest of the facts that have been discovered there will, on the outskirts, orient themselves and fit into place.
This is a very, very marvelous thing to behold, by the way, in research to find out that you aren't learning anything new. It's not that you are stuck with a postulate. For years and years and years I've tried to take "the dynamic principle of existence is survive" and throw it overboard.
You know the test in research is this — this will tell you immediately whether research is done well or done poorly — the test is this: Does the investigator work as hard to disprove his data as he does to prove it? And if he will do that, he's an honest investigator. But if he is so enamored with a datum that he must hug it to his bosom, daren't even look at it or test it or subject it to any proof at all, but it's such a wonderful datum, such as, "All is based on toilet training," that we never investigate it; all we do is rush all around the world and with vast literary pride and skill, and so forth, sell everybody that this is the datum.
We don't spend our time sitting over here finding out if it is the datum because to establish it you would have to do this: You would have to say, "It is whatever it is." And then you'd have to sit there and say, "It's not whatever it is. It just isn't, that's all. I'm going to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that this is not the data."
Until you've done that the datum is no damn good. And the reason why is, is you don't get a double flow — unless you have a positive and negative in this universe, you don't really get any flow at all. And until you've permitted a datum to flow through data, you don't know anything about the datum because a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated. And when one says "evaluated" he means "no emotional connotation between that datum and its originator." Let's not have a lovefest; let's have some investigation. And that means that this datum must be turned out of doors and sent to root for itself amongst enormous amount of other data before we can even vaguely say, "This is the datum."
Now, the whole principle of mathematics, the whole principle of evaluation underlies our principles. What do you know? We're above mathematics because mathematics broke down the other day. Not only did we find out why a terminal works against a terminal to make electricity, but a little bit later on we find out that the so-called sciences of mathematics break down. They don't just mildly break down, they leave you without an axle, without petrol (that's gas in the States), they leave you way out without water. Where? The second you find out that in mathematics we are trying to achieve a unity, we're trying to get one, we're trying to reduce it down to one answer. One answer, lowest common denominator. One answer, one answer, one answer, what do you know? It won't work! Big joke!
It's got to go down to two answers, two answers, two answers and as long as it's going to two answers you're all right. If it's going to just one answer, skip it because that's what's wrong with a V. He's trying to make it all one. And boy, he pushes and crowds, he sweats and steams to get it all down to one. He's never going to be able to do it.
He's got to get it to two because that is the trick of the universe. The trick of the universe was just on that system. It persuaded you to bring it all down to one, whereas the only place it could go was two. And if you try to take anything down lower than two in this universe, you join the universe — as what, I wouldn't be prepared to say. But that's the horrible fact that falls out into our hands. That's awfully simple, isn't it?
Very simple. We have a double principle in survive. As long as we say, "The dynamic principle of existence is survive," we're sitting there all by ourself until we learn that there is more than one thing involved in survival which is eight dynamics.
Now we get a second principle and that is that succumb exists there. There's two sides to survival: you live or you die — two, two, two. They run around saying — you know somebody's liable to get the idea that I'm down on religion or something of the sort. I'm really not down on religion any more than you're down on witch doctoring in the cannibal isles.
You know when you use this word religion and when you use this word Christianity, you're not in communication because you don't know what — what the other fellow thinks you mean. Now, when he says religion, if I were talking to a bunch of boys in the cannibal isles and we talked about religion they'd know what we were talking about. Why, of course, in order to appease the tribal gods you have to cut off the heads of your enemies and drag them across the fields, otherwise your crops won't grow. Everybody knows that. And that to him would be religion.
And somebody else you're talking to, you say, "Ah, the principles of Christ," and he says, "Yes, yes." Oh yeah? What principles?
Don't get a copy of the St. James edition a hundred years ago. It's a different book. Don't try to look at the New Testament under various translations. It's a different book. You've got a terrifically wide difference here. People are shooting all off from the middle. Well, what's the middle? The reason they shoot off from it, they say, "There's just one god in this universe." Oh no! You can't have one god in a universe that's based on a terminal of two unless you want to drive everybody down Tone Scale and make slaves out of them. Of course, if you want to make slaves out of everybody you'd convince them there is just one god but I'm sure nobody ever intended to do that with religion.
There's two gods — at least two gods. And actually, when you get this minimum number of two, you'll find a society was just about as healthy as it had gods. Well, let's have thousands of them. Let's really get up there and, of course, then you get into the impossible figures and you start downhill again because a society can't work with more than a few thousand gods; you can't keep track of them. All right.
But we had a basic two, didn't we? We had God and we had the Devil. And then they say, "Worship God only." That's real good. That's real good. That'll kill you deader than a mackerel.
So, I'm not down on religion. I believe in religion, except I don't believe in limited religion. If we're going to have two gods let's worship two gods, that's all. If we've got to have worship of gods, let's at least worship the minimum number allowable in this universe.
Now, let's not fool around with this religion, tell people what they can't do with religion and what they can do with religion. We've just got religion — if we're going to have religion, then let's be honest with it and look and see and find this to be the case: that everybody who starts worshiping one god and one god only, and shaping his pathway straight toward one god and only one god and good, and it's good, and that's all we can have anything to do with is good, winds up bad. Ever know any minister's sons?
All right. Self-determinism depends upon, we have learned, eight dynamics. And we find out that we're liable to cut down — you understand, I'm not death on religion, it's perfectly all right. I'm not even death on slavery. If you want to go make slaves that's all right with me. It's just this — it's just this: is everything that's introduced in this universe, no matter how good or how beneficial or how much freedom people intended that to have, unless the whole answer was given out, those principles were used to enslave. Isn't that sad?
Chap by the name of Christ could get born and raised and try to say, well, "Love your neighbor," and "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," — terrifically workable philosophy, by the way. And what do you know? They hang him up on a cross and drive nails in him. Why? Because they were afraid that he would say what he was saying so loud that nobody would ab — be able to rush in suddenly and control it all and limit all of that and mix it all up and reevaluate it so they could pass collection plates down the aisles and get the nickel on the drum. This couldn't have been, could it have?
So, right at the inception here I'm not trying to compare Dianetics and Scientology to Christianity or compare them to anything particularly. But I will say that this principle exists. If you study Dianetics and Scientology just from the angle of the good it can do for people, and if that's all you will pay any attention to at all, you will wind up a very bad auditor. Why?
Because you'll pay attention to its good and pay attention its good and it'll make you eschew all the evil in the universe and that will pull you right over to it as a terminal. The next thing you know, you will be sitting there saying, "Why the hell don't I cut this preclear's throat." You will be sitting there alongside the couch in a high state of criticism of this preclear's family and you will get emotionally involved with the preclear's life. Why? Because you say, "Look at the horrible things this family did to this poor person." Well, that's all right, you can say that. But if you really wanted to wipe him out you'd say, "Isn't it wonderful how nuts people can be," or "Isn't it wonderful how beautifully certain principles of child raising can be employed."
So this is how you control somebody. But let's not get emotionally involved about it. If you did, as an auditor, get emotionally involved with every pre-clear you had, what would happen? You'd go right on down scale, zong, in the absence of a process which would pull you right up scale again, zong!
So it's been a dangerous liability being an auditor. And auditing itself could pull you out of this.
But a V is already pretty far gone. And if he does very much auditing, he just keeps tipping the scales over in the wrong direction. So that what good Dianetics and Scientology will do for him gets unbalanced by the fact that he goes right on and pours it out to somebody else before he's ready to do it. In other words, he is doing a fine job of making it all the same before he knows what the differences are. And that's serious, then, very serious.
Now, we have Standard Operating Procedure Number 5 in Scientology 8-8008. We've got Scientology 8-8008 as our text and an additional text is a paper and it gives you a little more data on the Standard Operating Procedure and gives you the basic principles which I'm going to lay down in this course. That is a — not a particularly restricted paper but no punches are pulled in its nomenclature at all. It just goes right — straight on ahead and talks about what we are talking about. Just as I'm going to do on these tapes.
And we get, out of all this, we get a very broad view. And the first part of our view is that when we label something good and admirable, and label something else bad and nonadmirable, we stick ourselves with what we've labeled nonadmirable and we lose what's good. That's very interesting, isn't it?
We said a long time ago the auditor must not evaluate for the preclear. Well, that obviously tells you — by the way, that was derived from experience and that tells you immediately that one of the worst aberrations that could — you could have on the track would be evaluation. And it is.
And then we found out that the — this is empirical, you see, just studying large numbers of preclears being audited — we find out that the other one was invalidation. The auditor mustn't invalidate the preclear. And if he invalidated the preclear, bad, bad news, bad news right away.
So, let's just take those right there at the beginning and let's look at the Auditor's Code and let's realize that in the Auditor's Code there are really only two important "shuns": invalidation and evaluation. And knowing there are two important "shuns" it tells you immediately how to drive a man mad, doesn't it?
How do you put somebody under control? Well, you evaluate for him and you invalidate him. So, what's the backbone of the aberration, then? In terms of thought, more or less we'd have invalidation and evaluation.
Now, let's turn these two over and then look and see if we find there are two things that add up to sanity. Well, if evaluation is bad, then no evaluation would be the reverse of that. So we've got no evaluation sitting up there as sanity. And if invalidation is bad, then validation would wipe things out, wouldn't it, or it would be good.
And sure enough, what you tend to validate with a preclear works out to be what he becomes. That's very fascinating.
You start running nothing but real engrams on a preclear and he practically becomes an animated engram if you keep it up long enough. There's a saturation point on this. The saturation point limit is no further along than about five hundred hours. You could probably keep this up for about five hundred hours and your preclear would come out beautifully and then all of a sudden you'd cross probably the break point and you wouldn't be able to come out so beautifully after that.
Well, something has obviously happened there and that must be, then, something approximating the curve of why this universe is aberrative to people. And sure enough it is — sure enough. Because he's only one engram of each kind. He's only got one bank, one engram.
What's wrong with the engram? He's only got one of them. That's all that's wrong with an engram, you've just got one of them.
Why are marital relations so bad? Well, you just have one husband and the husband just has one wife. Do you say this would work out good if a man had two wives and two — and every girl had two husbands? No, that wouldn't work either. Well, marriage then won't work. Oh yes, sure, almost anything will work. Heck, there are some automobiles that work. All sorts of things that work. All right.
Now, we look over then the basic things of what we know to be true. Any auditor that's been auditing very long knows he mustn't do two things: Sooner or later he's come a cropper by evaluating for the preclear on the one hand and invalidating the preclear on the other hand. Sometimes he didn't even realize he'd invalidated the preclear until the preclear got all upset.
So we've got to have a technique that would take those into account. We have to have a technique that takes it into account that there must be some-thing bad in the universe, too. We can't go on just happily saying, "It's all good, it's all good. Oh, we only pay attention to good things and good things and we won't pay any attention to that bad stuff over there. That's just over there, see, and we won't pay any attention to that. We'll just go on saying these good things and good things and all is good," and then somebody comes up and cuts your throat, and you say, "Well, that's all good, too."
Oh no, you don't. That's a terrible break in your own reality. Your own reality goes crash at that moment. You've been walking around saying, "Man is honest, man is just, man is good, man is this, that," and you're walking along happily and you're like a little kid going to the store, "Pound of butter, dozen eggs . . ." and what do you know? You're lying there, all of a sudden, you realize you've been lying there for about ten minutes and you've got a cut in your scalp. Well, how can you possibly account for this? "Man's good! The universe is good and everything is good and nothing will harm me. And yet here I lie with a big eight-inch gash in my skull."
You can't explain that then, can you? There's no possible explanation for it. Why? Because there's a pre-evaluation that says, "All is good," and any-thing else that happens is bad. What do you do with it? You'll say, "I'll take no responsibility for it of any kind whatsoever." So what's it do afterwards? It drowns you, that's what happens, because you can't hold it out there and you can't control it because you won't have paid any attention to it.
Why is it that you only find bad engrams in a preclear? There'll be a preclear someday that you'll find only good engrams in. And what would have happened in that case — by the way, you'll find this person, that's not just a joke, you'll really find this person: This person has made a complete tom-tom-beating ceremony out of doing only things that were bad. They concentrated on being as wicked, as bad, as ornery, as mean and worshiping at the shrine of the Devil, and all of that sort of thing. And you'll find him stuck on the track the same way you'll find a person who has done good. Only what are they stuck in? You see, they have taken no responsibility for good acts.
Well, then we have responsibility, don't we? And we have responsibility tying into evaluation. And it tells you immediately the moment you widely and didactically start to evaluate that you widely abandon responsibility. So what's your responsibility?
Let me give you this as a technique right now. If you were to mock up your father twice looking at a patch of black which you just put out there in front of you — just put out a patch of black and then mock up your father twice looking up from below at this patch of black and admiring it — you'll find out how tough that is. You'll find out why you've had trouble. That's all you've got to do with a preclear and he will know in a very few minutes what has been wrong with his life from beginning to end.
Now, it wasn't on the fact that Papa was evaluating so much. It wasn't that Papa was thinking. It wasn't the preclear was trying to evaluate. It's just that Papa would never face reality, even vaguely face reality. But we've found out in working Scientology 8-8008 that the facing and agreeing with reality as such is pure death! Sure it is, on the one hand, and it's all the way up on the other hand.
Now, we find out that in order to master these eight dynamics you've got to be willing to be them. Well, if you're not willing to be the sixth dynamic you're not going to have anything but trouble from here on out.
You're afraid you're going to be MEST, that's the bad stuff: MEST. It kicks your shins in, it doesn't think, it's stupid, it lies around in your road, it falls on top of you, it kills your friends, it smashes your car — that's MEST, that stuff, and it's very bad. Everybody knows that's real bad. Everybody knows that in order to get out of this universe you've got to abandon materialism. Everybody knows you can't use MEST and get anyplace. Why, the mystics have been teaching that for thousands and thousands and thousands of years and they're all still here. They just abandon, then, the sixth dynamic — MEST — and they say, "No MEST, no. No we — that's the one thing we can't be."
Well, look in your Axioms and you will find the definition of randomity. An awful lot of people get worried and upset about randomity. Randomity has nothing to do with but this: Up to one moment I have responsibility for every-thing there is across all the eight dynamics and feel in perfect conversance with this whole eight dynamics and now all of a sudden I am going to say, "Half of these are my enemy." That's randomity that ensues. It's a contest. Randomity. It's that which a person does to achieve motion. That's what randomity is — random factors. He gets no thought, he gets no action, he gets nothing unless he has taken his fingers off the control of 50 percent.
And sure enough, we find man has at the absolute maximum one quarter of the dynamics at his disposal in the Western cultures of today; one quarter of the dynamics.
Look how this is. The first four have to do mostly with man, the species which he is or the being which he is. Mind you, those first four also apply to a thetan. They are the being that he happens to be at the moment. All right.
Now, let's select out 50 percent of the first four, pong! And let's say, "No, we're not responsible for any of those and we're not going to regulate any action of those and we're just going to turn our backs on them." That's bad, isn't it? That — "Fifty percent of the first four dynamics are bad. Let's just shove those off and say that's that." Boy, is he going to get action from there on, in himself, in sex, in children, in every group he enters, in the species. Where? Why? Well, he says, "Half of me is bad. I have an unconscious mind that is always bidding me to do horrible things and there's a treachery going on inside myself all the time that I have to fight and combat and restrain myself. Hmm."
There goes the first dynamic. Poom!
Sex is evil and we must hide it. There goes the second dynamic. Poom! Children are expensive and sometimes very embarrassing if they come at the wrong time. Poom! There goes the second.
Half of this group is trying to undermine the other half of this group and we just know that that is … Poom! There goes the third dynamic.
And half of man is trying to kill half of man because they engage in wars all the time. There goes half of the fourth dynamic. And this leaves a fellow with where? Oh, brother! Because man is not permitted to be the last four dynamics.
And you understand that beingness and controlling things are the same thing, in essence. The real nice, smooth way to control anything is simply be it. And a person who cannot be something cannot control it.
You think you control things with your voice, maybe, or a stick or an electric light switch. That's a silly way to go about controlling things. That's very silly.
You think some bully walks down the street and starts to sock you in the eye, or something of the sort, that you should immediately counter with your what? Your arms and hit the bully back. Well, that's just about as silly as you can get. There's 50 percent of those present fighting 50 percent of those present on both sides and nothing will ensue but some bruises.
What's the right way to handle this? Well, you don't want to be a bully, you know you can't be a bully. You're not supposed to bully people. Well, therefore, you couldn't be a bully so you get beat up by bullies. Isn't that simple?
What do you do? How do you keep a bully from beating you up? Well, you just walk around behind him and you say, "Gee, I really love that guy. I really love that guy, pop-pop-pop!" That's all. What's he do? He says, "Hmm." No randomity.
What's animal magnetism? Why was it that a fellow by the name of Daniel and so on, wild animal trainers down here — boy, they really hate you if you call them tamers because they are not tamers, they're trainers — these wild animal trainers and people like Daniel and that sort of thing, what happens in that case? Why is that man able to stand like Clyde Beatty, and fight forty lions and tigers mixed in the same cage? Why don't they kill him? They would kill everybody else that went in that cage except Clyde Beatty. Clyde Beatty doesn't give a damn what they're thinking about. They're just lions and tigers.
Somebody else goes in there, says, "They're lions and tigers." Get the difference?
Clyde Beatty is perfectly willing to be forty lions and tigers. Other people aren't. He knows they can't hurt him. Now, that's fascinating.
He degenerates in his career the instant that he knows some lion can hurt him. Why? Because he says, "You know, that lion's going to hurt me. I just know it, sooner or later Nero is going to get up on that ladder and is going to take a pass at my toupee and that's going to be the end of my skull."
What's he done? He's taken the fifth dynamic and he has elected a direction of the fifth dynamic to knock off his hat and skull. And it's a very grim joke that a person's power far exceeds his belief in his power, because he's going to put a lion on the ladder to knock his head off.
The person who just knows they're going to be hit; the person who just knows they're going to be run over; the person who just knows they're going to be ruined by some other person — it isn't just fear. It's a person who would do all those — think all those things and say, "I'm going to prevent it by force," that would just be the same deal — randomity.
He's actually planting a postulate in other beingness which he is totally capable of being. So he's saying, "This is going to fight me." So it fights him! Isn't that surprising? Nobody's more amazed than this person who goes through life having awfully bad luck. He can't understand it.
He says, "You know, I'm sure that my boss is going to fire me. I'm sure that this is going to happen, that that's going to happen. I'm sure that some-thing's going to happen on this, that things aren't going to be all right." He might as well have walked around behind the back of the guy and said, "Let's you and him fight. Let's you bring him a lot of bad luck." He might as well have actually translated himself in space and told his enemies to do their worst. You see how that is? So that's what randomity is all about.
Now, you can have too much action or too little action. You try and sit down sometime for a few hours, just do nothing. Be very astonishing what happens to you. That's no randomity at all. But because you have economic pressures and because your heart's beating, and a few other things, all it is is minus randomity, which is quite dangerous.
And you go out here and take a ride with me down the street and you'll say, "That's too much action," and that's plus randomity and that's nonsurvival too. What we want is optimum randomity — optimum.
What's optimum? That depends upon your tolerance for motion, that's all. How fast do you want to move? How fast do you want things to move? And when things exceed that, you select them out as an enemy. When you select something out as an enemy it can then hurt you. So we have motion and stillness as being our two poles that we're operating from.
Again, we have two poles in this universe: We have randomity; we have responsibility.
All this is getting very, very neat as a package. All of the data which you have in these various Axioms you will find falling into place very neatly. But just going over this again: What do you think happens when you start talking to another terminal that you have selected out for randomity? Are you talking to another terminal? Oh, I wish I could tell you, "Yes." You're not. You're talking to you.
Where are all your engrams? This is horrible. I really hate to have to tell you this, I really hate to: You have laid them in to you. See, when you select something out for randomity you decided to have two terminals. And then you said, "Now, that other terminal, that other terminal and I have got to be just alike and then we can have a nice interchange or we can have a nice fight or we can do something of the sort in this wise." If you're just like another terminal, you know, you fight too. And if you're quite different from the other terminal then you have to adjust till you become the same. This is known as sympathy. Equal motion, equal plane, similar space — sympathy.
So, what happens here? You start facing this second terminal and you get a release of energy and the energy goes back and forth and you get a communications line in between. You've taken your first step toward the selection and establishment of randomity.
But are you talking to yourself when you're talking to that other terminal? Yes, you are. That's your communication line. That other terminal doesn't have very much to do with it.
And you may go around for a long time wearing the other half of some-body else's terminal. See how this would be? You could go around and you could say, "Well, this is me and this is I and I have this nice terminal and this depends on somebody else and myself." You see? And it doesn't at all. It won't run if you treat it like that. If you say, "My wife and I have talks together. Now we're going to run out the talks my wife and I have had." Are you going to? Yes. Yes. By you as an individual approximating exactly the terminal which you're trying to erase. And the whole secret of erasure had to do with mocking yourself up to be exactly the same as the facsimile which you were trying to erase. And when you've mocked yourself up exactly the same as it, it would discharge and diminish. But a preclear who couldn't mock himself up exactly as that other terminal — it wouldn't erase.
There are easier ways of doing it than trial by one's own flesh. And that's what we've been doing with Book One — trial by one's own flesh. When running an actual incident we are, as a thetan, mocking ourselves up and running through facsimiles from beginning to end as the second terminal of the facsimile. That's why you get the somatics; that's why you get the perceptions, and so forth.
If you've done this for a long time or if somebody's jumped you in the middle of it, what happened? The terminals collapsed. The terminals col-lapsed and it was just the same as losing a terminal to have one fall in on you. So you had a facsimile collapse on you. And until you could pick it up at that moment and go through the exact approximation of the facsimile all over again, it wouldn't erase.
So there's your V and your VI and your VII. He's lost a terminal, he up and lost a terminal. I don't care whether he lost the terminal by it collapsing on him or he lost the terminal by it walking away from him. He's lost a terminal. Therefore, he hasn't any interchange, has he? He has nothing to interchange with. Just losing a terminal doesn't make a V, but this does make a V: losing one's confidence to have another terminal. And the second one begins to doubt that he'll ever have another terminal: occlusion — right there! Pam! And there's the mechanism.
If there is any V present I'd like you to make this little test — you might recover from it, who knows: Simply get the concept in your own mind of loss and tell me what happens to your vision. Just get the concept of loss.
What happens to your visio? Any alteration occur in your visio with that concept of loss?
Male voice: It turns off
Female voice: Big blackness.
It goes black.
Female voice: Big blackness.
Big blackness. Well, boy, I can give you the blackest black you ever said. I can just stand here and say, "Go on, now get the concept of loss again," and I can tell you again, "Get the concept of loss," and it would get blacker and blacker, and what would we do? We'd stack the whole track on you.
It's all right to do so because we've got a second technique which takes it all apart just like that.
There is occlusion, there is occlusion. When two terminals collapse together or when two terminals separate and one snaps his lines you get a what? You get a loss of perception.
So again, we're running on two things in this universe. Perception and force are slightly different. They're on the same principles, but they are different. Perception contains sensation. Force contains what we know as coarse energy. They're slightly different. Two kinds of energy, really, the energy of perception, and so forth. And when one sees, one has to have a second terminal.
How in the devil can you see without something to look at? And how can you see without having something to look at which will bounce back at you again? Now, light's got to come from somewheres and hit it and hit you. So you're going to have two reactions there. So when we're dealing with perceptions we're not dealing with terminals. Big surprise, we're dealing with lines — lines, lines, lines — and the rehabilitation of the line is what you're after as an auditor, not the rehabilitation of the terminal.
Lines. The flow of perception energy to a terminal and back again. And of course, without the terminal you can't have the line. You want the line. You need the terminal to have the line.
So we get our first dependency in this universe. Dependency upon another terminal. And then we go on fondly believing that we have to have other terminals in order to have any interchange. And the horrible part of it is, is every time you have tried to use another terminal you didn't get a satisfactory interchange unless you mocked it up over itself. You get that? You mocked it up over itself.
You had a white post out here. In order to get a good interchange with a white post, you had to — you had to figure out that you had to become just like a white post in order to get an interchange with a white post. So you changed yourself to a white post and then you would get an interchange with a white post.
And then the grim joke which you played on yourself was, all you got an interchange from was your putting out something for the white post to be over the white post so that it would kick back to you and you go off, and that's a facsimile. It's a shell. You put shells over everything you ever look at.And now you start up and down the time track and we're going to eras these shells. Why bother to erase the shells? That's all. The thing to do is just fix up a guy so he can make more shells. And then the scarcity of shells won't be such that he has to hold on to his old ones. That's remembering by facsimile which you covered in the first twelve lectures.
You make those shells. So how do you account for this randomity and this run-out, and so forth?
What's sympathy? Sympathy is very simple: it's just being the same as. And in order to get an interchange in this universe you think you have to mock yourself up the same as. You have to be like, you have to be the same as another terminal.
And then you omit yourself as a terminal and say, "There's only one terminal here." You say, "See?" Because you only see one terminal, you see, and you say, "Well, there we are." And "We need that terminal." You are always the other terminal.
So we've got a two-terminal proposition anytime you see something. If you look out here at a car, you would never see that car unless you were there to look at the car. I assure you this is the case. Or unless you mocked yourself up to be there and looked at the car. You can do that too, you know?
And so, what do we get as we gaze upon this picture of this universe then? We find life in it has been running on the idea that they had to become the same as something in order to perceive it. You had to mock yourself up as a church in order to look at a church. That's a facsimile. And then the pity of it is, you didn't realize this. You thought there's only one picture of a church. That's real dumb, that's real stupid. There's a church out there. You're looking at it, aren't you? You actually think you can see a church without having another church? You can't do it. Never under the sun, moon or stars would you be able to see that church at all unless you also had a picture of the church to interchange perception with because you wouldn't get any flow between the church and you unless you were also a church.
Now, you wonder why you feel a certain way about a certain scene. Well, you ought to feel that way; you're the scene!
Now, let's just let's take everything you've ever perceived then and we realize that it breaks down into this: Terminal A, the looked-at thing, impinging upon terminal B. Terminal A and B interconnected with a communication line. If you don't know the line is there and if you don't know terminal B was there, or if you just took terminal B and you didn't realize terminal A wasn't there anymore, you're going to run this out? Oh no, you're not.
A person's ability, then, to pretend was to a large degree his ability to run out engrams. He'd get a sort of a feeling as he ran across this engram and he'd get this funny feeling about it and it'd erase. So there's nothing to it.
What was he doing? Well, the day we learned about what thereabout all there was to know about this problem, we'd learn that day, too, why engrams erase we don't need the technique anymore. That's typical of this universe, going backwards.
So, it was your ability to mock yourself up. Here you were stuck with B now. You were looking at B. B was the facsimile, wasn't it? Well, where did B go to? You were content to look at B which is the second picture, a duplicate picture of the church. We've got two pictures of the church now. In order to see this church at all we've got to have two pictures of the church. Now we get an interchange from the two pictures. One is the church, glossed over by our energy, and the other is a picture of the church also made out of our energy, and between the two there's a communication line. The picture of the church is a sort of a particle on a line. And you get enough particles on this line and it won't flow anymore and a person gets stuck on the time track.
It's like pouring too much garbage down a sewer, or something, see? You just get too many pictures.
Well now, if you say, "That isn't my picture and I didn't take that picture and I don't want anything to do with that picture," and so on, of course, they just keep blocking up the lines. Why? You aren't putting out a new flow. You've got to have a flow there for the pictures to wash away.
A preclear doing this was doing the same thing as somebody who would walk up to a mountain and look at this mountain all covered with garbage and things that people had been dumping all over this mountain, and he'd say, "I wish it would move away." And he provides no hydraulic hose system or truck system or line system or transport system of any kind to carry the garbage away. And until such a line or system is put into play on that mountain the garbage is going to stay there. You can also burn it, you know. Makes the whole mountain black.
Now what is this system, then, that we have been bucking into? What have we had ourselves messed up with here? We've had, on a Case Level I, a person who could imitate a picture. If he could imitate this picture, then he'd have a communication line to the picture. Therefore, he'd have a flow and he'd get a discharge of the picture, poom!
And as he went down the line he was trying to be the same as pictures, trying to be the same as pictures. And that's what's the trouble: he's trying to be the same as. In order to be a body you have to be a body. You have to be the same as a body. And a person at about Step II on the scale is not only just being a body, he's starting to be the same as bodies. And so he's trying to make all bodies alike and you get the psychosis existing here on Earth known as MEST or the great brotherhood. That's the same — same deal, you see? It's the same as, be the same as. In order to sympathize with something you have to be the same as it.
Do you want to cry? Do you want to go into apathy? Do you want to suffer an agonizing death? Sounds like an advertisement, doesn't it? Anyway, do you want to? No, you don't. So what's it leave you stuck with? You're not willing to imitate somebody crying. You're not willing to imitate somebody in terror. You're not willing to imitate somebody in apathy. You're not willing to imitate somebody dead. So there's no second terminal. You saw them once. You've beheld this and you were momentarily two terminals and then you were saying, "No terminal, no terminal, no, uh-uh, no, no, no, grief, grief, very bad, apathy very bad, no." No sympathy. You just cut the line.
Where's the picture? You've got it. You'll have it for millions of years. You've got it.
Why? Because grief and apathy and death are bad. So you cut the line to them and that leaves you with those facsimiles. And if you cut enough lines and leave it long enough you get to be a VII. That's no responsibility. You've taken no responsibility for pieces of energy because you had to be like these pieces of energy in order to get them to run out unless you knew it was a double terminal universe. The second you know it is a double terminal universe, so what, you can do anything with it. And the moment that you find out that you have been looking at things by mocking them up and your ability to perceive things is as good as your ability to mock up — really, your mock-up ability is never quite as good as the MEST body's idea of seeing things because the MEST body is really trained, beautifully trained.
So, your ability to mock up was your ability to erase. What made you hang on to anything anyhow? Well, energy is scarce, everybody knows that. How do you survive? In Self Analysis you find survival is dependent upon abundance. Huh, then nonsurvival is dependent upon scarcity.
And sure enough — sure enough we find that individuals low on the Tone Scale are so engrossed in scarcity, scarcity, scarcity, scarcity, that they can't even vaguely face a loss because they know it can never be replaced — never! Bang! Occlusion. That's them, they're done, right there. They lose something and they know it can't be replaced.
You ask them to mock up two bodies. Oh no, you don't, ha-ha. They can get a vague shadow of one. One body, one body.
"Mock up a childhood home, mock up just one childhood home now." "No, dah-da-du, no, can't do that. Well, I can get a vague impression." "All right. Put another vague impression …"
"No — uh-uh, just one."
"All right. Put another vague impression alongside that — just …" "I'm sorry, they merge."
"Uh — now, let's put another vague impression alongside of the first picture you've got there. Let's put these two pictures out there now of the same thing."
"No, can't."
"Oh come on, you can do this. Let's get a picture of something that's absolutely worthless. Let's take two pencils and put them side by side in front of you."
"I can't do that."
"Why? What happens?"
"Well, the second pencil always disappears."
You've done something wrong.