Thank you.

Well, how are you making out?

Audience: Fine. Okay.

This is the seventeenth lecture of the 18th ACC, August the sixth, 1957.

Well, your questions tonight absolutely inundate me. I don't know whether I can answer them or not. For this very, very, very good reason, that they aren't here!

Female voice: Right.

And I understand that your difficulties in one of the units today with the definition of "nothing" . . . Every time anybody would try to define nothing, he got himself into a fine state of restimulated loss, of course, you see? So nobody could agree on "nothing." Well, I think that's probably what's the matter with thetans, they can't agree on nothing; they've always got to have something.

Well, there's a high degree of probability that tonight's lecture could concern itself with various processes. So, I think I'd better tell you something about the processes you're doing.

And last night I talked to you about what rose IQ. You understand that that was the news. IQ was the news. Because I could point out to you, over here on your — CCH 9, Tone 40 "Keep It From Going Away," is withhold. Now, we already knew that that had a considerable workability. The road to solids, tolerance of solids, lies through withhold. Only we'd never had a Straightwire version on this before or anything that clipped it directly and immediately. But we for sure have it here on Tone 40 "Keep It From Going Away." And just to be in sequence here if you don't mind, I'll talk to you a little bit about solids and these processes that concern them.

Well, we'll take hold of CCH 9 here, "Keep It From Going Away," and we'll discover that there we are dealing with the automaticity which goes as follows — fascinating automaticity, the most fascinating automaticity there is. In fact, you couldn't do without it (you think). Everything that comes along is used by a thetan to keep things from going away. He gets a cannonball in the stomach, he says, "Ah, look — at that moment of impact, it kept the body from going forward, ha-ha! So I'll make a lovely picture of the impact (hence the necessity for pictures) and have it keep the body from going away from here on out!" That it gives us a cannonball in the stomach all the time is somebody else's lookout.

Sounds pretty wild, doesn't it? And yet that's why people hold on to impact engrams: fear of loss; fear they will lose a body. They do other things. They fill the atmosphere around the body with machinery and that sort of thing, so other thetans will be afraid to come into it and take it over and take it away. But keeping things from going away is a basic mechanism which guards against loss.

Well, of course, as I told you about the mind, it runs on a gradient scale from thought, through efforts, to solids. Actually, the mind has been graphed already on the Tone Scale. That is the gradient scale of approach between something that is nothing and total solids at the other end. It isn't that a person himself becomes a total solid but his approach to solids is on a gradient scale through less solids and misemotions and plain emotions and little energies like aesthetics, and then just thought, and we have this band at work. Well, when the individual gets hold of something like a cannonball in the stomach, he says, "Oh, boy!" He says, "That certainly . . . We got there in a hurry. That I can directly handle, obviously, because it handled me so well!" Well, he keeps things from going away. He guards against loss with impacts.

Now, he does other things with impacts. Quite fascinating things. He uses them as control mechanisms. I would not put it beyond a thetan to take a cannonball engram on the right to move his body to the left, a cannonball engram on the left to move his body to the right. Handy, isn't it, you know? Requires no effort. He just puts a slight thought into the line and he says, "Move to the right." You know? And the cannonball goes into restimulation and he moves over to the right. You could see how this would be a good system.

Well, he's using these "keep its from goings away" as control, then, isn't he? In other words, he lets the body be shoved around by things and he keeps those things there and thus he can control the body rather easily. Right? He thinks! Deteriorates at the same time. Well, could he control anything else with the same mechanism? Yes, an individual very easily takes a cannonball engram, hangs it on somebody else's head to make him bow.

That it's a cannonball in the stomach put on somebody's head does not keep it from working. You just get somebody to think his head is in his stomach and something of this sort. So very often you start to audit a preclear and you find out that you're auditing a stomach out of his right arm, a head off of his left foot. Well, this is the interchange of facsimiles, and thetans use these facsimiles on others. They throw it at other people, throw pictures at other people.

Way back on the track there's a thing called the engram police. Just as there have been police in every other line of human activity, so there have been police in thetan activities. And it's quite amusing to get this thing into some kind of a condition where it can be policed. So there's "thirty days in a space opera trap," you see, "for using a cannonball facsimile on female thetans," and other ordinances of one kind or another.

But in the main, facsimiles have use. And then they have the lovely attraction of also being themselves mass.

Now, a fellow who keeps money for its own sake is the sort of a fellow who would keep facsimiles for their own sake. Got the idea? There are characters up on — oh, I don't know, they regularly get elected to be secretary of the treasury. But money is itself, it is a thing. It's not a communication particle. It exists totally for itself. And so a thetan gets into this frame of mind every now and then and says, "Well, engrams for their own sake!" You know?

Has no idea of anything else but just keeping one. You start to look, as an auditor, for the significance of why this fellow has this thing stuck in front of his face and you may find that he's merely keeping it for its own sake. Be prepared to have that happen. That's the only violation of this "keep it from going away." All other engrams are used to that level, "keep it from going away." All right. They either keep you where you are or the body where it is or something. They're control mechanisms.

Then sometimes a fellow will get a series of engrams all hooked together, beautifully aligned, you know: a shoulder with an arquebus shot in it, a stomach with a crossbow through it, a leg with a spear in it and a few slinging stones just back of the left eye. This is a nice combination, and moves the body quite rapidly. You start to shift the engram a little bit and the body really jumps and you move this at somebody else and he really jumps, too. You take this particular string of facsimiles and somebody sees that much agony and perception and so forth, and the somatics begin to somatic and somebody moves. All right. That's fine. Or he stands still and doesn't move anymore.

What's the gist of this? When that finally peels off totally to a thought level, you are looking at somebody who has a service facsimile. (That's all a service facsimile is, is a series of facsimiles which you can call a facsimile, which can be applied to the control of others very nicely.) But after an individual's been on the track for a few billion years using one of these nice combos of one kind or another, why, sooner or later he flops. You're coming along in a robot and doing very well, thank you — no somatics, no effect on self at all, robot totally run by extraneous and exterior machinery and couldn't feel pain if it had to, couldn't be stopped possibly because it was wound up two or three years ago and hasn't run down yet. And you're wheeling along in this robot and you just feel wonderful about the whole thing and this other person slings this service facsimile at the robot and it rattles off of it quite easily. He gets a lose.

Well, the intention was for it to control something. So it controls the nearest thing to hand, which is himself. Now he's got it. But he'll still use it for control because that's the basic postulate behind it. You got that?

Now, if an individual is going to have any real — anything to do with facsimiles at all, he's going to rattle somewhere between solids and thought. There's that extreme band, don't you see? And by gradient scales and concatenation and by lots of postulates about association — you know, one thing is another thing which gets into identification — finally this scale itself can become relatively solid. He can think a thought and turn on the solid at the other end of the scale. Get the idea? The president of General Motors can think a thought that all the wives of stockholders should get roses, and the roses appear. You see, nothing to it. Of course, he doesn't think that kind of thought. He actually thinks the thought that all stockholders should stay away from the next board meeting. That's "keeping them from going away from home," is the way he would use this.

Well, we look this over and we see that the movement and the motion-lessnesses of people and so on can easily be handled by facsimile patterns.

In this decadent time, facsimiles as themselves aren't used anymore. It's been a long time since anybody walked up to you on the street and said, "Look," and showed you a facsimile. I mean, they just don't do it. The engram police were very, very effective way back when. And fellows think it'd spoil the game if they mocked up perfect Illinois Western bonds, redeemable at face value at any bank, US Saving Certificates of one kind or another, just mocked them up and piled them. They think it'd spoil the game, the silly fellows! They don't realize that game is a no-game condition. Well, anyway . . .

As we move along the line and get down to these times, why, we're not seeing a facsimile being used as such. We're seeing the results only at the top end of the band. Thetans are less willing to move around solids as themselves, less willing to move around facsimiles, but they will use the thought end of the spectrum. And they use the thought end of the spectrum and then they get these things going into action and they say, "What was that?" Which is very silly. I mean, they once upon a time knew very well what "that" was. But now they've lost track. People trying obsessively to locate things and so forth are simply trying to find out what facsimile is on the other end of that thought chain. What is this that wiggles when I think, "Wug"? See? He thinks, "Wug," and all of a sudden something wiggles. What is that? It's a big mystery.

Well, that's just because facsimiles have gone out of style. They're made these days in Hollywood. And there's a big monopoly on them. And they're shown on every television screen in the country, and there's just tremendous numbers of facsimiles being purveyed and they all have copyright notices on them. And you couldn't copyright one of your facsimiles if you tried. You could go down here, mock up a beautiful facsimile down here at the US copyright office and they'd give you "no sale." They wouldn't stamp any circle with a "c" in it on it, that's for sure. They're going to say, "That's all made in Hollywood, son; you better quit," or "carried in Life magazine." Facsimiles-preparation of.

Well, there's a terrific breadth of scale between a printed picture of a car and the car, isn't there? There's quite a breadth of scale between a picture of a car and a car. Well, there's just as much breadth of scale between the picture of this car and a thought about the car. Only it's the other way: less and less solids. You could easily see the more and more solids when it was applied to the physical universe, but the less and less solids we don't see very often. Yet these get in the road of our auditing all the time. An individual has a certain auditing command, he starts to perform the auditing command and all of a sudden something wigs when he went wog, and he wonders why he is crying! Well, he's crying because he pushed the button which on the scale down the line resulted in tears; a lachrymose somatic of, sometimes, some bucketish magnitude. And he's very often very surprised. He doesn't quite know what turned on these tears. Well, don't be — as an auditor, don't be in a big puzzle about this because it's simply a scale which had tears on it. That scale was stuck in grief, was intended to trigger at grief, don't you see? Well, others are intended to trigger at solids. For instance, thoughts about pretty girls or good-looking young men very often end in solids. Just go down to any maternity ward and you'll see where those thoughts go.

Now, if we look over the basic phenomena of all this, we discover a great oddity. And that is that throwing things away or dispensing with them is much inferior to holding on to them. Now, this is a great phenomenon we have here. Just call it a phenomenon. You can rationalize it any way you please. But it required an enormous amount of work on my part to get this thrashed out. I damn near killed more preclears trying to find this out.

Which side of the reach and withdraw mechanism is the one which can be audited? Which side is true? Which side holds good? Well, we find out that we — the reach one is good, high-toned, not-games-condition activity. That's communication, isn't it? Well now, unless you have an opponent situation, you'd certainly better run reach. Got the idea? Reach. But in view of the fact that everybody has some games condition on almost everything, we can run some withdraw, can't we? And we find out that withdraw is the side that can be run rather endlessly. And by withdraw, we mean "withdraw something from," because this builds up and increases havingness and this is the entrance to most cases.

Of course, we're talking about Homo sapiens even at his worser states. We're talking about anything from psychotic, neurotic to normal, or up to acceptable. And as we look over this scale of people, we find out that this holds good, this scale, up to maybe — this idea that withdraw or hold to yourself, you know, withdraw it from or hold to yourself the object, holds good anywhere up to a couple of hundred hours of processing. I mean, it's all the way from the bottom, clear on up there. An individual has to get almost entirely over the idea of acquisition, have, possession, mass, need-of and so on before he's in any kind of a state where he can accept very much "Pitch it away from you, give it the yo-heave."

Well, a man will communicate outward to the degree that he can hold inward, and the monitoring thing is the hold inward. (Lump that if you like it. And if you don't like it, it's still true.)

Now, I'll tell you the first clue that came up on this line is every time a psycho would come into the Foundation, we'd find out that you couldn't separate anything from them. I used to try to process them on getting them to throw away a single scrap of paper. Anything, see? We've done a lot of experiments in this line. But a psycho would come in and sit down, why — try to get her to let go of a purse. (Particular one I remember.) She could be audited all right as long as she could hold on to her purse; and her purse couldn't be set on the floor or on the bed or anyplace else, it had to be clutched to her bosom. Right here. I notice two or three of you laying down your purses right at the minute. Anyway… Had to be clutched right square to the bosom. But although one or two of you are doing that, I assure you that if I ask you to see your purse, you would undoubtedly turn it over. You see, one of them just — Audrey's just given up her purse there.

Well now, a psycho never would have done that regardless of who the other person was — just never would have separated from the purse. You would have just had a knockdown-drag-out clawfest; it just would have been a tug-of-war to end all tug-of-wars, with an enormous amount of power being put into it and a terrific amount of caterwaul. Maybe all the auditor was trying to do was not hold — she wasn't supposed to hold it to her chest, just put it in her lap, just to get the purse put in the person's lap, see. It was just more than she could do. That's an extreme case of "hold," see, "pull in." You might say, "withdraw it from others." Extreme case. And you'll find out as a person heads on down the scale, it gets down that bad. But what complicates it is it has inversions. And right above this "clutch it to the chest this tight" would be an inversion of "throw it away — throw it away madly; get rid of it."

Well, all right. Which one solved it, the "throw it away" or the "clutch"? Now, that was a technical research problem for years. And I beat that one around, as I say, made a lot of preclears unhappy with that one. Just throw things away; just have somebody throwing things away and doing nothing but throwing them away. And give them a test, find out what happened to them, find out how long it took them to get better or to faint. The funny part of it is, they can do something ad infinitum, which they can't do the other ad infinitum. They cannot throw away ad infinitum, not even vaguely. They run out of havingness. You realize now, we're talking right on the center line of havingness and of anything explaining it. But they can clutch it to their chest forever.

"Well," you say, "that's impossible." I mean — you mean this fellow's going to walk around with all the debris and bric-a-brac and battleships he's sunk and airplanes he's — and all the facsimiles of all the coins he ever had when he was a little kid? (Every once in a while somebody gets broke, you know, and they think of all the money they wasted on candy when they were a kid or something.)

Now, here's a wild one — here's a wild one: we are really only concerned with a person's holdingness to himself. Aren't we? That gives us an engram bank, puts the bank in restimulation, upsets things endlessly, messes up things terribly. Everything is being pulled in to the individual. Right? All right. After a while, if everything is being pulled in to the individual, we get some kind of a silly condition where a person is himself a lump. And every once in a while you're asked to solve one of these lumps. That's a psycho — he's a lump. You're asked to exteriorize somebody. He's dead in his head — he's a lump.

What causes the lump? Well, you could say the fact that things can be thrown away causes him to hold them in. There are only two things to run there. One is "throw it out," and the other is "pull it in." There's just two. Which one do you run? Or which one can be run nearly forever? The one a thetan is running, of course, nearly forever, and that's "hold it in." Now, "hold it in" solves both "hold it in" and "throw it away." An individual's communication is raised by holding things in.

Well, this is a fantastic thing, isn't it? If you think this over — here's a nothingness that couldn't duplicate any mass anyhow, busy holding mass into himself. He comes to harm because of it, his abilities go to pieces, his penalties and that sort of thing are — all accumulate on him, everything he's done wrong he's carrying around in a little picture to remind himself how guilty he is so he'll shed three drops on the altar of Gog or whatever religion he happens to be in. But this is a great peculiarity. It should be looked upon as a peculiarity since it is simply the result of a number of considerations, probably peculiar only to this universe.

Now, this individual will have, maybe, a psychiatric psychosis. There is one — there is one. I'm speaking seriously now. Psychiatry is a whole track phenomenon. You'll run into psychiatrists in all sorts of past periods in a preclear's life, if you care to go into an E-Meter. He says he's never been near an asylum — he sure looks like he has. Well, who knows how long he was in an asylum a few thousand years ago?

Whole track phenomena, space opera and so forth, placed a heavy reliance on psychiatry. No more and no less than psychiatry, which is a brutal miscontrol of an individual under the guise that people are insane. (That's a definition of.) And you'll find this rather repeatedly employed — various things of this character.

Well, they kept people under control by shipping them someplace else. They'd ship them elsewhere. And they would get them to move as a particle. In other words, they'd treat a thetan as a particle and shoot the thetan someplace else. Now, for a thetan to have to go someplace else is the ne plus ultra. This is seven times as bad as him having to ship all of his possessions someplace else. Get that?

Supposing somebody told you tonight that you had to ship everything you own to the Germans because they weren't getting enough out of losing the war. Supposing somebody told you that.

And you said, "Well, I have to ship everything I own?"

And, "Yeah. Including your wife or your boyfriend. They all have to be shipped. That's the way it is. That's the way it is. We've got to be noble victors."

Well, that — a fellow would feel pretty bad if he'd had something like that happen to him and it was enforced. Well, how much more so would he feel if he himself had to be shipped? And all of his possessions stayed here? In other words, he is shipped away with no slightest chance of ever possessing again or having any of his environment again. Well, you realize that would be a rather upsetting thing.

Yet this was the trick on the whole track that was pulled by what we can call facetiously — they were — psychiatrists. They would take a thetan — there're all kinds of gags on the track. You'll run into these things every once in a while. There's a great big floating stone, for instance, on a nearby planet and they expect soldiers on leave and space opera people and so forth to volunteer. It's called the Emanator, this thing, and they're expected to volunteer.

And they walk in and the second they walked in they see this great big stone floating in space. (By the way, we had this on Earth, which was a dramatization of the Emanator: it's the Mohammedan lodestone that was at Mecca. That's a dramatization of the Emanator.) It's suspended in space, and it was radioactive as they came. And it knocked a fellow into a pretty grogged condition and he'd be dragged off into a side room by the boys in the temple. And he'd be shot off to some other planet at some mocked-up story of what tremendous good deeds he had to do there. But nevertheless, this was a dispossession of a body and everything he owned, wasn't it? Well, it'd throw him so far down scale that he'd never even remember this.

Well, how do you throw somebody up scale, then, so he will remember something? Well, don't have him throw things away. Don't run his havingness down, in other words. Have him — we thought for a long time — simply increase his havingness. Well, we know more about it now. We have to increase his ability to hold. And when his ability to hold is emphatically good and he himself can do it, he will abandon all these cannonballs in the stomach. Got that? In other words, he abandons all this lower-scale automaticity of having things held for him.

For instance, the citizenry very often depends on the courts to hold things for them — they do until they put it up to a court! Somebody's suing them for their shirt and they say, "Well, that's all illegal and illogical, and I wasn't there, didn't even know the girl's name, never took a drop of liquor in my life!" Go down to court and defend the suit and that's what is awarded: not only your shirt, but your suit too! And they immediately go terrifically down scale. In other words, you can consider this a third dynamic automaticity of holding on.

The court is supposed to secure to you your possessions. And dependence on the court, not on yourself, to have the possessions secure can then be upsetting to you. Do you follow me? Because an individual can no longer do it himself.

I suppose one of the definitions of a civilization would be an organization whereby nobody ever did anything himself. It'd be a definition for it. Another one would be, that organization most calculated to keep people from ever owning anything. Collective ownership is the final refinement on something like this. Then we all hold for everybody. You're a member of a twelve-man cell, so you expect eleven men will hold on to the goods of the state — not even yours, you see. You don't bother. And then one day, much to your consternation, you look around and find out the nation isn't succeeding very well. And of course if you were looking very closely you would discover that the other eleven members of the cell weren't holding on either. And neither was any other cell in the country holding on to anything. And of course you would just have chaos. Do you follow me here?

Now, "holding on to," when it becomes automatic, goes out and beyond one's power of choice. Automaticity can start by power of choice but after that it has to violate it all the way to be automatic. In other words, one doesn't stop an automaticity. An automaticity, if it ever stops, it wears out or something of the sort. All right. Now, if we have everything holding on to things for us such as gravity, body holding on to you, all kinds of things holding on for us — belt holding up the pants and that sort of thing — we get eventually to a frame of mind where we feel we're being totally cared for. But at the same time we don't dare reject anything because it might be some of our hold-on-to mechanisms, and a thetan doesn't reject.

Now, it's actually only necessary to put all of this back into the abilities of a thetan. For a thetan to reacquire the ability to hold on to things is not necessarily the same as a thetan having to destroy all automaticities. The automaticities quite incidentally fold up when the thetan starts to reacquire the powers and abilities contained in an automaticity. But the end goal of this should be better understood by Scientologists. We do not take over automaticities to destroy automaticities. Do you understand? We take over automaticities only to rehabilitate the ability of a thetan. That's something a few people have missed along the line. I'll say it again: we just take them over because they, in many instances, are robbing a thetan of his ability to perform.

Now, these "hold on to it" automaticities can utterly destroy a thetan as far as his willingness to go on and do and be. Any accident he has, he presses it close to his bosom thereafter. Any time he gets into trouble, he presses it close to his bosom. Any time any man in a crowd came along and gave him a shove in the chest, he pressed that in from there on to his bosom. In other words, the inflow principle of the universe is being used to hold on to things rather than a thetan's ability to hold on to them.

Now, power is contained in the ability to maintain a position in space. You know the base of the motor that I used to talk about that's still talked about in 8-80? If you can't maintain a position in space, you'll never have any power. Well, if everything is holding things in to you, they will eventually start moving you around. And the second this happens, you no further have power. That's all there is to that. I mean, you start moving around.

Now, the psychiatric principle which I just mentioned — you just thought I was just 1.5-ing about psychiatry, didn't you? Fooled you. Because I'm not — it's "move him around," is what they operated on, on the whole track. They knew that was a total loss. If they could just get somebody to move himself, and lay no further claim to being able to move things, they knew he would become a thing in his own eyes. And the second that this happened, then he could be controlled utterly. One had a slave then. Got that? All right.

If we understand this, we will see why it is necessary to rehabilitate the ability of a thetan to hold something else than himself. In other words, his ability to withhold, his ability to hold, his ability to keep something from going away is part and parcel of his ability to maintain his own position, situation or location.

Now, I'll give you an example of this, shall I? Now, take this front wall and without your moving at all, pull the front wall to you. Did you get any feeling of weakness? Hm? Hm? You get any sensation at all?

Audience: Mm-hm.

What kind of a sensation was it?

Audience: Felt like the wall started moving. Shaky.

Well now, do you realize that it's your ability to hold your position which would make you capable of pulling the front wall over? Do you see there's a coordination between those two facts? It's a weirdie. Somebody way back when, who invented the lever in order to torture physics students thereafter, said he could move the world if he could get a long enough lever. I think that was very, very cute. Because there was no possible place to rest the lever. One of these wonderful theoretical abstractions with which professors drive students into distractions and a completely silly postulate.

As a matter of fact, the size of the lever and its weight and mass, in order to have any tensile strength, also would have overthrown this. But here we have a situation which is much more demonstrable, and that is to say, it is a thetan's ability to hold his location which delivers to him power. Thus we have confronting. Now, some people start confronting and immediately fly out of their heads and they're last seen going past Arkansas. Eventually they get so that they can sit there and confront and hold their position. Do you see this as a necessary point in confronting? You have to be able to hold a position in the face of something.

Well, all right. Now let's go up a little higher than this — or down lower, since it goes either way — and realize that to keep something from going away is a sort of confrontingness. But keeping things from going away is an ability which gradually cultivates the ability of the thetan to remain where he is. Now, there's a process that goes along with this. You can actually say to somebody: "Get the idea," and I'll say it to you now: Get the idea of moving the front wall to where you are.

Get the idea of moving the ceiling to where you are.

Get the idea of moving the floor to where you are.

Get the idea of moving the back of the room to where you are.

You noticing something as you do that? Hm?

Well now, this keep-it-from-going-awayness is only part of the phenomena involved, but it all by itself will promote the other phenomena. To understand this process is to be able to run it. To be able to run it is to understand it. I wouldn't try to run this process on anybody unless I had some idea of what I was doing.

"Keep it from going away" — by the way, this was evolved empirically. I evolved this empirically at first and it didn't gel — I didn't know why these three things were one, two, three. I had no idea. I merely took all available elements and found out that the three together worked and used it in that fashion and later on came across the explanation. And I don't believe I've ever told anybody the explanation until this minute — it's not been in a PAB or anything else. If you can keep the front wall from going away — just that — the ability to hold still in general is regained. One is then able to confront things, isn't he? And so of course he can recognize solids. He dares recognize a solid is the final step of this. You got that?

First he's got this ability to keep things from going away, which also gives him the ability of, you know — well, that's power. Then he finally discovers that he himself can be stationary or other things could be motionless, and then he finally — that gives him the idea of confronting. And as soon as he's willing to confront, why, then he can make things more solid, and you've got it made.

And that's why these three processes, CCH 9, 10 and 11, are where they are and are run in this fashion. The amount of actual thetan power generated by a good flattening of these processes cannot properly be estimated. Because we figured out one time about the only way you could kick the world off its orbit was not with a lever invented by some Greek, but would be by a thetan thinking the smallest thought possible. You'd have to think a small enough thought to throw the world off of its orbit; it'd have to be probably that tiny an impulse to overcome that much mass. This was just theorizing, but there was a high probability that this was the case.

If you could keep the world from going away, you could eventually hold it still. If you could hold it still, then you'd probably be able to confront the idea of that much solid mass having that much gravitic pull and you'd probably be able to confront it all at one fell swoop.

Now, how much of the world are you confronting right this moment? You're not confronting very much of it. You're confronting a little bit of it. See, at the most probably you're confronting a few square blocks. Got that? Just a few square blocks.

Well, the horizon goes out in both directions from those few square blocks and we get to considering the mass of it and normally, unless we really tackle this problem head-on and get it flat and change our ideas concerning it, it's rather overpowering. The idea of that much space and that much mass and that much weight as composed in a small, rather insignificant sphere only eight thousand miles in diameter, but it's apparently to us quite a lot of mass. Well, it ceases to be so doggone much mass the moment that we can get the idea of keeping it from going away.

But what's keeping it from going away for us? We're being kept from going away by it. You talk about an automaticity, that's a royal one. Not only are we not keeping Earth from going away, but Earth is keeping us from going away. Now, that's what I mean by an inversion of a royal order. That's quite an inversion, you think it over. The only person that could keep you on Earth, in the final analysis, would be you. But what concatenation of thought have you thunk that finally got it down to a point of where you've got a total inversion? That's pretty wild, isn't it? Total inversion. And that total inversion of "keep it from going away" is gravity. Gravity is not mass V squared by the pi root of yak.

Now, the solids that you're willing to confront and the solidity which you're willing to confront has an awful lot to do with your ability to hold still or hold things still. And your ability to hold things still or hold still has an awful lot to do with your ability to keep things from going away. And we have the entering wedge. Without that entering wedge the rest of this would be mere vaporings. There would be no ladder to climb. There would be no bottom rung. We would be rewarded with the beautiful scene of a ladder reaching up to the top of the hanging gardens of Babylon, all first hundred rungs missing.

Well now, the first thing on this rung is a secret. An individual can make and keep a secret, he's really done something. That is an ability. Of course it's an ability, too, to worm secrets out of people. But here is a basic ability: the keeping of a secret. Being able to withhold things from other things selectively, various odds and ends of items, graduates at length up into more solid things like keeping a mock-up from going away. And that goes into more solid things like keeping mest objects from going away. So we have a whole span here of keeping things from going away, all of which begin simply with a withheld thought, which is what a secret is. And it scales on upstairs to a withheld object. Got it?

Now, if one ran the whole gamut of this from the withheld thought to the object, and won all the way and regained his ability all the way, and was willing to keep certain things — many things from going away, he of course could then start in on the basis of "hold things still." But, he'd never hold himself still for the excellent reason that he isn't there to be held still. A thetan isn't hold-stillable. He is think-hereable. He can suppose he is in a place, and this depends on his ability to hold other things still.

So "hold it still" is the next rung up. But now, "keep it from going away" solves both outflow and inflow. It's quite remarkable. That's the side that solves both outflow and inflow. "Hold still" solves motion and no-motion. Hah! That's quite remarkable, isn't it? We've got both of these things and we solve them there with just one of them. We got motion and no-motion. So you really don't solve motion with motion, you solve motion with hold-stillness. And the ability to confront and confound solids solves, alike, something and nothing. To be able to confront a solid then makes a person capable of confronting nothing. So we've got nothing and something contained in solids.

Now, here we have six items and they're a gradient scale, and the first of these items are a pair called "reach and withdraw" or "throw away and hold to you." Got that? That's two. And that bracket is solved by running only "keep it from going away." And the next one up is "motion and no-motion, action and stillness," that pair. And those are solved by running "stillness."

You'll just get everywhere you want to go if you just have a person (a thetan, I was going to say) going around — I'm going to teach you to audit thetans probably next year, but not now — you just have him go around and hold tables still and that sort of thing. Now, it's quite remarkable as a case cracker. Don't think that you have to run always only a gradient scale.

We've asked — a psycho who was spinning like one of these white mice that's been around a psychology department — and we've asked him to just look around the room and find something that was still. And all of a sudden he's found something finally that he considered still and he himself stopped spinning.

He says, "Uh-huh-uh-huh-ahhhhh."

You say, "What's the matter?"

"Oh, it's just been going on for years."

"What's been going on for years?"

"All this sea of motion." He's liable to tell you all sorts of weird things.

We audited somebody one time over in the London clinic. For twenty-five hours nothing much had been happening and the last two hours to go (this "hold it still" was in a very experimental stage, this was a couple of years ago) and the auditor came out and said, "What do I do now?" And I said, "I don't know. Why don't you have him find something in the room that is still." (Been working on this.) She went back in and he found four or five things that were still, with great relief, and said, "Do you know, the drop of blood that was taken at the national medical center that they have under the lamp so they can see what I'm doing and saying doesn't bother me now; I'm not there."

Well, that's the way cases go. Anyway, they actually had taken a blood specimen and told him something like this. We checked up on it. It sounded too mad for us, but it sounded like it might be reasonable. And we found out it was reasonable. Now, there's that one taken all about.

The preclear is troubled by obsessive motion: the environment seems to be in motion, in motion, in motion. Now, you have a choice: you have motion, you can run motion or no-motion. Now, it's a fact that you actually can get someplace by running the motion, which is quite interesting. You can actually get somewhere running the motion. But the fastest way to get someplace and the most stable someplace to get is to run the "still." He says, "Oh, the room is just going round and round and round and round." You could say, "Well, make it go round and round and round. Make it go round a little faster." You'd get someplace with this, you understand. But you'll get someplace faster by saying, "Find one point in the room that is not going around and around." And it might take him a half an hour to do it, but all of a sudden he'd say, "Uh-ha-ha. Oh, that cup — that cup is right in the middle of the maelstrom; it isn't moving at all; it's dead still." You could say, "That's good. That's fine. Now find something else." And he would gradually have the whole room settle down. You run the still side of it, see — that's the smart auditing.

All right. And we get up to this last bracket and we have somebody who is terribly fascinated with vaporous nothingnesses. He has been studying in the field of oh, economics or some other nothingness, and he's been studying around in, oh, something. He's been reading books on electronics. You know? How the little particles wiggle-waggle as they go through the wuggles. Or he's been down panting over hot brains in the AEC, trying to find out all about why he shouldn't stop exploding atomic bombs or something. And when we've gotten to this level, we no longer have a choice. To solve nothingnesses, we run solids. He'll graduate rather rapidly up to being able to confront nothing if we run solids. But we don't run nothings, any more than we can get a definition on it by agreement.

So we've got the first four of these pairs, "throw it away" or "hold it to your chest," "reach" or "withdraw." We can run either side of those, but had better run "hold it to your chest." You know, it's — we're in favor of that one: the case runs faster and better. And a case can actually deteriorate by running the other side, but can never deteriorate by holding things to his chest, which is probably why he does it obsessively.

And the next pair of "motion and no-motion," we can run "motion" and get away with it. You understand we can run "throw it away" much more easily and with less consequence than we can run "motion." See, the other side of the pair is deteriorating here. We can still run "motion" or "no-motion," but we'd better run — and here the majority is well up — "still," see, the no-motion.

And there on this next pair you haven't got any choice. There's no choice left. To run nothing or something, you run solids. The most solid something that you can run and that will get him up to a state where he can look at nothings. Got it? Actually what you do is pick him out of those places where he's totally convinced of solids and you walk him back to the world of thought on the little gradient scale I was talking to you about before that goes from nothing, through emotions, through effort, through facsimiles, into solids. And you get him back up to where he can handle it on the effort — up above the effort band, up above into thought. Now do you understand that little setup? It's very, very cute. And you audit on that side of the picture and you won't miss very badly. You'll win.

Now, there aren't cases that violate these conditions. I can assure you of that. But there are cases which appear to. There are cases on which "only motion could be run because they have no concept of stillness." Aaaah! You mean you're going to run motion from a motion point, the thetan? The thetan is so much in motion he can only confront motion, and he is motion, so you're going to run more motion. Oh, no you're not! You're going to find something that's still if it takes you all day. And if in one whole day's auditing you just found one item that he could hold still, that puts him on the cause end of it — much lower down, "was still" — you'd have won more than motion run on him all day long. Got it?

Now, when we get down to the bottom of the thing, we don't ask him what he could communicate, we could ask him what he could withhold. But we still could ask him what he could communicate and get someplace. Do you understand? We could still run "dispense with" on the Trio side and get someplace, if he could run it. See, you got a little more latitude there, but it is much more favorable — the auguries and auspices are — if you run "withhold." "Clutch it to your bosom."

I actually have run tests on objects in the room of the idea of getting rid of it. "Get the idea of pushing on it." See? And the idea of holding it in. And have found that it's tremendously more effective for the person to hold it in. This actual test could be made by you at any time.

Now, you could go around all around the room and have him do nothing, no matter what he wanted to do with the object, but hold it to him. "Keep it from going away" is the phrase. And he would wind up in very good shape. But you still could have him get the idea of throwing it away.

Now, do you understand CCH 9, CCH 10, CCH 11 a little better?

Audience: Yeah.

One final remark. These things can be run by Formal Auditing and are not necessarily Tone 40. If you've got a very figure-figure case and he wants to discuss a lot of things about it and the ARC would break down rather easily with it, but he still can — you can control his thoughts to the degree of running this because it's a thinkingness process, you understand, why, you better run it Formal. It'll run more easily Formal.

Now, these are bearcats. That particular three are bearcats. And you could jump from the first four CCH processes to this group of three, directly, and win like mad. That's a terrific battery. It could also be done subjectively, but it's much more effective objectively. Got it?

Audience: Yeah.

Okay. You're welcome.

Thank you.