We will now take up R1-10. R1-10: Route 1-10, an exteriorization drill or process.

Route 1-10 is not solely confined to Route 1. You will find it also over in Route 2. This step is "Have preclear discover things he wouldn't mind occupying the same space with him." Now, that is the idea behind all havingness. You can only have something when you've got a universe or when you've got some space. And to get an individual over the idea of havingness, it's only necessary to ask him many, many times "What wouldn't you mind occupying your same space now? Give me something else that you wouldn't mind occupying your space." He'll tell you air, water, ideas. Anything he tells you, you don't care; you just want the question answered. "What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space with you?" And again, "What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space? What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space?" Now, this is not a short process. You can keep this process up with an individual for a couple of hours, always with benefit. It can be run on some-body inside or outside. When you run it on somebody who is exteriorized, he's liable to have the devil's own time trying to figure out how he could get some-thing to occupy the same space he's occupying, particularly if he's in good shape. But he's got to manage this. He's got to know what this is all about. Really, he will move around and occupy the same space as other objects for a while, and do all sorts of things. You're not interested too much in what he's doing, you just want to give him the process and get him finally into the idea that things can occupy the same space as a thetan.

What you are knocking to pieces is the basic postulate which makes a universe possible, and you are knocking that postulate to pieces. And this is simply this: the basic postulate is — for any universe which has space and energy — "Two things cannot occupy the same space." Alfred Lord Korzybski did not invent this. It was invented about seventy-four trillion years ago for this universe. "Two things cannot occupy the same space." If you will study general semantics, you will discover that they teachthis and it makes madmen out of them. They teach you "Two things cannotoccupy the same space! Those two are not the same cigarette; they are twodifferent cigarettes, if only because they are not occupying the same space."Nah, booey. The space is a postulate. So if you postulate that they can'toccupy the same space, they can't. If you postulate they can, they can. It's just a matter of you making up your mind about it.

So if we have somebody having difficulty with his language, difficulty with the universe around him, who is an avid student of general semantics — which is taught in every university in the land now, by the way … They teach students that nobody really knows what anybody else is talking about, because every word means something different to everybody else.

Aha, I'm afraid that "coffee" means coffee. Of course, it can have associative reasonings to it. You could have an association with coffee, but you've still said "coffee." "Coffee," the fellow says, "plus my associations with coffee"; the other fellow says, "Coffee, plus my associations with coffee" — you're still talking about coffee.

The general semanticist is always thinking in terms of associative lines and masses and definitions and reasons why, you see — significance, significance, significance, significance.

Now, I'm not tramping on general semantics. I'm glad general semantics was around. I studied it for ten minutes once, and under a very, very good teacher, Robert Heinlein. He told me all about general semantics, and I was very happy to learn about general semantics. Several general semanticists since have undertaken my education, and they have quit with horror because they get just up to this point — they are not physicists or they have never studied the physical universe — they get up to this point of they say, "Now, you understand that two things cannot possibly occupy the same space." Oh, I'm afraid that we're at a divergence right at this point. That's the way you make a universe solid. That's how these general semanticists get ridges around. That's why they get tongue-tied and go out of communication. They get this repostulated, repostulated, repostulated — that two things can't occupy the same space — and that makes an energy mass, that makes terminals, that makes all sorts of weird things, see?

That gives you a universe. In addition to this fellow having a physical universe, you're asking him to build a universe again around himself, in his mind.

Words, to a general semanticist, become lumps of lead. Everything takes on a mass form. It naturally would, because that's how you make mass, isn't it? "Two things cannot occupy the same space," you say. Therefore, by postulate, that terminal is over there and this terminal is here. You have to first say, however, if you're going to get these terminals apart, "Two things can't occupy the same space." You have to say that, see; you have to postulate that. "These two things are apart and they cannot occupy each other's space." This will make them, each one of them, a unit object. We've got two unit objects now, and we've got individuation. See? We say these two things are entirely separate. Each one has a personality. Why? They've got to go on having a personality to the end of time. Why? Because they can't occupy the same space.

This is a very important thing to know in processing, because your fellow who is sitting there having a lot of difficulty — he is a thetan exteriorized, and he's got big masses of energy around him — there's only one common de-nominator to the things he's convinced of. Of course, he's convinced they're energy, convinced there's space and so forth, naturally, but much more important than that postulate is this basic consideration — this basic consideration: He considers that two things cannot occupy the same space.

For instance, he does not believe that he and his wife could occupy the same space. She is an individual, he is an individual. Oh, wait a minute. You'd have to be way downstairs in kindergarten not to have gone in some-body else's head and pulled a couple of motor controls, one way or one time or another.

Sure, he as a thetan can occupy somebody else's space, but it's only by postulate that his body and his wife's body cannot occupy the same space; that's what makes them two different individuals. You break that postulate down and Lord knows what's going to happen. Actually, you get freedom, be-cause it's the basic restriction.

All aberration is, is restriction. And that is the fundamental common denominator of all restriction: Two things cannot occupy the same space.

All right, how important is this? Why are we stressing it? Is it an important theory? No. I tell you, I have enough theories … I have a file in here which is called "Old Cuffs," and there is enough theory and speculation and so forth on those — so much so that we decided to start to photostat them on the backs of the wasted pages of the PABs. You know, just have them shoot an "Old Cuff" at random.

Boy, is that going to take some of these boys who figure-figure out in the field and throw them for a loop, because some of these things are not sequitur to anything we're doing — you know, they're just suppositions and so forth.

Theories: nobody will ever have to remedy my havingness in terms of theories. There's no scarcity of them. There are just billions of theories. That's the one thing I'm perfectly willing to agree on — that there could be more theories than there are coyotes. And that's a lot of theories. Any-how…

When we have this postulate in the bank, a person who firmly believes it, cannot believe that he can exteriorize. Because if he believes two things cannot occupy the same space, then it becomes impossible for him to assume that he is one thing and the body is another thing. Now, do you follow me? So he will have to tell you, if he's sitting in a body, that he is a body. You got that?

See, "Yeah, I'm right here! And two things can't occupy the same space, so I can't be occupying the same space as a body, can I?" That logical? Well, it sounds logical enough to him so he won't exteriorize. And this is also your common denominator of nonexteriorization.

If you were to take R1-10, as a good process, how would you remedy his interiorization? You just keep asking him this question for hours and hours and hours and hours: "Give me some more things that could occupy the same space you're occupying. Some more things. Some more things. Some more things." And all of a sudden he gets the creepy notion — because it's just a postulate on the track, you see; it's just a consideration like "ice cream is good" or "ice cream is bad"; it's just the same order of magnitude — all of a sudden he gets the sneaky notion that "You know, I'm sitting here occupying the space something else is occupying. But then, of course, I am no mass at all. Well, I am mass, and I don't quite … But there's something here about this." And the next thing you'll know, he'll be three feet back of his head looking at himself.

So as an example of the workability of this particular process, the hold-outs (which is to say, the few who would not exteriorize cleanly) in the Advanced Clinical Course in London are reported to have exteriorized.

All the holdouts — you know, I think that he had maybe three or four there that were just dead in their heads, right there at the last. He exteriorized this whole unit, by the way. And he got down to R2-22. That was the total processes used — all of R1 and R2-22. That exteriorized everybody in that unit, I think, in the first two weeks of its teaching.

Now, the holdouts, the people who were having difficulty, blew on this one: "Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying your same space. Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying your same space. Give me some-thing else that you wouldn't mind occupying your same space." See? And they finally blew out of their heads.

It's obvious to an individual who is interiorized that he is his body, be-cause he knows two things cannot occupy the same space. That's the first thing you want to learn about that.

The other thing is, that the only reason the universe can stand out here and the terminals can interchange or anything else, is because the postulate is woven thoroughly into this universe and everyone is convinced of it, indeed — that two things can't occupy the same space.

Now, if it were just a theory, as I told you before, the devil with it. It's not a theory. It happens to have been something which was worked out on a theoretical basis along with eighty-nine other theories that sounded just as logical. But this one happened to work, and on research auditing demonstrated its workability. And in the hands of auditors ever since this was re-leased, this has been a very workable technique and has been responsible for many case recoveries — particularly recovery of the ability to be.

An individual can't be anything very cleanly if he believes he can't occupy the same space as something.

Look, a thetan doesn't have any mass; he doesn't have any wavelength; he doesn't have any position unless he says he has. Well, if this is the case, and if he believed two things can't occupy the same space, then the only thing that he could do to be something, you see, would be in the same space as that something and consider himself absolutely nothing — without quality, personality or anything else.

So he would be something fixedly, wouldn't he? Boy, would he be obsessed. Once he was in this thing, whatever it was, being it — whether a bed-post or a president; whatever he was — he would certainly be that thing.

Wouldn't he have an identity, though! He would be a symbol. The definition of a symbol is mass, meaning and mobility. Therefore, he would not be an orientation point. You have to be an orientation point in order to perceive. Just follow that through quickly and you'll see my point.

All right, if this individual believes two things can't occupy the same space, and he is being something, then he won't be able to be anything else.

You hang a medal on him and tell him he's a hero, and he's it. You say to him, with some holy water, "Your name is John Jones," and, boy, he's it. See, he couldn't be "Bill Smith" suddenly.

And yet his whole survival depends upon his ability to assume a number of identities! His survival depends upon his versatility, not his fixed beingness. His survival depends upon, not his ability to just call himself by different names, but to be different attributes, because a man has to adjust the environment to him. And if he's going to adjust the environment to him he will have to be able to occupy certain parts of the environment and change them, hm?

Otherwise, he will stand there as a fixed mass, being adjusted all the time by the environment.

A rock is adjusted by the environment: The wind blows across it, erodes it; the rain washes on it; the birds chip pieces out of it; the earthquakes break it in half and the lightning pushes it into dust. That's adjusting to the environment.

Now, an individual who has the idea that two things can't occupy the same space, of course, the second he finds himself in a trap, is the trap — and you never saw a trap get out of a trap, did you? A thetan can get out of a trap, but a trap doesn't get out of a trap.

So he believes that he can't be things at will and independently, and change his beingness or grant beingness or receive beingness if he believes that two things cannot occupy the same space.

R1-10 is, then, an important process, is it not?

Don't forget that process. Some day you'll be up against it — you'll be up against it with some preclear. He won't exteriorize; he won't do something. Hammer and pound, hammer and pound: "What things wouldn't you mind occupying your space? Some more things you wouldn't mind occupying your space." Don't think you'll do it in five minutes, though. You won't. It will take a lot longer than that. It's a long process, not a short one. And when he's exteriorized, you ask him the same thing, and all of a sudden as a thetan he'll suddenly realize, "Hey! You know, I really can be something." Ah, this will be a wonderful sensation to him. Important process.

Okay.