THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

Сообщение auditor » 30 дек 2015, 16:50

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

THE ROUTE TO INFINITY

THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

[in this case we have included everything provided by the
CofS along with the transcripts including the editor's
introduction, glossary, bibliography, etc. - FZ.B.A.]


TO THE READER:

Scientology religious philosophy contains pastoral
counseling procedures intended to assist an individual to
gain greater knowledge of self. The mission of the Church
of Scientology is a simple one: to help the individual
achieve greater self-confidence and personal integrity,
thereby enabling him to really trust and respect himself
and his fellow man. The attainment of the benefits and
goals of Scientology philosophy requires each individual's
dedicated participation, as only through his own efforts
can he achieve these.

This publication is based on the religious literature and
works of the Scientology Founder, L. Ron Hubbard. It is
presented to the reader as part of the record of his
personal research into life, and the application of same by
others, and should be construed only as a written report of
such research and not as a statement of claims made by the
Church or the Founder.

Scientology philosophy and its forerunner, Dianetics
technology, as practiced by the Church, address only the
"Thetan" (Spirit). Although the Church, as are all
churches, is free to engage in spiritual healing, it does
not, as its primary goal is increased spiritual awareness
for all. For this reason, the Church does not wish to
accept individuals who desire treatment of physical or
mental illness but prefers to refer these to qualified
specialists of other organizations who deal in these
matters.

The Hubbard Electrometer is a religious artifact used in
the Church confessional. It in itself does nothing, and is
used by ministers only, to assist parishioners in locating
areas of spiritual distress or travail.

We hope the study of these lectures is only the first stage
of a personal voyage of discovery into this new and vital
world religion.

Church of Scientology International



THE ROUTE TO INFINITY

Transcripts and Glossary


Technique 80 Lectures by

L. RON HUBBARD

CONTENTS

Introduction............................. xi

19 MAY 52 Beingness...................... 1

19 MAY 52 Outline of Technique 80........ 9

19 MAY 52 Wavelengths of ARC............. 23

20 MAY 52 Decision....................... 35

20 MAY 52 Decision: Cause and Effect..... 49

21 MAY 52 Therapy Section of 80: Part I . 59

21 MAY 52 Therapy Section of 80: Part II 73

Appendix ................................ 87

About the Author ....................... 103

Glossary ............................... 107

Bibliography ........................... 110



Important Note:

In studying these lectures, be very certain you never go
past a word you do not fully understand.The only reason a
person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to
learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was
not understood.The confusion or inability to grasp or learn
comes AFTER a word that the person did not have defined and
understood. Have you ever had the experience of coming to
the end of a page and realizing you didn't know what you
had read? Well, somewhere earlier on that page you went
past a word that you had no definition for or an incorrect
definition for. Here's an example. "It was found that when
the crepuscule arrived the children were quieter and when
it was not present, they were much livelier." You see what
happens. You think you don't understand the whole idea, but
the inability to understand came entirely from the one word
you could not define, crepuscule, which means twilight or
darkness. It may not only be the new and unusual words that
you will have to look up. Some commonly used words can
often be misdefined and so cause confusion. This datum
about not going past an undefined word is the most
important fact in the whole subject of study. Every subject
you have taken up and abandoned had its words which you
failed to get defined. Therefore, in studying these
lectures be very, very certain you never go past a word you
do not fully understand. If the material becomes confusing
or you can't seem to grasp it, there will be a word just
earlier that you have not understood. Don't go any further,
but go back to BEFORE you got into trouble, find the
misunderstood word and get it defined.


Definitions

Words with hard-to-find definitions have been defined in
the glossary included in this publication. Words sometimes
have several meanings. The definitions in this glossary
only give the meaning that the word has as it is used in
context. This glossary is not meant as a substitute for a
dictionary. The Dianetics and Scientology Technical
Dictionary and the Modern Management Technology Defined
dictionary are both invaluable tools for the student. They
are available from your nearest Scientology church or
mission, or direct from the publisher.

Student Use of Transcripts

The tape transcripts in this publication serve a vital
purpose for students. With a written text of the tape in
hand, students can follow the tape rapidly and spot their
misunderstoods. Such transcripts do not supplant the tapes,
as how the words were said and how preclears in auditing
demonstrations actually responded are quite important.

L. Ron Hubbard

=======================

Introduction

What are the capabilities of a theta being? Just how
powerful is a being who cannot die, who natively is not
even a part of the physical universe? What forces, in the
span of the whole track, could be responsible for bringing
that vital being down to such a state that he would think
he was a body?

These questions were answered by L. Ron Hubbard.

In May 1952, having just recently moved to Phoenix from
Wichita, Kansas, Ron began establishing a strong position.
He was building the first Scientology community on a plot
of land just east of Phoenix on the edge of the desert.
This community would be the center of Scientology
activities for many years. He was looking to the future and
building the nucleus of what would soon become the Hubbard
Association of Scientologists, the first international
organization.

In early May, Ron invited auditors to Phoenix for a special
course on the first of a pair of techniques he was
finalizing research on.

Technique 80 was released in a three-day series of lectures
beginning on 19 May 1952. Ron spoke during these lectures
of his whole-track research, newly discovered principles
and the means for freeing a thetan.

In three open-air lectures, given two hours nightly in the
orange groves on the land east of Phoenix, he taught the
attending auditors the theory and practice of a highly
advanced procedure for freeing a being from his time track
- Technique 80.

The material Ron covered in these lectures is designed to
remove the barriers a person has put up, keeping himself
from arriving at sane, prosurvival decisions. The first
evening's lectures, "Beingness," "Outline of Technique 80"
and "Wavelengths of ARC," form the basis of an article well
known to Scientologists, "Dynamics and the Tone Scale."
This article, first published in 1952 as a summary of the
lectures in Professional Course Booklet 29, was reissued as
an HCO Policy letter on 23 October 1981.

In these lectures, Ron bridges the gap between the ideal
and the current scene, including exact data to help you
create your future the way you want it. Prepare yourself
for an expansion of causative beingness across all of your
dynamics. Technique 80 is your route to infinity.



====================================

Appendix

1. The Circle and ARC Triangle 89
2. Tone Scale and Dynamics 91
3. Wavelength of ARC Scale 93
4. The Tone Scale of Decisions 95
5. Expanding Periphery of Dynamics 97
6. Dianetics Jingles 99

====================================


APPENDIX 1: THE CIRCLE AND ARC TRIANGLE


[If you print the book - you need to complete this chart
by hand - connect the dots of the triangle, then, arc a
circle around the triangle - touching the points of the
triangle and the A-R-C outside the circle. The 0 is inside
the circle under the base of the triangle - Infinity (oo)
is inside the triangle under the A. - (FZ.B.A.) ]

A
. .
.oo .
. .
. .
C.........R
0

==========================


APPENDIX 2: TONE SCALE AND THE DYNAMICS


8 | 40.0 || TO BE
| d ||
7 | ||
| y 32.0 ||
6 | ||
| || t
5 | n ||
| 22.0 ||
4 | a || o
| ||
3 | 15.0 ||
| m || n
2 | ||
| ||
1 | i 4.0 || e
| ||
| c ||
| 2.0 ||
| s ||
| 1.5 ||
| ||
| 0.5 ||
| ||
| 0 || NOT TO BE

This diagram is referred to in the first lecture of 19 May 1952.



============================================


APPENDIX 3: WAVELENGTH OF ARC SCALE

[Note: This chart is handwritten by LRH. The oo is
an infinity sign. WL = Wavelength. cm = centimeters (FZ.B.A.) ]

0 __________________________oo WL or 0.0 WL.

39.0 __________.00000000000000000000000002 cm.
aesthetics

8.0 ______________________ .0000002 cm
Analytical Thought

1.5 ______________________ .024 cm
Emotion

Tone WL.

This diagram referred to in the third lecture of 19 May 1952.

=========================================


APPENDIX 4: TONE SCALE OF DECISIONS


Unaberrated conduct to a marked degree is the making of
decisions which can be put into effect as opposed to making
decisions which cannot be put into effect and down to
indecision and lower to irrational decision into effect,
down to indecision and down to the decision not to be.

This scale handwritten by L. Ron Hubbard, is referred to in
the first lecture of 20 May 1952

============================================


APPENDIX 5: EXPANDING PERIPHERY OF DYNAMICS

[This diagram cannot be duplicated here - it consists of
concentric circles with the innermost circle being the 1st
dynamic and the outermost circle being the 8th dynamic - FZ.B.A.]

This diagram is referred to in the second lecture of 20 May 1952

=================================================

APPENDIX 6: DIANETIC JINGLES

[This is a reproduction of the mimeographed handout of 21 May
1952. Mentioned by Ron at the end of the final lecture]

Anything you can take, you can make.
Anything you can see, you can be.
Anything you shun will have won.
Anything you have done you can do.

Anything that is work is a shirk.
Anything you desire means expire.
If you ever need bait just create.
If a motion comes in, use and win.

If a motion you won't use you will lose.
If all motion comes in, that's a sin.
If motion from you flows, the world glows.
If beauty you desire, beauty transpire.

If tone tends toward spin, you're taking motion in.
If tone is to soar, create even more.
If you don't want the real, always steal.
If you want the whole sky, never buy.

If you don't want remorse, just be source.
If you don't want to see, with all motion agree.
If you want to be tall, just be all.
If you ever repent, you are spent.

If you act in today you keep morrow away.
If you act in the past, you won't last.
If you say you aren't God, you are sod.
If you have to be liked, you are spiked.

If you choose to agree, you're a tree.
If you want others' gain, you're insane.
If all things you eschew, they are glue.
If your body you'd leave, don't believe.

The way out of MEST ain't detest.
If you'd soar to the blue, just go through.
If all things you would flee, these you'll be.
If you want to destroy, just annoy.

If you just want to heal, make him real.
All the things that come in are a sin.
Whatever is cause, to it everything draws.
Whatever is wrecked was effect.

If high tones shun the low, the suns brighter glow.
When a high tone fights entheta, he comes in very later.
Entheta is just matter kicking up a final splatter.
If your MEST is in disorder, your case is on the border.

If your MEST is in good shape, you haven't time to hate.
If all things you would create, you'd better be in time and date.
If through other's thoughts you plow, you will come at last to now.
If you don't want to be attacked don't draw back.

If all evil you'd burn down simply up and build a town.
There is no trick to being unless you spend your time agreeing.
If you don't have a datum, create 'em.
The only unknown are in other men's domes.

The real universe is a hearse.
The right way to be is to be.
When aesthetics are sex, there've been wrecks.
If you want to be pure don't endure.

If you want to last just move fast.
If all things you'd deserve, don't preserve.
If the world's all your brother, you're just another.
Those who gave us mystic were sadistic.

No wise man should stammer because another shuns his grammar.
Don't ever go down scale, because MEST won't get up and cheer and hail!
If you would overrate, just let it make you rate.
The bottom of disease is anxiety to please.

You can blame your whole confusion on the fact you bought illusion.
The always last sung song, "I was wrong."
You'll never climb a steeple if you worry about people.
If you can't bring yourself to killing, you are another's willing.

If all misery is bested, you've the universe invested.
Just because it made you fall doesn't prove that it is all.
If you get caught in the middle, it's because you've bought a riddle.
If you want things in delirium, just get serium.

If the engrams you'd keep in, study hard to know of sin.
If you want an empty larder, tell yourself you must work harder.
If your vision is all blurry, you've bought another's worry.
If you want to be in chains, let some other buy your brains.

If from another's grace you'd fall, just pretend that you aren't all.
If you find yourself well under, it's because you defined blunder.
The entire source of pain is an effort to abstain.
A calm and peaceful mind has refused to put trouble behind.

A really sharp obsession is from lack of self-confession.
If you want to really let it, forget it.
If you want to get real tragic, forget it was just magic.
If you really want the stutters, respect the rights of others.

If you want to be tearful, be careful.
The upset of tradition is the way to eat roast pigeon.
The craving for a drink is creation of a brink.
The desire to be hugged is a craving to be drugged.

A creeping inhibition is a stable definition.
The only reason some people find ambition is a spike is they
don't try to be, they try to be like.
If you're awfully deject, you're defect.


================================================

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

[Note: this is by the CofS editors rather than by FZBA or
by LRH himself. - FZ.B.A]

Mapping the degeneration of thetans along a descending path
trillions of years long was no small task. Finding the
reasons for that decline and the present degraded state of
mankind and bringing about the means for its reversal are
accomplishments unparalleled anywhere in the vast span of
our history. These achievements could not have been
accomplished by an ordinary man. L. Ron Hubbard explored
and charted the nearly infinite history of the beings known
on Earth as the race of man. This was neither a pleasant
nor friendly history to research. The quest required a high
level of courage and confront on the part of the explorer.
As Ron said, "The most incredible adventure of all was to
advance a solution to the riddle of man's being and
destiny. For the hiding place was strewn with the bones of
those who tried in ages past." Exploration and adventure
were the way of L. Ron Hubbard's life. From the open ranges
of his home state of Montana to the hills of China, from
the frigid coast of Alaska to the jungles of South Pacific
islands, whether working with men on expeditions or
teaching inexperienced naval crews to survive the ravages
of a world war, Ron saw life from all angles. Armed with a
keen intellect, boundless energy, limitless curiosity and a
unique approach to philosophy and science which emphasized
workability and practicality over all else, Ron embarked
upon his study of life and its mysteries while still in his
teens. In his early years he traveled extensively
throughout Asia and the Pacific. He saw firsthand the use
of Far Eastern philosophies. And on a voyage from Seattle
to Washington, D.C., he was befriended by a student of
Sigmund Freud, who subsequently taught him the meager
amount of knowledge that existed in Western understanding
of the nature of man. Later, when attending college in the
United States, Ron saw that man had no working knowledge of
the mind - no way to increase a person's ability to overcome
the mental barriers in his life. He observed Western
civilization advancing in the physical sciences with no
corresponding advance in the humanities. Man's
understanding of himself and knowledge of the mind had not
moved forward from the level of "knowledge" possessed by a
medicine man in the jungles of North Borneo. Ron began to
investigate this serious gap in man's knowledge about the
underlying principles of life, financing his research
through his fiction writings. He became one of the most
prolific and well-known authors of the heyday of popular
adventure and science fiction in the 193Os and 194Os,
interrupted only by his service in the U.S. Navy during
World War II. Partially disabled at the war's end, Ron
continued his research, making breakthroughs and developing
techniques that enabled him and others to regain their
health and to achieve greater happiness and ability. It was
from this research that the basic tenets of Dianetics
technology were codified. In this research he began an
exploration of man's past, because he found that areas of
the past which men could not remember could have disastrous
effects upon their present and future lives. He first
discovered that men could be made to remember into areas of
their lives which, according to medical and psychological
theories, could contain no memories. Yet, he found that
people, when being processed on early Dianetics techniques,
could recall incidents that happened to them while they
were still in the womb. Ron first published his discoveries
in 1948 in "Dianetics: The Original Thesis", and when
"Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" was
published in May 1950, it marked the beginning of a new era
for man. This instant and continuing best seller contained
a practical technology which anyone could use to achieve
results, something sadly lacking in any of the past
practices of "mental healing." As Dianetics became a rapid
grass-roots success, Ron advanced his research. He found
that people could recall events that occurred prior to
their current lives, incidents that had to be handled
before the person's difficulties would resolve. Although
Ron had not specifically instructed these people to look
earlier than their present lifetimes, earlier life
experiences began to appear in auditing sessions with
regularity. Further research not only confirmed these facts
but began to reveal that many people had certain incidents
in common. This led Ron to begin a concerted effort to lay
out a map of the whole track of mankind's past, spanning
trillions of years. Before Ron began this exploration, the
history of the race was unknown beyond a few thousand
years, and even within that small span there were distorted
areas and unknowns. Man had forgotten so much of his past
that its existence was even denied completely; men were
forcibly taught that the race had begun spontaneously a
mere few thousand years before. Others taught that man was
no more than an animal that had originated in the
primordial mud of this planet, and that a person was born
once and was destined to live a single life. Ron's
confirmation of man's true immortality formed the
foundation for many further discoveries, and in the course
of his explorations, he found methods for returning man to
his full potentialities: ways to cast off the chains of
control imposed by those who would enslave him through
ignorance of his past. And he made these methods available
for others. Ron always devoted himself to helping others
and to developing techniques that would ensure the route to
a higher level of understanding could be traveled by
anyone. All that he has ever asked in return is that the
technology he developed be kept pure, that it be made
available and that it be applied correctly. His
works - including a staggering number of books, taped
lectures, writings, instructional films, demonstrations,
briefings, all delineating this priceless technology and
its application - fill library shelves on every continent. He
created and made known the knowledge and technology
necessary to change the face of civilization on Earth. I "I
like to help others," Ron said, "and count it as my
greatest pleasure in life to see a person free himself of
the shadows which darken his days. "These shadows look so
thick to him, and weigh him down so, that when he finds
they are shadows and that he can see through them, walk
through them and be again in the sun, he is enormously
delighted. And I am afraid I am just as delighted as he
is." The goal that Ron has encouraged others to share is to
create "a civilization without insanity, without criminals
and without war, where the able can prosper and honest
beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to
greater heights." Before Dianetics and Scientology, this
was only a dream. But the technology Ron made available as
a result of his research has made this much more than a
dream. When one understands even a part of Ron's
technology, one can turn this dream into a goal. When one
starts to apply his technology, one sees that this goal can
be attained. And applying his technology is all that needs
to be done to achieve it.

- The Editors

==============================================================

GLOSSARY

[as provided by CofS with the transcripts - FZ.B.A]

Aristotelian logic: two-valued logic, right and wrong - an
absolute scale. Something was absolutely right or it was
absolutely wrong. Originated by Aristotle, 384-322 B.C.,
famous Greek philosopher. - Research and Discovery Series
Volume 5; Webster's Biographical Dictionary

Bacon, Roger: 1214?-94, English philosopher and man of
science. - Webster's Biographical Dictionary

Buck Rogers: a comic-strip character who sailed off to
Mars or Venus and had 107 incredible adventures. - Handbook
for Preclears

Carnegie, Dale: 1888-1956, author of How to Win Friends and
Influence People, published in 1936. - The People's Almanac

Chrysler Building: a building in New York City. When
completed in 1929, it was the world's tallest building,
1,046 feet high. - Collier's Encyclopedia

Clausewitz, Karl von: 1780-1831, Prussian army officer,
best remembered for his books on the science of war.
- Webster's Biographical Dictionary

Czech glass: delicate blown-glass work produced in
Czechoslovakia. - Collier's Encyclopedia

Daniel: a Hebrew prophet captive in Babylon who, according
to the Old Testament book of Daniel, was delivered by God
from the lions into whose den he had been thrown for
refusing to obey a decree of the king. - Webster's
Biographical Dictionary; Bible, Daniel 6:9-22

dropping the whole curve: taking an emotional curve and
building a guy way up to the top of this curve and then
dropping him in the least possible time as low as you can
on the curve. - Tape 28 December 1952 (should be 28 Dec 51
- FZ.B.A.)

Eisenhower, Dwight David: 1890-1969, thirty-fourth
president of the United States, 1953-61. - Webster's
Biographical Dictionary

ENIACs: the first electronic digital computers, built in
1943. The name stands for "Electronic Numerical Integrator
And Calculator." - Computer Dictionary for Beginners

FDR: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1882-1945; thirty-second
president of the United States, 1933-45. - Webster's
Biographical Dictionary

Flatiron Building: a building in New York City, completed
in 1902, the first building to use the principle of a steel
frame to support the building, making possible the
construction of skyscrapers. - Collier's Encyclopedia
(a triangular building regularly shown in the opening
credits of the sitcom "Suddenly Susan" - FZ.B.A)

Freud, Sigmund: 1856-1939, Austrian neurologist and founder
of psychoanalysis. -Webster's Biographical Dictionary

git-box: also "git-fiddle," a guitar. - Dictionary of
American Slang; Webster's Third New International
Dictionary

Goldberg, Rube: original name, Ruben L. Goldberg,
1883-1970; American cartoonist and sculptor, creator of
extremely intricate diagrams of contraptions designed to
effect relatively simple results. - American Heritage
Dictionary

Group Dianetics: once called Political Dianetics, embraces
the field of group activity and organization to establish
the optimum conditions and processes of leadership and
intergroup relations. - Tape 9 November 1950; DMSMH.

This: a special posture in a system of yoga exercises. - Editor

Krishnamurti, Jiddu: born 1895, a Hindu religious figure
and author who toured the United States and Europe in the
192Os and later. - Columbia Encyclopedia

Little Audrey: a little girl who was the chief character in
a series of comic books for children. - Editor

Logics: the forms of thought behavior which can, but do not
necessarily have to, be used in creating universes. The
Logics are a method of thinking. They apply to any universe
or any thinking process. The Logics are included in
Advanced Procedure and Axioms, Handbook for Preclears and
Scientology 0-8. - Tape 10 November 1952

Morgan, J. P.: John Pierpont Morgan, Jr.; 1867-1943;
succeeded to his father's position as head of J. P. Morgan
& Co., acted as agent of Allied governments in floating
large loans in the United States during World War
1. - Webster's Biographical Dictionary

Moses: Hebrew prophet and lawgiver who, according to the
biblical book of Exodus, led the Israelites from Egypt
through the wilderness to Canaan, circa 1200 B.C. according
to some authorities. - Webster's Biographical Dictionary

mote: to move speedily. - Dictionary of Slang and
Unconventional English

Nation, Carry: 1846-1911, American temperance agitator.
Resident in Kansas, a prohibition state, she maintained
that, since the saloon was illegal in Kansas, any citizen
could destroy liquor, furniture and fixtures in a place
selling intoxicants. Armed with a hatchet, she went on
wrecking expeditions through Kansas cities and towns
(1900-1910). - Webster's Biographical Dictionary

om mani padme om: "Om, the jewel, is in the lotus: Amen,"
the mystic formula of the Tibetans and northern Buddhists,
used as a charm and for many religious purposes. The lotus
symbolizes universal being, and the jewel the individuality
of the utterer. - Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

Pogo: a popular comic strip by artist Walt Kelly. Kelly
illustrated a fanciful tale of evolution for Life magazine
in its issue of 18 February 1952. - Editor

Revere, Paul: 1735-1818, American patriot; silversmith and
engraver by trade. Designed and engraved first official
seal for the colonies, and the state seal for
Massachusetts. - Webster's Biographical Dictionary

Rhine, Joseph Banks: 1895-1980, an American psychologist
known for investigations in parapsychology. - Webster's
Biographical Dictionary

Shakespeare, William: 1564-1616, English dramatist and
poet. Many of Shakespeare's plays are still being produced
today. The quotation mentioned in the text, "To be or not
to be, that is the question," is from Hamlet, Act III,
Scene 1. - Webster's Biographical Dictionary

Tombstone: city in the southeast corner of Arizona,
formerly (circa 1879-87) a mining center widely known for
its rich mines and its lawlessness and crime.
- Webster's New Geographical Dictionary

WAC Corporal: an early two-stage rocket used for
atmospheric research. It was one foot in diameter and
sixteen feet long. - American People's Encyclopedia

war neuroses: cases of hysteria or anxiety occurring in
soldiers during war; it has been attributed to their war
experiences. - Webster's Third New International Dictionary

Woolworth Building: a skyscraper in New York City,
completed in 1912 and long the world's tallest building,
towering 792 feet in height. - Collier's Encyclopedia

Wright, Frank Lloyd: 1869-1959, famous American architect.
- Webster's Biographical Dictionary

yeomen: commoners of respectable standing, serving as foot
soldiers. - Oxford English Dictionary

Zeros: Japanese fighter planes used in World War II.
- Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World's Aircraft

==========================================================


BIBLIOGRAPHY

[as included with the CofS transcripts, note that this is
from the mid 1980s - FZ.B.A.]

Buy these books by L. Ron Hubbard


Dianetics: The Original Thesis - Written two years before
public release of the Dianetics discoveries. Also under a
new title, The Dynamics of Life - available at bookstores
everywhere.

Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science - L. Ron Hubbard's
exciting story of the first quarter-century of Dianetics
research.

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health - A
spectacular international best seller from the moment of
its publication in May 1950, this is the book of man's most
advanced knowledge and technology in the field of the
human mind.

Notes on the Lectures - From two major lecture series given
in the autumn of 1950.

Child Dianetics - Compiled by the technical staff of the
Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation from the research
files and lecture materials of L. Ron Hubbard, with an
introduction by him.

Science of Survival - The book which is startling the
scientific world with its accurate methods of predicting
human behavior and its insight into the activities of man.
Included with the book of over five hundred pages is the
famous Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation.

Self Analysis - A simple self-help volume of tests and
processes based on Dianetics discoveries.

Advanced Procedure and Axioms - Advanced Dianetics
discoveries and techniques comprising a research
breakthrough by L. Ron Hubbard beyond the field of the mind
into codification of the basic principles of existence.

Handbook for Preclears - Designed for use as a self-help
volume and for use by the trained auditor and intelligent
layman to apply to others.

A History of Man - A list and description of the principal
incidents to be found on the time track of a human being.
This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last
sixty trillion years.

Scientology 8-80 - The discovery and increase of life
energy in Homo sapiens.

Scientology 8-8008 - The complete treatise of the anatomy of
universes and the role played in them by a spiritual
being - the beingness of man in relation to the universe of
matter, energy, space and time, subjective and objective.

How to Live Though an Executive - A must for any executive or
anyone who works near one. Hundreds of applications in
every phase of life. L. Ron Hubbard's earliest work on the
subject of organization.

The Creation of Human Ability - A huge number of processes
for use by Scientology auditors, with full elucidation of
the major philosophical and technical breakthroughs made by
Ron, from which the techniques were derived.

Dianetics 55! - This best seller defines clearly what, by
1955, the impetus of Dianetics discoveries and successes
had produced - which is Scientology processing technology.
Much newly codified theory and auditor technology. The Six
Levels of Processing, communication formula. Indispensable
auditor know-how.

Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought - Basic book of
Scientology theory and practice. Book One of Scientology
applied religious philosophy.

The Problems of Work - Scientology technology applied to
the workaday world.

All About Radiation - Bluntly informative. A vital
application of Scientology observations and discoveries.

Control and the Mechanics of S. C. S. - Edited from the tape
lectures of L. Ron Hubbard.

Scientology: Clear Procedure - Clearing procedures of 1957.

Have You Lived Before Tbis Life? - When Dianetics discoveries
touched off the Bridey Murphy craze, conservative
investigators were justifiably upset. Now quite
conservative, trained Scientologists have tested a series
of seventy cases. Their fascinating findings are given in
this book.

Axioms and Logics - The Scientology Axioms, the Prelogics,
the Logics, the Dianetics Axioms.

E-Meter Essentials - More advanced aspects of E-Meter use,
plus the phenomena behind many of the meter readings.

The Book of Case Remedies - The trained and student auditor's
manual covering preclear difficulties and their remedies.
Loaded with brilliant LRH case resolutions and technical
notes, the book is as fascinating as it is important.

The Book of E-Meter Drills This book teaches one all phases
of E-Meter operation with hands-on exercises.

Scientology: A New Slant on Life A collection of all-time
favorite essays by the Founder of the Scientology applied
religious philosophy.

Introducing the E-Meter - This is a basic booklet that
introduces you to the Hubbard Electrometer or E-Meter
religious counseling device and its operation.

The Phoenix Lectures - The celebrated 1954 Phoenix
Professional Course Series in book form. L. Ron Hubbard's
first and comprehensive discussion of the Scientology
Axioms and other fundamentals on the subject.

Introduction to Scientology Ethics - How to make a safe
environment in which individuals and organizations can
continue to succeed in their lives and jobs.

Scientology 0-8 - Scientology fundamentals: the codes,
scales and Axioms.

Background and Ceremonies of the Church of Scientology
- The background and religious antecedents of the Church
of Scientology, the Creed of the Church, instructions for
service, general sermon outlines, many ceremonies as
originally given in person by the founder of the
Scientology philosophy.

The Basic Scientology Picture Book - A visual aid to a better
understanding of man and the material universe.

The Basic Dianetics Picture Book - A visual aid for a quicker
understanding and dissemination of Dianetics pastoral
counseling.

Mission Into Time - In 1968, L. Ron Hubbard led an unusual
expedition into the past, with a crew to check on his
recall of incidents occurring several thousand years ago.

Dianetics Today - The book which gives Dianetics technical
breakthroughs since 1950, a follow-up to Dianetics: The
Modern Science of Mental Health.

Hymn of Asia - Ron's poetic address to the world. Destined to
be among the greatest of religious classics of mankind.
Contains colorful and splendid artwork and photography.

Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary - Released
in 1975, this book is the key to greater awareness and a
fuller understanding of Dianetics and Scientology
technologies.

The Organization Executive Course (OEC) - The Organization
Executive Course volumes consist of eight large-format
books containing L. Ron Hubbard's incredibly workable
organizing technology - the how-to of running any post or
job or organization.

The Management Series, Volumes 1 and 2 - Completely updated
and rereleased between 1982 and 1983, these volumes contain
phenomenal developments in the field of management. The
data in this series enables any person to increase
production and income through the application of
sophisticated and highly developed administrative
technology. Volume 1 contains the policy letters which
comprise the Data Series, Establishment Officer Series,
Organizing Series and Target Series. Volume 2 contains the
Administrative Know-How Series, Executive Series,
Marketing Series, Personnel Series, Public Relations
Series and Finance Series. Both include a very extensive
and complete subject index.

The Policy Subject - Index An index of all HCO Policy Letters
from the first, right up to August of 1975. It lists all of
these policies under likely titles. You don't have to know
the exact title or the date of a policy to find it.

The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology - Twelve
volumes, containing all of L. Ron Hubbard's technical
bulletins and issues from 1950 to 1979. Every question a
person may have concerning technology can be answered
directly from the pages of these books, which also include
a 250 page master subject index containing over 20,000
entries.

The Volunteer Minister's Handbook - Compiled from the
materials of L. Ron Hubbard, with a magnificent
introductory photo series by him showing religion through
the ages. The fundamentals of how to help one's fellow
man.

Modern Management Technology Defined - Hubbard Dictionary
of Administration and Management - A comprehensive
dictionary covering the entire range of business
terminology, including such areas as personnel management,
interorganizational communication, financial management and
data evaluation. This book provides the key to new clarity
and understanding in the field of management.

What Is Scientology? - A definitive collection of facts and
figures on and about what millions consider to be the most
extraordinary phenomenon of our time. What is it all about,
this Scientology religion? Where is it headed? What makes
it the fastest-growing self-betterment and reform group in
the world today? The answers to these and many other
questions on the subject are contained in this book.

Research and Discovery Series: Volumes 1-9, June 1950
through December 1951 The first nine volumes of a large
series covering the only research and development record of
Dianetics and Scientology technologies. The Research and
Discovery Series gives the complete record of Ron's
research trail, from the fundamental Dianetics discoveries
which bring man for the first time out of the mud, to the
advanced Scientology technology which returns him to
Operating Thetan. You don't have all the tech without the
Research and Discovery Series!

The Way to Happiness - Possibly man's first moral code based
wholly on common sense. Twenty-one precepts based on
observation and knowledge of the nature of man. Read it and
share it with your friends. Available in packets of twelve.

The Study Tapes and Student Hat Pack - Success in today's
world depends upon an ability to read and understand
information rapidly. The Student Hat Course and The Study
Tapes by L. Ron Hubbard can show you the way to quickly
learn and apply any new subject and give you the study
tools you need to get trained for life.

The Philadelphia Doctorate Course Lectures - A famous lecture
series given in 1952 in which Ron explains the nature of
the human being and his relationship to the physical
universe. The lectures are recorded on high-quality
ClearsoundTM cassette tapes. Transcripts of these lectures
are available only with the cassettes. Each contains a
glossary, complete index, and lecture charts as well.

Understanding the E-Meter - A large, illustrated book that
fully explains the basics of the E-Meter device, how it
works and how it can measure the electrical activity of
thought. Any question about the operation of the meter can
be answered with this book.

Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology - A simple
dictionary of terms, ideal for the new Scientologist or for
explaining Scientology philosophy to your friends and
relatives.

Introductory and Demonstration Processes and Assists - Ron
said about this one, "HGCs, field auditors, Book Ones, and
'coffee shoppers,' here you are! I refuse to take
responsibility for any miracles you pull off. But for sure
you are going to make some eyes pop."

Purification: An Illustrated Answer to Drugs - Drugs and
chemical deposits stop spiritual improvement. This
illustrated book tells about the amazing Purification
Rundown, a program designed to rid your body of accumulated
drugs and toxic chemicals and open the way for spiritual
improvement.

Purification Rundown Delivery Manual - This book is used by
anyone who does the famous Purification Rundown. It is
designed to get a person through the program to the best
possible result.

Clearsound Cassette Lectures by L. Ron Hubbard - Available
now in Scientology bookstores are a large variety of
fascinating and informative lectures by L. Ron Hubbard on
subjects ranging from marriage and children to money and
Dianetics processing. With excellent sound quality,
enhanced by Ron's new Clearsound state-of-the-art recording
technology, these lectures give the information to lead you
to success in your life.

The Hubbard Dissemination Course Manual - For the first time
the exact, original LRH tech on successful dissemination
has been brought together into one single, easy-to-use
source - The Hubbard Dissemination Course Manual. Here is all
the data you need to contact, handle, salvage and bring to
understanding another person, laid out on a gradient
exactly as Ron wanted you to receive it. Also available in
hardcover edition. Both versions come complete with course
checksheet.

Academy Levels Cassettes and Packs - The ability to be
successful in life is not something that comes by itself,
you have to get trained for it. The forty-six lectures on
the Academy Levels and the materials in the new beautifully
produced packs for these levels contain the data you need
to really get trained for handling life. Once you're
trained for life, you can make your success!

New Era Dianetics (NED) Cassettes and Pack - The materials of
the New Era Dianetics cassettes and course pack give you a
detailed understanding of the reactive mind and the
technology for producing Dianetics Clears. This is the
technology that makes possible the mass clearing of this
planet!

The Time Track of Theta: More on the History of Man - In
four lectures, given in 1952 as part of the Hubbard College
Lectures, Ron describes the difference between the
protoplasm line and the theta line, the principle incidents
on the theta line, the relation between the individual and
the physical universe and a great deal more, resolving
questions that have puzzled man since the time of cavemen.
Deluxe package with Glossary and Charts included.

The Phoenix Lectures - Mysteries vanish as you hear Ron's 25
lectures given to Professional Course students in Phoenix,
Arizona in 1954, covering these topics and many more: how
to use the basic laws of life - the Axioms of Scientology -
to achieve your goals; how to apply the Four Conditions of
Existence to change things for the better; how to be at
cause over Time by knowing its secrets; how this universe
was made - and what you had to do with it.

The Power of Simplicity - Increase your ability to duplicate
the incredibly powerful simplicity and applicability of
Scientology philosophy and tech. In these twenty-six
brilliant lectures given at the 15th American Advanced
Clinical Course in 1956 at Washington, D.C., Ron covers the
simplicity of ability, games, duplication, the "story of a
static," the "basic postulate," the relation between
simplicity and complexity, and many other vital topics.

A Series of Lectures on the Whole Track - Increase your
awareness and gain certainty on the whole track! The six
astonishing lectures in the "whole track tapes" by Ron
cover the history of this and other planets, battles
between the great forces of space opera civilizations, and
the relationship of the whole track to sanity and OT
states.

*************************************

(end of Route To Infinity materials)

Последний раз редактировалось auditor 28 ноя 2016, 17:21, всего редактировалось 3 раз(а).
Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 691
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Re: THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

Сообщение auditor » 30 дек 2015, 16:51

Route To Infinity Lecture #1

BEINGNESS

A lecture given on 19 May 1952

[original title "ARC Triangle In Relation To Infinity,
Beingness Along The Dynamics", T80-1A. This is much
shorter than the others in the series. It might simply
be a shorter lecture or there might be omitted material.
If anyone has the original reels, they should check this
against them]

================

I would like very much tonight to tell you about some
various techniques, and I am sorry that I am not going to
be able to tell you about the technique in which I am sure
most of you are most interested; that's 88.

The reason I'm not going to tell you about 88 is 88
requires a lot longer buildup than three days. It actually
is much simpler. It's a brand-new method of running, but it
requires an enormous amount of preparatory survey -
reorientation.

So instead of that, as preparatory to 88, I'm giving you a
technique - Technique 80 - which, by the way, you will be
able to use on the general public.

You can't use Technique 88 very much on people. You try to
persuade them as to what you're doing, and one of them is
liable to say to you that you have to be a mathematician in
order to run it. This isn't true. It just happens to be a
little bit out of their common run of understanding of the
MEST universe.

And furthermore, when you talk about Technique 88 it makes
people feel just a little bit strange, and they're afraid
to stamp on something or something like that, because
they're afraid their foot will go through. It makes the
whole universe look sort of like a thin piece of Czech
glass and makes you feel like a very small child playing
with it.

Because the truth of the matter is, actually, with 88,
theoretically - just theoretically, fortunately - you could
go far enough with Technique 88 not to just have the
preclear go poof! but to have the room go poof! And this is
hard on rooms and so on.

I don't think anybody actually will apply 88 to the point
where this solar system will go poof! like that and so
forth, because I'm asking everybody a favor that I run on
88. I say, "Now you have to do me one favor." And, of
course, when they all get through-they don't know this yet;
I won't tell them what the favor is - it's leave the solar
system! Well, they're committed to this one favor, so
you're safe. Anyway. . . Actually, that's not the favor I'm
going to ask them, but...

Now, what I am going to talk to you about is Technique 80,
which is actually preparatory to 88.

Technique 80 can be used very widely, and it is very close
to the ultimate in ARC - affinity, reality and
communication. So in these three lectures I am going to
develop affinity, reality and communication for you as far
as I can so that you can use it and use it very, very well.
And I will give you with that, this technique. This
technique has to do with a progress up the dynamics to a
point where you are, theoretically, in contact at
considerable distance and can be almost anything. And when
I say be almost anything, I mean you could be an icebox or
a Cadillac or anything while you're still being yourself.
Sounds fantastic, doesn't it?

But it's very, very fascinating that you are highly
individualized and you will never be more than yourself,
but your self and your individuality can get up to the high
point of your own recognition not only of a brotherhood
with the whole universe but a sort of a recognition of
yourself as the universe.

This is very dangerous for people if they are low on the
tone scale, to get the idea that they're the whole
universe. I've been around in institutions occasionally and
run into fellows who thought they were God, and other
things. And they weren't well, because they tried to reach
it by the reverse route. And they backed down tone scale to
get there, and the only place a fellow gets when he goes
down tone scale to get there is dead.

Well, in this series I'm going to tell you how to get UP
tone scale to get there and still retain your potentiality
of action.

The most important factors involved in thought or the
material universe are the subdivisions of thought itself.
And these subdivisions are affinity, reality and
communication. There are three parts of thought; there are
three parts of life; there are three parts of living. And
it makes a very interesting triangle. And we don't have a
blackboard here. Do we have a blackboard? So you'll just
have to paint this in the air.

Oh, it's black behind me, so it's very easy, you see, to
just paint this in the air. [See diagram one in the
Appendix.]

Imagine a circle, a circle up here. You talk about a
symbol; this is a timeless symbol. And by the way, although
Dianetics has never existed before on the time track
evidently, this symbol has existed there. And that symbol
must come from practically the beginning of all time. And
this is a circle and inside the circle is a triangle, and
inside the triangle at the top is the figure infinity and
at the bottom is a zero.

You should remark that symbol fairly well. The big circle
could stand for the universe, perfection, completion or the
continuation of time after the end of time. In other words,
time ends and begins at the same point.

Now, here you have the triangle. And at the top of this
triangle we have affinity, over at this corner of the
triangle we have reality and over at this corner of the
triangle we have communication. And then we have the
infinity mark up at the top, and at the bottom of the
triangle we have a zero.

You all remember Shakespeare's quotation "To be or not to
be, that is the question." The infinity is beingness or "to
be." The zero is "not to be." And zero and infinity, so far
as the thought and the universe are concerned, are the same
thing.

Thought is all or thought is nothing. A facsimile or an
independent thought could exist on the head of the pin.

Now, the problem is, here, that a thought can exist on the
head of a pin. Let's say all the thought that went into the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, so far as shape and size is
concerned, as thought is concerned (thought itself, not
words written on a page), you could put it all on the head
of a pin. In other words, it's just symbolizing for you a
zero. Or you could take the thought, just this one small
thought "cat" (you think "cat"), and that thought could be
as big as this universe or all the island galaxies. You
see, it just doesn't matter, then. It's that big or it's
that tiny; all that thought can be that tiny or that little
thought can be that big. These are interchangeable.

Now, we talk in Advanced Procedure and Axioms about the
state of beingness, the prime thought - the prime thought.
That prime thought is "to be." And that prime thought is
infinity, because when a person decided to be everything he
could be, he is of course deciding to be infinity. That is
the most he could decide to be. So there he is, clear up,
the top of the tone scale - infinity. That is ultimate
beingness. But what does that mean? That means that he
would be not only himself but could be or would be
everything. That's an ultimate in beingness.

Now, at the bottom you could have a prime thought of
not-beingness. Well, how not-being can a person not-be?
Well, that's zero. And so you have the two decisions, the
two possible decisions in the business of living: infinity
or zero.

Fortunately, most of us exist somewhere on a gradient
scale. That is to say, from 0.0 up we decide on just a
little more and a little more and a little more beingness,
until at last we have decided to be quite a bit - at least
ourselves. And then up we go a little higher and a little
higher along all the dynamics. And when we have gone out on
all the dynamics and have at least developed the capability
of being all the dynamics, we have arrived at ultimate
beingness. But of course, you get to the beingness of
infinity, it could just as well be zero, because when you
are that high on the tone scale, you could simply
re-decide. So it would be one or the other.

Gradient scale of beingness. Now perhaps you understand a
little bit better what is meant, then, by this zero and
infinity. And perhaps you understand a little bit more what
is meant by "to be." This is quite important. Just to say
"to be" is to utter only a verb.

We are not addicted to uttering undefinables if we can
possibly avoid it. So let us examine what we call the
dynamics in this business of beingness. There are eight
dynamics. Dynamic one, as far as beingness is concerned,
would be to be oneself.

Now, you understand that you have in all existing volumes
before this date the eight dynamics described in terms of
survival. I'll give you that difference in a moment with
what I'm telling you now.

There's the beingness of one, and that's a great deal
different than the survival of one. There's the beingness
of one, of yourself.

And then there's the beingness of the second dynamic, the
beingness in the sphere of creation, children, future, or
(and get this one) illusions. That's the second dynamic.
Illusions comes in there. And Frank Lloyd Wright down here
building a town is just creating an illusion by that
definition, you see? That's what I mean by an illusion.
Constructive line comes on the second dynamic.

Now we take the third, the beingness of a group. Around
here, the people who are here have begun to experience, to
a very large measure, this beingness of a group. A group
becomes its own life, and each one becomes the life of the
group. But anyone could detach himself from the life of the
group and you'd still have a life of the group. Even if all
the members of a group disappeared, there would still be a
record of an existing group. It's very interesting; it's
almost mystic, but it becomes very unmystic when you
experience it. It becomes as solid as this platform.

Now there's the fourth: that is the beingness as a species
- one single species. And I won't say man with this new
definition of the dynamics. I don't mean just man. I mean
the species to which one belongs. Fortunately, many can
expect to get out of the rut of being a Homo sapiens. I say
that brutally, because Homo sapiens today isn't doing too
well. I'd hate to think of a dynamic being devoted wholly
to Homo sapiens as he acts.

Five would be all life.

Six would be the MEST universe - the material universe. But
remember, in each case it's the beingness of it.

And seven is the beingness of all thought, any thought.

And, of course, the eighth dynamic is merely an infinity
turned on its side; eight turned on its side gives you an
infinity. And so you have, there, "beingness of all." And
most creeds and so forth, when they say "beingness of all,"
they codify this and they say God, and then they put God up
in armor or something, put him on a pedestal and reduce him
down to a very finite affair. They're very quick to depart
from that infinity. So let's not confuse a religious symbol
for an infinity of the eighth dynamic, because the infinity
of the eighth dynamic simply means, in our terminology
here, the "beingness of all." It has no other codification.
It doesn't say that all is good, bad or indifferent; it
just says it's all. You say an infinity - infinity of
beingness.

Well, now, there are the eight dynamics.

Now let's take up this factor: Low on the tone scale, at
about 4.0 on the tone scale, we have survival - in its
crude definition we have survival. Now we go up the tone
scale to about 8.0, and we get into the realms of beingness
with identity. And then we go up the tone scale again and
we hit about 32.0, something like that, and we're starting
to get into the beingness along all the dynamics. And
actually, you can plot this tone scale by starting in at
the bottom with one, and as you go up the tone scale, plot
the rest of the dynamics in: one, two, three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, and eight is 40. These things will
occur, more or less, in that staggered fashion up the tone
scale. [See diagram two in the Appendix.]

But when we talk about survival normally, we mean survival
of a body, we mean the survival of one lifetime, we mean
the survival of a very finite, specific thing, and we only
mean that it must continue to exist at any cost through a
span of time. Well, that's sort of silly, because you
actually control, command and create time. So as you go up
the tone scale, you're not asking for anything to survive
against a span of time. You want something to be, and to be
does not include time; survival includes time.

Now, you notice as you come down the tone scale, you get
into more and more and more and more time - more and more
and more time till you get down to 0.0. And that's all time
- is in any instant, in death. You take the death of a
body, or apathy, just above that level: An instant of it
can be an eternity. It can be an eternity.

You'll find the engrams that people are dragging along the
track with them are engrams which have that eternal factor
of apathy in them. Here is one instant of not-beingness so
low that that not-beingness becomes, in itself, a survival
along all time. A person can get an apathy engram a
trillion years ago and still have that moment in existence
today. I'm talking now about the span of all lives. It's
very simple to see.

But up here at the top of the tone scale you have the
reverse. You can put a complete universe or the span of all
lives into an instant at the top. What you're doing is
reversing it, so that as you go up the tone scale you
become more and more and more capable of action per given
instant.

Of how much action are you capable in one second? Well, at
the bottom, you're capable in that one second of complete
motionlessness, and at the top, you could live a whole
lifetime, theoretically, both sides. In other words, you go
up the tone scale, you get more and more and more and more
time, actually, because you get up the line to where you
are time and then you're controlling time and then you
create time.

Now, if you see somebody who is flying around like mad, and
he just seems to get all sorts of things done, he never
complains about the fact that he hasn't any time; sometimes
he looks around rather puzzled and wonders why somebody
else isn't moving as fast as he is. And he just keeps
getting these things done - brrrrrr! And comes four o'clock
in the afternoon and he figures he's loafed all day.

And there's somebody else: They get up and they walk around
and they work real hard, and they got one envelope
addressed at supper time! And yet they think they've been
moving all that time. They think they have; they have a
concept of it.

Now, just a little bit higher than that, the person senses
his inability to control time or realizes time is whipping
him, and so he starts in with this kind of thing: "But I
have no time to do anything." And he'll sit around for
hours and tell you how he hasn't any time to do anything.
"Why, I couldn't even start it - I mean, I wouldn't have
any time to do it if I did start it." And so on, "There's
no use to do it anyway, because - I mean, you couldn't
hardly get it finished; there's just no time." That's at
1.5, by the way. 1.5s are wonderful at this. They will
explain to you for hours how they haven't five minutes.
Usually they haven't got five minutes to themselves, they
have to do so much for others. (You never notice them doing
this, but they tell you.)

So anyway, as you go on up the scale, you have more and
more time. Now, isn't that peculiar? It simply means that
at the bottom of the scale your capability of handling MEST
has dropped to the point where all that happens in your
interaction is that MEST handles you.

And if you ever see somebody laid out on a bier (b-i-e-r) -
if you ever see anybody laid out that way - you will know
instantly that they have inherited all of the universe
wrong way to. That is to say, they are now in possession of
the whole thing - dead. Actually, they have completed what
could be called a cycle, but it'd be a mistake to do so,
because what's really happened is the whole universe
suddenly inherited them.

They are owned now. How much owning can there be? Well, the
ownest owningness that you can do, as far as owning is
concerned and so forth, would be at that level of 0.0.
That's what makes MEST so attractive; MEST is dead. Even
though it has joints in it and moves and wheels turn and
belts spin and so forth, that thing is still a dead thing.
You know that very well.

Female voice: MEST?

Yeah. M-E-S-T.

Female voice: What's that?

Oh, I beg your pardon. That's such a coined word in
Dianetics; I beg your pardon. M-E-S-T: It means matter,
energy, space and time.

Female voice: Oh, okay

M-E-S-T. It's the first letters of it. An old engineering
trick of taking the first letters of something and getting
some things that sound like "ENIACs" or... The most
wonderful words are being coined these days in engineering.

Now, here then is this gradient scale of beingness:
not-beingness is dead; beingness is full life. And those
are the two ends.

So we take this symbol; we take this symbol of the circle,
the triangle and the infinity and the zero, and we can
behold, in that, something which would symbolize all you
need to know about anything, anywhere, to accomplish
anything that you want to accomplish. Of course, it needs a
couple of billion words of explanation, but it's been there
for an awful long time and it's a very good symbol to
remember.

The circle: The universe and the continuum of time; the
beginning is the end of all.

The triangle: That means thought. And the three corners of
the triangle are affinity, reality and communication. And
they're the three component parts of thought (I'll explain
to you why); ARC, they make up thought.

And there's the fact that you mustn't overlook, is this
triangle of thought is imposed upon and becomes the circle
of the MEST universe. The triangle is one end, the high end
of the tone scale-all thought. And the circle is the bottom
of the tone scale and it says all MEST - the universe, the
circle, circular time, so on. And there is thought impinged
upon the universe.

And that combination, then - the circle and the triangle -
is exemplified by infinity (the allness of everything). And
that is how much you could be: you could be both the circle
and the triangle, or at the bottom, zero, which means that
you could actually be neither, nothing, and that's
not-beingness.

Actually, all a person would have to do theoretically is
simply decide to be. I stressed that in November and a lot
of the boys really strained at it. I said there's no reason
you had to go back on the track and erase engrams. Why
don't you just suddenly say "I'm going to BE"? Of course,
if you felt this violently enough, you'd of course
disappear and swell up and be the whole universe. But it's
unhealthy, because the fellow decides this and he decides
at the same time that he probably can't be this, and he
decides that this can't be because it isn't, and so forth.
And so instead of going up the tone scale like a WAC
Corporal (that's a rocket, by the way), he goes down the
tone scale and out the bottom, because he gets the
sensation of running head-on into MEST.

But there you have the triangle of thought on the circle of
the material universe, and the decision: the circle, the
triangle, the decision.

Actually, that's all you need to know. You should take that
and you should figure and you should say to yourself "Gee,
that's true!" and say, "Zip!" There's only one trouble with
saying "Zip!" Too many other people trying to say "Zip!" at
the same time, originally on the time track, made a sort of
a collision. And some of the people who were zipping this
way ran into some of the people who were zapping that way,
and it became a little bit confused on who was zipping and
who was zapping and some of them became MEST. And becoming
MEST is a very bad thing to do.

Homo sapiens is just a hair above MEST, just a hairline
above it. Pretty grim. He's running on the first dynamic;
he makes a complete practice out of going around and saying
"I'm not, I'm not, I'm not being. I'm not being. Yes, I'm
not," so on. "Well, I'm not so good at that, but uh. . ."
and "What is your opinion?" and, "Do you approve of me?"
and "Do I have a license to survive from you?" and so on.
And he just is going around all the time making up this
business at zero. And somebody who comes along and says to
him all of a sudden фI amц (something or other). They say,
"Oh, he's opinionated, he is. Ha-ha. Huh! Huh! Invalidate
him! Nullify him! Kill him!" because he's liable to upset
this zero. And this zero is so easily upset that-do you
know that Homo sapiens can only survive about sixty-nine
years? Imagine, sixty-nine trips around the sun, that's all
he can survive. It's hardly worth paying a nickel for.
Well, it's a ride you get, sixty-nine round trips.

And then what do they do with him? They take him and his
education and everything else and they bury him. I don't
know why they bury him. They don't even make a practical
use out of his body! It's very remarkable. The only ones
that profit by the body is the florist.

Although I did hear about a battlefield one time in France
where ten thousand men - knights and yeomen and so forth -
had been killed, and it'd been nice and green ever since
and the wheat grew well there, so it does have some
advantage.

But what I'm getting at is he's trembling right on that
zero; he's making a cult out of not-beingness. And any time
you do that, watch out, because the fellow's just
wshhh-wshhh!

Now, the state of beingness up here would be a very
interesting one to reach, particularly if you could reach
it with such full determinism that you could be any part of
it at will - any part of it - of the gradient scale between
zero and infinity. If you could be any part of anything at
will and really be that part of that thing at will, on any
dynamic, you would be attaining toward the potentiality of
zero to infinity at your own decision, in other words. You
could say, "The third dynamic. Well, I'm not going to be
the third dynamic right now, I'm going to be the fourth."
And you could make up your power of decision on the line.
Or you could simply go up tone scale and say, "I'm
infinity." Be an interesting experiment.

How do you get there? What do you have to do to get there?
We have this symbol of the circle, the triangle, infinity
and zero. It actually tells you all you need to know with a
few dozen more lines and a lot of explanation. How do you
get, then, up toward infinity? And how can you monitor and
modulate your own existence and your own conduct in such a
way as to be anything you want to be?

Tell you how low this society at this time is: The biggest
ambition of everybody seems to be "I want to be myself."
The poor guys, they haven't even gotten to the first
dynamic.

Okay. Let's take a break.

================

Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 691
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Re: THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

Сообщение auditor » 30 дек 2015, 16:51

Route To Infinity Lecture #2

OUTLINE OF TECHNIQUE 80

A lecture given on 19 May 1952

[original title "Definition of Technique 80, Emotional
Wavelengths" T80-1B. This transcript might (?) also
include "Tone and Ability" T80-C or that tape might have
been omitted from the Route to Infinity edition. If anyone
has the original reels, could they check this?]

================

Now, there are actually two new ways of running things. One
of those is Technique 80 and the other is Technique 88.

Technique 88 probably will not be covered until the release
of these publications, which I am writing because of
Technique 88.

The difference is type of incident, between the two
techniques, more than principle, although there is a
distinct difference in the way you run an incident with
either one.

Now, actually, if you were rather high on tone scale, you
would use Technique 80, not 88, to blow the bank, because
these techniques - both of them - are aimed at getting up
as high as possible on the scale of beingness, getting up
from zero to the highest possible attainment toward
infinity. They have different ends: Technique 80 gets you
there in this body, and Technique 88 takes the body away.
So there are two different end products there. One takes
you up as high as possible in a body, you see, and the
other takes you up without a body.

I know that sounds very outrageous to you, the idea of
going around without a body. As a matter of fact, if you
stop and think of the number of mechanisms which have been
installed in this society concerning the declasse' sort of
a thing of not having a body, it's not done. "They are
gauche, you know, and they're frightening. And these poor
shades that have to roam the worlds. Yes, that's bad!
That's bad."

As a matter of fact, everywhere you look you find some
injunction about not getting rid of your body, and some
propaganda - pure and simple propaganda - about the horrors
of not having one. So if you just look at these two factors
in the society in which Homo sapiens lives, that the body
is valuable. You must take care of it. Yap, yap, yap, yap,
yap. You look at that one all by itself, you'd say,
"Whaaah, there's something wrong here!"

Because as it evolves in processing and as one begins to
study techniques, he finds out that to free a person it is
necessary to process out all the control factors over the
person. That's a principle. Let's process out the super
controls with which a person is kept (quote) "in the
groove": a good boy, a nice girl, a this, a that, grind,
grind, grind, grind. And if you can just find all of the
things that have been installed to create that end and
relieve them, you get a sane person.

Now, that is an empirical observation; it is just observed
that this takes place. You get off the super control of
Mama and Papa off of a preclear. And as soon as you get
that off, wham! they're in better shape. So just
extrapolate from there and then examine it a little
further. And you find out you take off the super control of
this and the super control of that and the control of this
and the control of that, and they get saner and they get
more able.

You say, "Hey, what's this?" So you go and get the best
control books you can get: How to Control Your Child, a
publication of the American Medical Association. That's its
proper name, American Medical Association; it's an
organization, up somewhere or other, having a lot of
trouble with the chiropractors. Chiropractors are trying to
put them out of business, and they're fighting it, however.
(If you haven't heard of the organization, why, just take
my word for it.)

Anyway, this organization puts out this book, the control
of a child. Now, if you reverse the vectors and you process
everything they say to do, your child gets healthy. You can
practically take anything that is published by Homo sapiens
before May 15th, 1950 - just take anything-and look it over
and then process it out of your preclear and he'll get
better.

Let's take various things. College examinations: If you
processed all the college examinations out of a college
student, he would be more able and he'd be happier.
Examinations install an anxiety state and so forth; they do
various things. They're very upsetting. Just process out
that and he'll be in better shape.

If your preclear can't use any of his schooling (and I
don't know any preclear who can), all you have to do is
just process out all of his schooling and he learns
something; he knows something then. That's very weird, but
horribly true. They say, "You know, he's a successful man
even though he only went to the third grade." That's sure a
backwards statement.

I know. I've suffered in classrooms long enough. I went to
school once. Processed it out about a year or so ago,
managed to get rid of the last of it.

Anyway, you go around and you take rules and regulations
about this or about that or something of the sort. You find
out that one of the reasons people have bad teeth in this
society is they've been enjoined all the time about the
care of the teeth: "Got to take care of your teeth, you got
to take care of your teeth, you got to take care of your
teeth." If you process out all these times they've been
made to take care of their teeth, their teeth will get
better. Weird, isn't it?

As a matter of fact, if you turn around and process out
everything that made him take care of his body, he'd
suddenly start taking care of it. Process out all the times
that he was forced to bathe and he'll start bathing.
Wonderful! So, you just work on that basis of everything
that is a force control mechanism on an individual is bad,
you can therefore count on putting together a technique - a
processing technique - of knocking out any of these out of
your preclear. It gives you thousands of new techniques,
just that sentence. You just reach out in any direction.

All right, let's take traffic regulations. There we go,
traffic regulations. You see, there's only-start, stop and
change are the only three possible actions in the MEST
universe. Start, stop and change. Traffic regulations.
Traffic lights. Here's the guy, he's going down to the
office, he's all excited, he wants to get down there, he
wants to go to work, he's got a new secretary and
everything. And he gets out in the car and he starts
tearing down the road and all of a sudden, why, there's
this "Brring, bop!" red light, so he stops. He didn't
decide to stop, so it interrupts his self-determinism. So
there he sits, stopped. He waits for the light to change,
and he waits for it to change, and he waits for it to
change, and then finally it changes and it says he can go.
So he starts to roar across the intersection and so forth,
and he goes halfway through the next block: A sign there
says Children: 15 Miles per Hour. Nnnrrh - slow. He says -
"Now," he says, "I'll drive up the block here and get to
the office quicker," but it says Detour.

Now, there's everything you can think of, and if he goes
over a certain speed ... You see, police don't like motion.
Police are at 1.5 and they got to stop things. And you can
count on this fact (it doesn't have to be rational): If
it's motion, it should be stopped. I mean, it's a good,
sound-that is to say, at least a completely consistent
philosophy. There's nothing inconsistent about it; it's the
most consistent thing I know of. If there is motion, stop
it.

It so happens, you know, that the fast drivers are the ones
who don't have accidents. The slow drivers, the careful
drivers, are the ones who have accidents. You start adding
it up in the accident records and you'll find the careful
drivers.

One of the carefulest drivers I ever met was a lady who
always kept her left wheels on the white line, squarely on
the white line, so that she wouldn't go over the edge. She
caused several accidents, but never at any one time were
the accidents happening to her. She was a roadblock all by
herself. But she was legal. Nobody ever arrested her. She
was legal. She was agreeing with the fact that motion
should be very slow, if at all.

So we have stopped motion all through these traffic
regulations, and actually, a person who is living in a
city, you've got a whole technique with traffic
regulations. You just start processing out traffic. Just
process it out, that's all. You could work on it for maybe
twenty, thirty hours just on that technique, and when you
get through you'll probably have a well preclear. His
arthritis will probably go away, everything. Because what
is it? It's just continual stopped motion, one right after
the other: stopped motion, stop, stop, stop, stop. Or
change existing motion, and if he starts, stop him again;
if he stops, starting him again. That's particularly true.

By the way, go to any town and stand on the corner for
twenty minutes - just stand there. The chances are very
good that a cop will come along and tap you on the shoulder
and say, "Move along, bud." You see, in this case you are
stopped. The cops do operate not so much in stop but in
change, in that respect. But they're not anywhere near as
insistent about starting as they are about stopping.

Now, this is an interesting manifestation that almost
anything that has been prohibited must have a beingness
value. It's a totally outrageous sort of a guess to make. I
mean, you say just automatically that anything which is
prohibited probably has a beingness value. And you look it
over for a while and you'll find out that's more or less
true. And so we get back to ghosts. Ghosts are bad; they
frighten people, they do this, they do that.

What would happen to you if you didn't have a body? Well,
that would be pretty bad. Supposing you had full, 100
percent awareness - you don't have that now - but supposing
you had the full awareness of beingness to yourself and so
forth, and you didn't have a body.

Economic system: That hasn't got any haul on you; you don't
have to make any money.

Food: You don't have to procure any food.

Work: You wouldn't have to work. Look at all the labor
involved in keeping yourself. Well, you wouldn't have any
of that. And if you have added to it the fact that you
could produce an illusion of any kind that you want to, you
can walk around looking any way you want to look. You could
even look very solid.

Think of it: If you walk into this bridge party and this
fellow is there telling you all about his business: "I was
down in the stock market today and I made - I made
twenty-five thousand bucks. But Joe was down there too, and
he didn't make twenty-five thousand bucks. But I made
twenty-five thousand bucks, and I said, 'Well, Joe, it's
too bad you didn't make twenty-five thousand bucks.' And he
said, 'Well, I guess I didn't. You're just lucky, Bo.' "You
know, I mean, it goes on like that and that's the same
conversation you hear for about two hours, and you're
sitting there . . . You just wouldn't be sitting there
anymore. You wouldn't have to get up and say, "I am sorry
but I have to go home now because I left a babysitter with
little Junior." You don't have Junior and you don't have a
babysitter, but you make this excuse just so you can get
out of there. You wouldn't have to do that. You'd just go
. . . You just wouldn't be there.

But look at what this does to the police! They haven't got
a body they can lay their hands on. And that's bad, that's
very bad! It's difficult! A body is very valuable for other
people, very valuable. They can come in and tap it on the
shoulder and put leg irons on it and do other things to it,
put it in electric chairs and do all sorts of things with
it-amuse themselves with it, in other words.

Now, as far as emotions are concerned, the whole emotional
range is very, very free without body, but it's very frozen
with a body. The body starts to hurt here. What's your
emotional range? It's set by the body.

So you see, it's not necessarily an asset-not necessarily.
In fact, quite the contrary, is a distinct liability. I
don't know of any advantage for you; I know a lot of
advantages, though, for other people.

In the first place, evidently, a human being can look at an
object and move it if he is high on the tone scale. He can
look at an object and move it. Poltergeist, you call it.
All you do is put a few more ergs of energy on one side of
it than you put on the other side of it and it'll move.
Like an airfoil, it goes up, because it has got less air on
the top than the bottom. That's the way you move things
when you don't have a body.

Of course, there's one horrible thing about not having a
body. There would be one horrible thing about not having a
body - utterly grim - and that is the fact that you could
probably take over and use any body around. So, naturally,
this is very illegal, and this is something you mustn't do.
And in order to have a well-controlled society we mustn't
do that, because you can't put your hands on the people
after they go up on 88.

On 80, that's different; 80, the person has still got a
body, still inhabiting a body, he's still a body, and so
forth, but he can extend his attention and beingness over
into the other dynamics and be them too.

So you see the two orders of the techniques: One, you are
your body, in your body and merely extending your attention
and beingness into other dynamics. And 88 is you have or
haven't got one, and if you haven't you can actually be the
other dynamics anywhere you want them.

Don't suppose that I am trying to sell you out of having a
body. I'm not. You want a body, that's your business. I
wouldn't upset your - I couldn't call it self-determinism.
You've been sold for a long time on the value of a body.
I'm not even advising you to do this.

But let me point out this strange fact: Your body is
composed of facsimiles, composed of thoughts: effort,
counter-effort; emotion, counter-emotion; thought and
counter-thought.

And if you've ever run a real, heavy engram, you know how
much like matter it was. Well, that's your body. Only
trouble with this body you got here is somebody else
thought it up, so you're reducing somebody else's engram.
So that's 88; 80 has to do mainly with reducing your
facsimiles.

When you reduce a heavy experience, a painful experience,
or an experience where-some light experience where a truck
has fallen on you or something like that - you will notice
that getting it up is sort of like actually throwing matter
away. I mean, it's that heavy. And the odd part of it is
that an electropsychometer measures just this: How dense are
you? As it takes a dive on the falling side ... You know,
you ask somebody a question, "Were you out with a girl last
night?" and it dives. He says, "No?' He was, and it dives.
What has happened there is the facsimile of the experience
called for has moved into beingness in him and so it impedes
the current which is running through him and makes him more
dense. And that's the way a psychometer works, and that's
all it does; it measures the relative density of the body.
There's a little trickle of electricity, goes through the
body, and it's hooked up to a meter. And this little
trickle of electricity, of course, runs into heavy
facsimiles or light facsimiles or no facsimiles. And that's
what it's saying; that's what it tells you to do.

And as your tone goes up, you are less and less and less
and less dense. And the way you get people's tone up is to
run facsimiles, erase facsimiles; makes them less and less
dense.

The denser they are, the worse they feel; and the less
dense they are, the better they feel. It just follows,
then, that the extrapolation all the way out to reductio ad
absurdum, or something of the sort, would be "no body
equals wonderful."

But, of course, the number of implantations which coax you
to possess a body are so many and so hard and so furious
and so violent that when you do ease out of a body, part of
those implants is that you go into amnesia, so you don't
remember getting out. You don't remember the times after
you died.

Of course, the most horrible trick that was ever played on
anybody was to convince him that he only lived one
lifetime. Oh, think of the apathy of it: "You will never
be able to do it again." "You will never be young again."
"You will never have a chance to be married again." "You
will never be young and lovely or in love or anything again
ever, anymore." "It's serious, it's awfully serious. Life
is terribly serious. If you flunk this course, you'll never
be able to take it again." "You're just done for, fellow;
you only live once. And when they bury you, you're dead and
you're dead for a long time. In fact, fellow, you really
aren't you at all; you're some flesh. And you've seen flesh
rot and so you know that you are perishable. But of course,
for a small consideration we're going to sell you the
slight possibility of going to heaven!" (Oh, I beg your
pardon. That's another line. I got off of there just for a
minute.)

Never at any one moment would I ever upset anybody else's
magic, nobody else's illusions. I wouldn't want to upset or
bust through the various cordons of barriers which have
been put up before you. I wouldn't want to tear these
things down and throw them away, because it might hurt
somebody and I need their approval so I can survive!

In other words, when you do have an immortality, it's
something you won't know about and somebody else has a
control over it. When you are bad in your body, they can
get you forever by letting you burn forever, which is sort
of a dull thing if you come to think about it.

Now, all of this adds up to the fact, there have been a lot
of operations back on the track, been a lot of engrams, a
lot of stunts done to convince you that you are what you
are instead of what you want to be. And as a net result,
it's pretty hard to get up to the first dynamic.

Now, getting rid of a body is not Technique 80. And I
merely threw this other one in to show you one thing: The
lower you are on the tone scale, the more concerned you
become about a body. If you've ever seen anybody very low
on the tone scale, they get the slightest cut and it just
worries them. And as a matter of fact, as they go down on
the tone scale, things hurt more and more and more and
more, until some little tiny incident, some pebble in the
path of life, trips them and they fall headlong. They just
can't stand this; it's too painful. It's gotten to a point
where the thoughts themselves seem to be as heavy as material
objects. And if you've ever processed anybody who is very low
on the tone scale, you know that words are things to them,
thoughts are things.

You can see a psychotic, practically, when he's "thinking"
(quote, unquote); he takes this piece of matter out and he
looks at it, and he puts it back in very carefully. They
have tapes that they read off of, because thoughts aren't
volatile. They do all sort of things. But the lower they
are on the tone scale, the more they have to do with
material objects.

Now, this just demonstrates to you, then, that to get up
the tone scale it's necessary to get out of materialism,
get out of the range of materialism. What's materialism?
Materialism is concern with m-e-s-t. Concern with MEST,
that's all; that's materialism.

In India's sunny clime when I was in my prime, I used to
talk to some of these boys. They're good lads. They're all
sick, but they're good lads. They are very wise, they are
so wise that they know not what they know. They have gotten
up to a point of observation, not action, and they sit
endlessly and observe - very remarkable.

The number of things which they can do are quite
interesting, but they don't compare with the number of
things that a human being fully cleared up the line could
do. It is nothing! It's just nothing to take a few matches
in a bowl of water and make them run this way and that way
with poltergeist just by looking at them. It's really
nothing to be able to take a television screen, turn it off
so that you got the afterglow on the thing and then stop it
from glowing at will - whh! whh! whh! Just block it out and
then let it turn on again; block it out just by looking at
it and so on.

You can control the material universe, but you can control
it a lot more than that. And I'm not now talking about
mysticism. Mysticism is the hidden, the secret, so forth.

I happen to be talking much more closely in the realm of
physics - much more closely.

Now, these chaps in India are doing the exact reverse of
Technique 80. And if you want a good, broad description of
Technique 80, Technique 80 is best described by being the
exact opposite of everything everybody in India is doing in
order to become holy and to take off for nirvana. Now, if
you just look all that up and find out what all that is and
then reverse it all, you've got Technique 80. Because you
can't arrive by going out the top; by trying to go out the
top you go out the bottom.

Because what are they trying to do? They're trying to say
"Oh, the material universe is no good!" They're trying to
say "The body is no good." They're trying to say "I won't
have anything to do with it. I detest it. I am not going to
touch it. I'm going to abstain from everything material. I
am not going to kill anything. I won't even kill a
cockroach if it runs across my slipper. We are short of
meat but we're going to let a dozen cows walk through the
temple courtyard." Anything, in short, of these practices
is a detestation of life, of living, of the material
universe. It's saying, "I don't want any part of it."

And sure enough, you can go up that line and become quite
interesting. You can become quite interesting, but you sure
don't become Clear! It is the surest, fastest way to get
sick that I know of! The Ibis: You learn to stand that way
for eight hours. The Something-or-otherness: You cross your
legs and let the flanks lie down flat, and eventually you
can get to a point where you could lie spraddle like that,
and the total achievement when you've finished that is to
have your legs able to lie down flat.

You can make a person sit still long enough and he will get
the counter-effort of every effort he ever received. That
is to say, you make a person just sit still, make him sit
real still, make him concentrate on sitting still, and all
of a sudden he'll get help! He'll feel one of these old
half-suspended counter-efforts suddenly drill him. Maybe
it's way back down the track. It's very amusing.
Concentrate on sitting still - that's yogi [yoga].

You know what I would do if I really wanted somebody to be
completely blind on how you got out of this universe? I'd
teach him yoga, if I really wanted to blind him. If I
really wanted to wipe out his knowingness and his
beingness, I would teach him these techniques with care,
with great care; tell him how he had to practice and how
careful he had to be.

There is only one way, really, to get into a state of
living, and that's live! There is no substitute for an
all-out, over-the-ramparts, howling charge against life.
That's living. Living does not consist of sitting in a
temple in the shadows and getting rheumatism from the cold
stones. Living is hot, it's fast, it's often brutal! It has
a terrific gamut of emotional reactions.

If you are really willing to live, you first have to be
willing to do anything that consists of living. Weird. But
it's one of those awfully true things that you wonder why
one has to say it. And yet it has to be said. Because
people who are trying to become holy, trying to go to
nirvana, trying to go to heaven, trying to become the
eighth dynamic, trying to become very savvy on the seventh
dynamic, trying to be able to do poltergeist and these
other phenomena, are backing up from doing all of them by
getting stiller and stiller and less and less, until
finally they hit zero.

Well, you can say that zero is in nirvana too. But I like
to have guys in zero if they're fighting me; they won't
fight me if they go down to zero.

How do you vanquish an opponent? You hit him so hard and so
fast, so suddenly, that you drive him into apathy quickly.
He won't recover; he's close to zero.

How do you not discover a secret of existence? Well, the
best way not to discover it is to back up from it and sit
still. If you are going up toward infinity, for heaven's
sakes, examine infinity. Infinity would consist of
everything, wouldn't it, just at first glance and first
analysis. And so that would mean sweeping action, it would
mean sweeping decision, it would be "to be." But in order
to be you have to have willingness to be, and as you go up
the line - all angels have two faces: one white, one black
- you have to be willing to destroy as well as willing to
create. "To be" is everything, and therefore as you go up
the line, you have to be willing to risk, to dare.

There is nothing to be gained by backing up from life. That
isn't the way out, except through the bottom. If you want
to become MEST, back up from life and say "The material is
no good. We must now codify our behavior so that we have to
take eighteen sacred glances at the whopajug every day,
whistle 'Yankee Doodle' backwards six times and go through
the sacred ceremonies of turning off TV. And then we will
become holy and part of all and godly."

That was the biggest control operation that anybody ever
put across in the course of this human race! That's really
a wonderful control operation, because it takes any one of
you who wants to be, who wants to get into action, who
wants to control life, who wants to assume an allness and
an intimacy with all of creation, and it says gladly and
happily, "Here's the route, fellow. Here it is. Here it is.
You sit down with your flanks of your legs flopped out for
eight hours a day and you do the Ibis. And you stand up and
bow down before this altar sixteen times, and you count
your mouth organs or something and say 'Om mani padme om,
om mani padme om, om mani padme om,' and you'll get there."

It's a dirty trick! It's as dirty a trick as taking some
little kid, and he's walking down the street and he's all
happy and cheerful and he wants to go to the movies. He
wants to go to the movies. And you know that off on this
other street down here they're fumigating - they're
fumigating a house - and it's a dirty, narrow alley. And
this little kid can't read, and there's a big sign there,
says Danger, Stay Out of This Area. So you carefully tell
the little kid, very gently - you say, "Well, sonny, I tell
you how you go to the movies. You go down this alley and
there's a red and white sign down at the end of alley. And
you can't read, but that sign really says Movies This
Direction. And you go down to the other end of the alley
and you stand there for fifteen minutes, and they'll open
the door and you'll get in the back of the theater for
nothing." And then you smile very happily and sweetly to
yourself - little Audrey just laughed and laughed. And you
go down a little bit later and stir the body up with your toe
and say "Ha! Ha! Ha! What a big joke!"

Well, that is about as big a joke as has been put across on
the human race. They tell you to go down that alley through
the phosgene gas, and that's the way to live. Well, it
isn't. The way to live is to go to the movies - the other
route.

Now, here was a crossroads for man. Here was his chance to
get up again, to be, to be constructive, to exist in
groups, to cooperate with his fellows, to be above the need
of law and order, to assume an ethical level which was so
natural and so well understood that at no time would
anybody need to moderate it - there's a natural ethic - and
because somebody wanted a body to control, they turned them
down the other street and they said, "Be quiet."

And therefore Technique 80 can be summed up very quickly.
Technique 80 is summed up simply by practicing beingness
successively through all the dynamics on up the line, and
of carefully taking each rampart of bein guess as each
dynamic approaches.

The dynamics are eight. Before you hit two, be one - really
be one. And before you hit three, for heaven's sakes, be
two. And before you hit four, you sure should be able to be
a group, to be a part of a group or all of a group at will,
and so on up the line.

This includes, for instance, number five. Now, it seems
rather strange to you to say that you could suddenly be a
cat. Well, there's a cat over there and all of a sudden,
how does that cat feel and think? Now, how does that cat
feel? What's that cat all about? See, we're not talking now
about not having any body; we're talking about you've got a
body, just like you are now, and you suddenly say to
yourself, "Well . . . Ha, it's very amusing to be a cat,
thinking about mice. Well! well! Hm-hm. Slpp! Good mice.
Yeah." Of course, you sit right now and you think of biting
a mouse. You think "Mice have mites, you know, and lice."
And they're not very cleanly gutted down at the
slaughterhouse, and not laid out in a butcher's shelf with
artificial red coloring on them and so forth or anything.

And if you could face being a cat and enjoying biting a
mouse, you've learned how to be on the fifth. But don't
think you can be on the fifth or even begin to approach
infinity unless you can do such things. And it's very easy
to do, very easy to do.

Now, supposing you started to do this, supposing you
started to be on the fifth dynamic-which is the dynamic of
life, includes all species - and you hadn't bothered, ever,
to be your right hand. Just like that - you never could be
your right hand, but you go over here madly and you say
"I'll be the fifth." Your right hand will say to you
"(whistle) - me." You'll be very aware of that right hand.

Try it just for a moment. Try it just for a moment: Be that
car for a minute. What pulls you back from being that car?

Female voice: Well, because the car is very depressed.

The car is depressed? But do you get any feeling that you
are too aware of being where you are to be anywhere else?
Do you get that feeling? You are very aware of being here
in your body. Why are you aware of being in your body?
Well, it's because you've never become aware.

Boy, you're low on the tone scale if you're aware of being
your body. To work for awareness, just awareness all by
itself, would be practically nothing.

You could be aware of the body. What you want to be on the
first dynamic is to be so aware of the body that you then
rise up, pass through that and become never aware of the
body.

Did you ever see a ballet dancer who was aware of his feet?
No, not a good one. Nor have you ever seen a tennis player
who was aware of his racket.

You know how to win a game of tennis over any opponent?
Just before the game you say, "How do you hold your racket,
George?" A wonderful technique. "Teach me that backstroke"
- great, nothing like it. It's not sportsmanlike, but in the
whole business of beingness you have to learn to be not
sportsmanlike too. All right.

You get, then, roughly what we're tackling when we tackle
beingness, and you get a fair idea of what Technique 80 is.
Technique 80 is the practice of beingness on each dynamic
successively, and the practice of beingness on a dynamic
until you can be that whole dynamic. Technique 80 doesn't
have very much to do with facsimiles or their erasure or
running on a time track or anything else.

Technique 80 uses the principle that you are a built-in
disintegrator. You have one, you are one, and there's
actually a way of agitating an area with your thoughts:
going brrrrr over something that just fries it down.

You know these Buck Rogers ray pistols, all this stuff in
space opera, and so forth? The original ray gun, you see,
is you. You ever walk into a room and know that people were
talking about you? Just been talking about you just a
moment ago. You know that. You know, you say - feel that?
All right. Very simple.

There is actually an output, and it is an energy output.
And if you had a sufficiently sensitive oscilloscope, you
could measure it-not only that but you could get its
wavelength.

During this series I am going to tell you the wavelengths
of these various things. They are rather fabulous
wavelengths. You will really blink when you think of
wavelengths of this character, but these things have
wavelengths - people have wavelengths, in other words. Not
much to it. Emotion has wave-lengths.

You can take a person and shoot him with a certain
wavelength and he will experience that emotion and so on.

In other words, your beingness extends from a zero or an
infinity, which is the basic "youness," and that is the
static called theta - theta as a static. But as we proceed
from that static, we go immediately into energy, wavelength.
And the wavelength becomes more and more gross, more and
more gross, more and more gross. It enters into the top band
of radio, it goes into all the bands of electronic flow, and
finally congeals into the band of matter. And the matter gets
denser and denser and denser until you get to plutonium. And
the second you get to plutonium you get to zero, because the
second it comes into being it blows up. Okay? You go from zero
to zero.

There's one or two beyond plutonium that the boys haven't
discovered yet, and I have a little joss stick burning to
the effect that they will be struck dead in this life or
something before they invent those. Because we've got a
certain use for a very short time of the physical universe
here, and I hate to see people fool with it.

And this disintegrator technique of which I speak actually
only treats engrams.

I'm really not joking when I tell you about a Buck Rogers
disintegrator pistol. What's a disintegrator pistol? That's
you!

Why do you think a facsimile reduces - an engram, a thought
reduces when you go over it a few times? Just think of
that. It's not because you are rubbing it against anything
or something like that. You're actually going thrrrrrn;
thrrrrrrr. Why do it slow? Why not do it pyeww! Same
process.

Really, it's not the same process. Because you take a
person who is very low on the tone scale and he isn't
putting out much in the way of disintegration. He's putting
out practically nothing. So you run this engram and you run
this engram and you run it - nothing happens. He's getting
worse. So you take a light lock - that is to say, a little
experience: he went out and he found out he'd left his car
keys in the house. You know? This to some people would be a
terrible experience. They practically couldn't recover from
this. And you take that experience, and you can take him
back on the track and actually run through that experience
with him, and you run through it maybe fifteen or twenty
times and it finally reduces a little. This guy is
practically MEST; he's in bad shape. And by the way, he'll
look that way to you.

Now, when a person is well up the tone scale, he thinks of
a whole chain of locks and they go pyew! He says, "Well,
worried me for a long time. Well, its..."

And you get a person high enough up the tone scale, working
him like this, the next thing you know, he looks at a
physical-pain engram, a facsimile, a thought - that is to
say, it's a recording, recording of an actual pressure and
injury - and he takes a look at this thing and it reduces
right now. He just looks at it and it goes whshooh! "Well,
well, so that was why my arm was hurting. Let's go on to
something else."

What's the difference here? As you come up the tone scale
you get to be a better disintegrator pistol, that's all;
that's really all there is to it.

Now, we can demonstrate to you very adequately that by
going over and over an incident of any kind it will
eventually reduce. The speed of its reduction and how fast
a preclear can reduce it depends utterly and completely on
how high he is up the tone scale, because this determines
how fast his own thought can disintegrate and degenerate
other thought.

Now, you know people when they come around and invalidate
you: they say, "Oh, well, it wasn't so-and-so and
so-and-so." You know people that you don't pay any
attention at all. They can come around and they can tell
you "Well, you're flatfooted and you're this and you're
that" and so forth, and yap, yap, yap, yap, and "Your ideas
are no good and you just didn't have anything to do with
school" and so on - yap, yap - and it wouldn't have any effect
on you at all. You'd say, "Ah, so what?" You know such
people. Their disintegrator mechanism isn't good.

But you take a person up the tone scale and he says, "You
know, that idea you had about a book. Well, I was thinking,
in chapter two ..." What happens? Your whole idea about the
book goes wsheeww! And you say, Where's my book?" In other
words, this person at one glance actually is capable of
destroying your illusion.

Illusions are way up the tone scale; they are very easy to
destroy, you see? So your erasing an incident in yourself
is merely a disintegration of an accumulation of effort,
counter-effort, emotion, counter-emotion, thought and
counter-thought. You're disintegrating a unit: the
facsimile of this unit is what you're disintegrating.

Now, you as an auditor are working on a preclear who is
lying on a couch: you're disintegrating his engrams just as
much as he is. And if you're really up the tone scale, you
can do faith healing. He walks in the room, you say, "Go
thou and do likewise," or something, and he immediately
loses both legs. By the way, that's too high up the tone
scale - I beg your pardon-too high up. He just loses an
engram.

This principle - you see it as I talk to you here; you see
what it amounts to. You see, there was a little secret on
the line and it said, "Well, you run an engram over and
over and over and it reduces and goes away. You run effort
and counter-effort, and emotion and counter-effort
[counter-emotion] and you re-experience it, and the
re-experience of it is sufficient." And you considered that
an explanation. It's not an explanation at all. It tells
you an application. An explanation of the application is
that you actually disintegrate these things. And the speed
of disintegration depends on the height on the tone scale.
In other words, what is your ability to disintegrate?

Now, an auditor works for a while, and he's rather - gets
rather dull on blowing things to pieces. Because he's
unable to blow to pieces at a glance the preclear's
engrams, he gets the idea he can't blow his own. And after
a while he will be running on the bank and he'll find out
he can't blow a lock. And this is very silly.

Now, the best state for you to be in is to blow every
facsimile you have at any time you want to blow all of
these facsimiles - and I mean all your facsimiles.

And so, your disintegration of a facsimile - one facsimile,
you see - could be understood if you disintegrated every
facsimile you had. Supposing you could disintegrate them
all at will.

And by the way, you don't need experience. That's another
operation. There is no sense at all in your having to
remember having been taught how to do something or other.
There is no sense in that. You should be able just to
suddenly be the thing, and therefore you can do it.

To be is to know.

You should be able, by the way, not ever to have to
remember an engineering formula or anything like this. You
don't go back down the time track to look at the book in a
facsimile. That is a secondary operation and not an optimum
one! What you do is go to the library and look at it and go
so fast and come back so fast that you don't even know
you've gone!

Somebody walks up to you and says, "What is the wavelength of
sputter-guffs?"

And you say, "Well, it's 8216 to the minus umpf." And they
say, "Well, how did you know that? My, that was bright! How
did you know that?"

"Well, I just knew it."

And if you check this over very often, you'll pick up your
knowledge in your environment, in your immediate environment.
You see, that's another operation. Because you've been taught
that you had to learn all the time, well, you just didn't
have a chance.

Now, theoretically, then, you should be able to blow every
facsimile you've got, just disintegrate them - wshew!

Technique 80 is the cultivation of disintegration of
engrams. And you've got this picture that just keeps
hanging in front of your face and you're not sure why.
Well, instead of going over it and over it and over it this
way, you just simply go rrrrr! and it's gone! It's a
development of that facility. It's a very interesting
facility.

You could actually look at a facsimile and have it go
whooh. Now, maybe that sounds pretty high up on the tone
scale to you, but it is.

How do you get there? How do you get there so that you can
do this? Some of you all of a sudden have been carrying
this picture around of Agnes' face or something of the
sort, and you got annoyed looking at it all the time like
that, and so on.

The way to live is live; the way to be is be. So be where
you are! In order to be where you are, of course, you have
to get rid of this facsimile. So the way to handle Agnes'
face and this picture thereof is just go whssh. You're just
perfectly willing to be in the spot where she was in.
Because if you're backing up from Agnes, you're not willing
to be in the spot she's in. You see? You're saying "There's
poor Agnes' face." You see, "I have done something - overt
act; I wasn't willing to do this, and I distinctly remember
all the horrible things about Agnes," and yap, yap, "and so
therefore I can't get rid of her"- big computation going on
about this all the time, so there's her face.

Well, if you're willing to be and to have done everything
that happened, anyhow, and so forth, you get an automatic
disintegration - pshewww - and the picture is gone. That's
the way you ought to be able to run an engram. That's also
the way you ought to be able to run your arthritis.
Arthritis - whooh.

How do you do it? Not mystically. It's actually by a
facility which you have which you speed up, so if you learn
to speed up this facility you will be able to do that. I am
not asking any of you to do this, because that is an
ultimate on Technique 80.

There is the low-level part of the technique, which
consists of ARC on each dynamic. And you can carefully plot
up and pick up ARC on each part of every dynamic and go
over that carefully through the line, till you will key out
or partly disintegrate out each and every bar there is to
your state of beingness.

But this is done as a present-time technique. And Technique
80 is 100 percent a present-time technique. Its capability
is to bring you up to a level where - while still in a body
- you are capable of being, and experiencing with, every
part of the universe while you're still in that body.
That's 80.

Now, in order to achieve this, it's only necessary that you
know A, R, C, in all their ramifications - the component
parts and how you apply them.

Many months ago we had a technique of getting into
communication with various parts of the body. Well, it's
not a solid technique because it doesn't have too much
behind it. And you notice that as you try to do this - try
to get into communication with this part and that part and
so forth, a cross-communication that sometimes it'd only
last for a few hours, or maybe only last for a day, and
then there would be the fellow right back again out of
communication with that part of his body.

Well, there is a special way of getting into communication.
And just in passing, you don't have a telephone lineman
monkeying around when he's going to string a telephone line.
He strings it! He takes the truck and he takes the wire and
the reel and cuts through the brush and knocks down the trees
and chews up the ground and puts up the posts and nails the
wire in place - bang! Good, solid, ornery sort of an operation.
You see? Determination that this is going to happen.

Well, you can get into communication on a determination
angle with any part of your body. You can suddenly
determine to get in communication with your big toe and
instead of fishing around for it and monkeying around with
it and so forth, just knock it through the line. That's
all. Just hook it all up and there you are.

And there's two other parts of it, you see? And you have to
rehabilitate these two other parts and then you find out
you can rehabilitate the C. And then you rehabilitate the
two other parts and then you'd rehabilitate the C again, by
which I mean communications. And you rehabilitate the two
other parts and then communications again. So it's a
gradient, step-by-step procedure.

And the two other steps I mentioned, of course, are affinity
and reality.

So, the way you get in communication with any part of the
body is first just slam a line through, any way you can,
and then pick it up on the A, then pick it up on the R.
Then get the line through better; then pick it up on the
affinity, reality. The line through better; affinity,
reality. And eventually, doing that step by step, you don't
just simply hook up a communication line and there it is.
No, it gets better than that. You start up here and by the
time you've run the first ARC, you've brought your level up
a little bit with regard to that part of the body; then a
little bit more and a little bit more, a little bit more, a
little bit more, a little bit more, until, oddly enough,
you are no longer in communication, particularly, with that
part of the body: you are it. You become completely unaware
of it. It just vanishes as far as you're concerned. It's in
perfect condition - perfect. You practically couldn't hurt
it, by the way, after you do that.

And your extension of ARC goes on out into the environment.
Therefore, what 80 does is hook-in a gradient scale-ARC up
with every part of you and beingness of you until you don't
even know you're you. And you're so at ease, as far as
being your body is concerned, you can do anything with it.

Now, your next step, of course, is to go on up the rest of
the dynamics the same way. But there's a very, very basic
step that you must not overlook: Find Out who you are
first. A lot of people have a lot of trouble with this.

But before I talk about it very much let's take a little
breather, and I'll talk to you a little longer if you want
me to.

================


Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 691
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Re: THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

Сообщение auditor » 30 дек 2015, 16:52

Route To Infinity Lecture #3

WAVELENGTHS OF ARC

A lecture given on 19 May 1952

[original title "Wavelength and Tone Scale", T80-1D]

================

Okay.

Now, many people down through the ages have adventured upon
a technique which is known in psychiatry as having been
authored by a fellow by the name of - well, he calls himself
Krishnamurti. This Krishnamurti is out in Los Angeles or
someplace, and he has a technique which he calls "awareness
through action," some such thing. "Awareness of the present
through action" or "the present through action" or some
such thing.

And the idea has been around for an awfully long time that
all a fellow had to do was pay attention to present time
and he was all set! This was an inarticulated, unexplained
effort to get into present time.

You know, you walk into a mental institution, by the way,
and you just walk up to a certain number of patients and
you say to each one in turn - you say, "Come up to present
time." And you go over to the next patient and you say,
"Come up to present time." And out of every five or ten or
something like that, some fellow who has been crazy as a
bedbug up to that moment will say, "Gngh! What am I doing
here?" He's in present time.

One notable example of this was a young lady in an
institution. I think it was up in Michigan. A Dianeticist
went through the institution and was talking to the
psychiatrists and so forth and said, "Well, you see, it
works like this." And turned around to a young girl and he
said, "Well" (she was drooling and hadn't talked and didn't
talk to anybody and way out of communication) - he suddenly
said to her, "Come up to present time!" She shook her head,
swallowed a couple of times and said, "All right," and that
night gave a speech at a party saying how glad she was to be
there. She had simply come up to present time. She had a
terrific case of acne and it went away in three days, and she
stayed in present time and she was perfectly sane afterwards.

So just the suggestion to some people that there is a
present time they can come to, or a present time does
exist, occasionally seems quite sufficient to bring them
into a state of at least neurosis.

Now, don't for a moment, however, be deluded into believing
that the technique of getting into present time or being
aware of present time is any very high-level technique nor
any very high ambition.

The psychotic lives in and is aware of the past.

The neurotic lives in and is aware of the present.

And the very sane lives almost exclusively in the future.
He has to, of course, live in the future because he keeps
catching up with himself so fast! You know - Rrrrr! He's
got to be in the next moment all the time, otherwise he's
not anyplace! And it's just a headlong javelin throw down
the time track when a fellow is in good shape.

Now, therefore, let's take this old, moth-eaten idea,
awareness of the present. Now let's make it workable for
the first time. Let's not say, "Well, the way to awareness
of the present is to every morning get up, and you take two
dumbbells and you knock them together - bop, bop, bop,
bop, bop, bop, bop - and you hear their noise, you see?
Then you put them down again and you're in present time."
Well, it makes money but it's not a good technique. You can
tell somebody that "Well, the way to really get sane is to
go out and mow the lawn. Yeah, go through all this physical
motion. That's the thing to do." "What you need are sports.
Go out and play tennis every day. Action, action, action!"
Or, "Work hard."

These are all rather - rather control-mechanism therapies,
by the way. You tell somebody that if he exercises his arm
long enough like this, he will eventually get big muscles
and this is good and he will be healthy - of course, he'll
get an oversized heart, but his muscles will get bulgy.

Well, naturally, if you create enough facsimiles of
terrific effort you're going to get a bulge, because you're
going to turn the facsimiles into such heavy effort, you
see, that they turn into MEST itself! And gradually you
bulge all over, but you can't do anything. Ha! That's the
truth of the matter. That's muscles! Muscles! Very good
thing, muscles. I'm not sure what's good about them but
they're very good.

Now, production of awareness of the present by creation of
heavy MEST facsimiles is not a good technique, but let's
develop awareness of the present so that we can develop
awareness of the future, so that we can then go far enough
ahead so we don't have to be aware of the present. That's
really good.

By the way, you can go around and see the present and
compute on the present and have a good time with the
present and everything else, recombining it continually so
that you will have a better future.

Actually, the business of action is the business of
recombining the elements in the present or putting new
elements into the present so that you've got a future.

You ever run into anybody when they walk in an old, knocked
- down dilapidated house, they don't see the cracks in the
walls or the scratches in the floor or anything else? They
see this beautifully modernistically furnished apartment.
They say, "That's very nice. That's very nice.

You say, "What's very nice about it? Look at the cockroaches
and so forth."

Well, when you say that, of course, you're in the present.
But this happy, cheerful person that's with you says,
"Well, these, these purple and green drapes, and so forth,
and we put the chow bench there and-very beautiful place.
Fine. Swell."

And by the way, the ultimate of that is for this person to
walk in and take a look at this, and all the cracks go pop!
the floor polishes, the drapes go wheww! And somebody else
walks in and they say, "My God!" You create an illusion so
solid that it comes into being!

Don't think there is any trick, though, to creating
illusion that comes into being. Any one of you continually
creates illusions which become being - any one of you does
this.

You say, "Now, let's see. I think I'll wash my car." Why do
you want to wash the car? Well, you want the - you've got
already the illusion of a clean car. You see? You say,
"Illusion-clean car." Now we'll take some MEST action in
the physical universe and. . . clean car. Of course, that
took physical labor. It doesn't matter whether you took
physical labor or you suddenly went out and you said, "I
want a nice clean car. Isn't that pretty?" Glitter, and
it's all clean. That's that. Really no reason why you
couldn't do that, but that's the reductio ad absurdum of
this.

Most people take it out by being very efficient with their
motion so that they create an illusion and make an
actuality out of illusion.

Take Hollywood, for instance. Hollywood films a play called
"Streetcar Named Desire", and it has all of these tenements
on New Orleans, and the fine ironwork, and it has the
various styles that are in use, and it has all these
various things and so on. The next thing you know, why,
somebody is building something someplace out in Keokuk and
it has some ironwork on it. And somebody designs a new
dress someplace, and it's the dress that they saw in "A
Streetcar Named Desire".

What was that movie? "Forever Amber". Here is Amber. All
right, Hollywood turns the crank on the illusion they have
created. Actually they had to build the illusion before
they could turn the crank on it, but it comes out as an
illusion. And the next thing you know, you look in all the
store windows and so forth and you see Forever Amber's hat.
The illusion is produced and then people accept the
illusion, and it becomes a reality the moment they agree
upon it. You see?

So future is the creation of a future illusion and the
working toward that illusion to make it a reality.

Some people drop off so that they just create future
illusions. And by the way, this must be very good, because
everybody is so down on it. They say, "Don't daydream.
Don't daydream! That's bad! What you want to do is work.
That's good. Muscles and so forth. Don't daydream."

But some people get hopeless about making the illusion into
a reality, and so all they do is dream the illusion. But
believe me, that is far in advance of never having an
illusion.

That person who only has present time - God help him! Look
at him. You can look at this place here or look at some
similar place and you say, "Well, it has this factor and
that factor and this factor and that factor." Most of the
people putting this place together right now aren't looking
at it. They don't see this place this way. They've got it
all built!

You'd be surprised, but where you're sitting right now
- probably there's a building there.

Thought becomes matter, and matter can come out of thought.
And when your thought gets into bad shape and you're not
directing it well at all, it'll turn into matter
eventually, but the wrong way! So that when you try to go
in through MEST energy and action into the real universe
just as such - MEST action only, with no aesthetic, no art,
no dream, none of these things - you're just going to go into
the present, and that's not good enough. It's good enough
for a raving psychotic to be in present, but it's not good
enough for you.

Now, when you take the will to do action, and to that you
add aesthetics, shape, form, dreams, illusion, now you're
moving up into the real band of sanity. That is the real
band.

There's an old, old poem that says, "And the best of a man
is gone when the best of his dreams is dead." And it
finishes up to the effect that when the last of his dreams
is dead, he's dead too. And that's very true. But actually,
when the last of his dreams is dead, he's just moved into
present time only. That's a hideous place to be! So I just
give you the difference of goals.

The Krishnamurti goal, and so forth, would be the goal of
now - if he could just get people into a neurotic state he'd
be happy. We want people up here - whssh! - way up! And the
way you get way up is to be you, and then be! be! be! all the
way along the line.

So, let's examine, then, and find out what "be" is. It has
three component parts: affinity, reality and communication.
These three things together, by the way, can be
demonstrated to be mathematics.

Mathematics itself is based upon the interaction of
affinity, reality and communication. I won't bother to go
into that. But it actually is very simple.

For instance, you're trying to get figures and symbols to
agree, and you're trying to get a communication by the
whole operation between your mind and somebody else's. And
you are examining similarities and identities - in other
words, affinities. And you can interact with affinity,
reality and communication and you get mathematics. You also
get understanding; understanding consists of this. And you
also get, of course, higher-up beingness - be.

The gradient scale of be, then, is the gradient scale of
ARC. And a low, low level of ARC is survive, and a higher
level is beingness.

What do we mean then by ARC?

Affinity. Affinity could be defined as love, but that would
be a very poor definition for it. It means the tendency to
adhese or cohese to something else, or not to cohese to
something else. In other words, affinity doesn't mean love.
It means love, hate, apathy; it means anything along the
line that would have to do with describing an emotion. But
it's not quite the emotion either.

We have, then, a molecule in this piece of iron here, or
brass, and that molecule has a tendency to stay near
another molecule. What's that tendency to stay near? Well,
it comes under the heading of one has an affinity for the
other. And affinity runs down the tone scale till we'll
find two objects which won't stay together - they will move
away from each other. There are certain chemicals that do
this. They have a low affinity for each other, until the
affinity reaches zero. In other words, affinity can be
repulsive as well as attractive.

So, affinity is the relative identification or similarity
or differentiation amongst whatever you want to say it's
amongst. That's affinity.

You say, "One person has affinity for another." It would be
a specialized use of the word.

This word is taken, by the way, from the vocabulary of the
magician, about 900 A.D. He had no way to sum up love and
love. And he bridged it by saying "relative affinity."
Because there is the love of an individual for an object,
of a person - a man, for instance - for a man, which merely
means affection. There's the love of people, one for
another. And then there happens to be a second dynamic
connotation of the word, "love." And "love," of course, is
what they sing about down on Tin Pan Alley: moon, June,
croon, soon and love. Love. So, you don't get a plain look
at it. Actually, either love is a part of affinity, so it's
relative affinity.

Affinity is a relative thing. It runs all the way up from
actually being so close an affinity to something that you
are the thing, down to not being anything, much less being
in affinity with something. And it passes through the
stages of being repelled, hating, so forth. Those are all
relative affinities.

All right, let's take communication. You think that
communication perhaps consists of somebody saying yap, yap,
yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, or somebody writing down on a
Western Union telegraph blank. Oh, no. The most intimate
communication which you have is right now probably your
tactile sense. You touch something, that's communication.
Another sense of communication is sight, another one is
hearing. These are communications. The use of sound and
words are highly specialized communications. ALL perception
is communication.

Now, there are various gradient scales of communication.
Communication starts in at the bottom of the tone scale
with no communication, goes up through perverted
communications, comes up to real communication or real
sight, comes on up the tone scale - we're all this way, by
the way, going through the MEST universe. You know, you
send a sound wave out and it hits somebody's ear. Here is
"I" and here is "I" and you go through the MEST universe
and you get from "I" to "I" by perception, you see?

Here's a person, here's a person. They hear each other,
they see each other. You're going through the MEST
universe. You're using energy waves, sound waves, all that
sort of thing. And it goes up through the tone scale up to
there and suddenly starts to bridge, and goes from person
to person without the MEST universe being in there.

And its first method of doing that is by emotion. You get
an emotional interchange of waves. Now, you've experienced
that. If you want to run back on the tone scale, by the
way - pardon me, run the tone scale down along the level and
just see if you can experience any time you've ever had
anybody's counter - emotion, you will find that the person
who hated you the most is a person who was just stuck right
on the track right there. An emotional wave was proceeding
from that person, and that emotional wave was aided and
abetted by the fact that you were resisting that person, so
it has actually gone up above what we normally consider to
be matter and energy and space and time and has gotten into
the band of an emotional wave. It really is a wavelength.
It's a pretty crude wavelength.

But you can feel that. If you think of somebody who hated
you, you'll find out that their hate's bunched up on you
someplace. You're actually getting a communication line
direct without intervention of sight, sound or anything
else. It's an emotional wave. It's still a wave action,
however.

Now you go up the line a little higher and you get into the
band of enthusiasm. You ever felt somebody else's
enthusiasm? You ever felt the contagion of enthusiasm? All
right, there is that. It is a communication. It is a wave
motion that people in pretty good shape feel easily. People
who are down though - they are low on the tone scale, of
course - never could tune in on enthusiasm; it's just a
little bit too high up. The wave is different.

And then we go way on up the tone scale to a figure that
looks like a point - that many zeros out, and we get the
wavelength of aesthetics - very, very high! [See Ron's
handwritten notes on the wavelengths of the tone scale in
the Appendix.] And yet not so high that we couldn't
duplicate it today with our electronics. But it's way up
there! That's aesthetics.

And you get a person as he drops down the tone scale, he
becomes less and less able to do aesthetics or appreciate
aesthetics. One of the most aberrative incidents you had in
your - in this lifetime, by the way, was running up to one of
your parents and saying "It's pretty," and they say, Well,
Junior, wash your hands for dinner." In other words, they
said, "Aesthetics - phhh! Aesthetics - nah. What you want to
be is practical!" The use of "practicality" is very poor.

But do you know that the aesthetic wavelength and that band
immediately below it and above it and around the mid-band
of aesthetics - is practically a disintegrator wave; it just
thaws through all thought of a lower tone.

You can produce a piece of beauty or, if you please, an
aesthetic ugliness of such a magnitude that you just stop
people in their tracks! You can blow away and erase their
anger, hate, discomfort or anything else with an aesthetic.

But when you can generate an aesthetic that high, you are
so high up the tone scale that you practically own them.
And they realize it, and they say "Hmm! Ohhh!"

The way you really fix up a society is to kill all its
artists, like they do in the United States. They don't let
an artist exist in this country. One of the things they do
is they try to teach him in the university. You can't teach
the guy aesthetics; he has to come clear down here on the
band of the tone scale to get into MEST communication level
with somebody who is going to teach him about something
which is - whssht! - way up here! Can't do it. An artist
is an artist.
And any one of you is an artist if you are up in that
band, if you can emanate that band. Nothing under the sun
will mold up faster than that band. It'll go into anything.

A story somebody mentioned to me the other night: a crowd
became very angry at an artist in some ancient
civilization; it became furious with this artist because he
had taken a slave and had made the slave pose so long and
so arduously that the slave had sickened and died. And the
artist had used him as a model, and the crowd grew very,
very angry and they were storming his doors and about to
tear the house down, when the artist simply walked out and
held up the picture he had made of that slave. And the
crowd stopped, and that stopped all the motion as far as
they were concerned and they went home. That was the
answer.

It's very hard to see this today, because they turn art
immediately into a commercial channel, quickly. Kill it!
Bring it down the line.

Do you know that it was against the law to do any artwork
in this country 175 years ago? That you could be whipped,
stoned? People like Paul Revere had to take it out by
saying "It's practical." And so they made silverware and
ironware and things of that character because it was
against the law for them to do anything else. Bluntly against
the law! We've gotten a little bit better, so we must be
coming up the tone scale a little bit in some respects.
All right.

When you examine this band, this is a band of
communication. And there isn't anything very mystic about
it; it's about as mystic as sitting down and reading an
oscilloscope. There it is, and there are the wavelengths,
and that's that.

You can commit aesthetic waves in combinations so that they
will re-emanate on an aesthetic band. That's quite a trick.
It's done instinctively; it's not done much by rules and
laws. But if you wanted to get down to it, you could write
up all the laws that had to do with aesthetics.

Now, there's communication. And the highest level of
communication there is, is art, and the lowest level there
is, is a whip. And you can take your choice in a society of
whether or not it's going to be an aesthetic or a whip.

And all the past generations that we are in intimate
contact with took the whip! But they're still communication
lines.

Reality is another thing, and rather frightening to realize
that the only reality, the only reality you know in common
with other people is that reality on which you and they
have agreed. This is an old one in Dianetics, very old one.

We're all sitting here and all of a sudden this cat walks
in. We all saw a cat. We agree that thing is a cat. Fellow
walks up and he says, "That wasn't a cat, that was a
Cadillac."

You say, "It wasn't. It was a cat."

Well, it's a rather a pointless argument, because all
reality is established by is the majority opinion. One for
you to think about. All the reality there is, really, is a
majority opinion.

So you get into a minority on reality, and people start
really fighting you. They say, "He must be crazy. He
doesn't agree with us." Well, their reality might be
entirely a psychotic reality in that it was not good for
their beingness. They've all decided not to be, you see?
They say, "Well, we'll just - what's real here is
not-beingness. Nothing exists; that's real. We have all
agreed that nothing exists."

The United States right now is on the very astonishing
basis of "We have all agreed the atom bomb does not exist."
Ha! Well, it doesn't exist! There's only one unfortunate
thing about that, is they are not joined in that agreement
with Russia. The atom bomb would practically cease to exist
if everybody in the United States and everybody in Russia,
or even the majorities in both places, were in perfect
agreement that the atom bomb didn't exist. Or if they were
even in agreement that it was not a threat, it would cease
to be a threat. That would be a real thing, then, wouldn't
it?

Well, enough people agreed hard enough one time about the
MEST universe to make various things in the MEST universe.
And that's the long and short of it, and that's why you got
a MEST universe. That's reality!

But if you go around searching for what people say you must
face and call reality, in other words, if you go around
obeying this thing "Well, the only thing that's wrong with
you can be healed and so forth if you just face reality.
Now, if you will just pay me twenty-five dollars an hour
and face reality, we'll all be nuts." Excuse me, I mean,
we'll all be rich. That's wrong too, because the patient
would be poor. That is your standard therapeutic advice,
however. Face reality! In other words, agree with
everybody!

Well, I don't know how sick you can get reading Dale
Carnegie, but it's not well. Because to some slight degree
you become that with which you agree. If you agree that the
desert is a dirty place, you will become dirty. Blunt as
that! You become to some degree that with which you agree.
And the only way you can escape it is to go up - high enough
up the tone scale so that you are creating an illusion for
yourself.

I saw a cartoon one day, a wonderful cartoon, a wonderful
cartoon. It said, "Doctor, I just go on day after day
facing the same grim reality." He had learned to face
reality 100 percent and he was a sick man.

What you've got to teach a man to learn, if you are going
to teach him to learn anything, is you've got to teach him
to face his own illusions. To hell with his reality -
everybody has got reality. Throw it overboard.

You start agreeing with every reality that you run into and
you will have a good time!

Now, in Dianetics you go out in the society and you wonder
why you have gone out of communication just a little bit.
It's because you don't any longer agree with their reality.
You've said their reality is too MEST! Because, you see,
reality is on this gradient scale too.

And you've seen a society which is perfectly willing to be
in chaos. What's this? This thing is in chaos; it's a solid
chaos. It's going in all directions this way and so on, and
it's going all so furiously and so fast and with so much
force that it became solid, and so there it is, a solid chaos.

And you get the society: as it goes down the tone scale it
approaches that chaos. And when you get a living culture
which has gone down the line to where it doesn't care about
this and it doesn't care about that and it says this is
that and so on, and so on and so on, it's getting too close
to being a dead culture. And you, being a little higher up
the tone scale, say, "Hey. I don't want to be that dead."
That second, you've gone out of agreement with it! So your
reality goes out of it and you go out of communication with
it.

Did you ever see a Republican and a Democrat communicating?
No, you've seen them talking, not communicating.

One of them says, "And you take that FDR you had! He ought
to have been taken out and shot!"

And the other fellow says, "And Eisenhower -- yap, yap, yap."

They're just talking - yap, yap, yap - no communication.
Why? But it's too broad a thing to say no communication,
because actually it is a point on the communication tone
scale: It's hate-opposed. And so you've got this, and
there's just no line hooked up through, because at this
same point there's no agreement. And, believe me, there's
no affinity; they don't like each other.

And you can say, just bluntly, that there will be as much
communication as there is affinity; there will be as much
agreement as there is communication; there will be as much
affinity as there is communication. They just interact,
interact - any of the three points.

So, you've got this whole band. if you want to go up tone
scale, you'll finally arrive at the beingness which is an
aesthetic beingness, and there alone is enough horsepower
to come right around and actually create or disintegrate
matter. I snuck up on you with that one, but that's what
you do.

Somebody thought this universe up, and I do mean "thought
it up." That's why you can erase an engram. That's why a
fellow who has too many engrams eventually dies; he just
gets to be matter.

How dead can you get? Matter.

All matter, you could say, is dead thought.

Now, we're not trying to produce on you here "all is
illusion" and "God is sex" or whatever that creed was. All
we're trying to introduce here is just this simple fact
that here's a band, and from the top to the bottom of this
band, you actually have one thing: motion. It goes from no
motion, which is the static - the extreme static of thought
- to the frozen motion of matter. There is your band:
motion which is more and more solid, more and more in close
proximity, till you get clear to the bottom.

And way up here at the top we call this theta, just for a
term. We come a certain ways down the band, as long as it
will tolerate sanity and thought - and we say from the top
down here to the bottom level of sanity and thought "This
is theta."

Now, from the point where it will no longer tolerate
sanity, but life is in support and so forth, from there on
down we call it enturbulated theta, or entheta. And from
this point, from the bottom of entheta which is about death
- from there on down (but these are overlapped slightly
here and there) - you have material universe. That's MEST.
And this has been sitting on a tone scale looking at you
for a long time. But there it is, it's a gradient scale.

You can stop kidding yourself anymore about "getting away
from reality," by which you would mean "getting away from
the material universe" or doing this or doing that.

If you want to get rid of the material universe, you'll
have to erase it.

Best way I can think of to erase it - if we all sat down
and looked at a stone long enough it'd disappear. We're not
that high up the tone scale. The best way to make a stone
disappear is to hit it on the aesthetic band. If you were
way up, that you could probably do. But that's an extreme.

And all we are trying to do with Technique 80 is hook in
affinity, reality and communication. First, find the point
from which you are emanating; that's quite a trick. Next,
at least take complete possession of your own body, and do
it in the present and future, not the present and past. And
then take possession of the dynamics as they go out from you,
and be able to get into full, high-level ARC on those dynamics.

But this doesn't mean, doesn't mean, that you would suffer
by going into ARC with something that was low on the tone
scale. By building yourself up and by having a jumping-off
point of you finding out who you are and then taking
possession of your body and going on from there - you can't
be enturbulated afterwards on the line, but you are volatile
enough to be, at will, any point on the tone scale you have
to be, to be. And at the same time you could soar up and be,
at will, high enough on the tone scale to influence the
beingness of any other dynamic. And that is the goal.

And the way you do this is with affinity, reality and
communication alternately. And you'll find out that as you
practice these, taking it in the smallest sphere you've got
... And by the way, the sphere you'll start with on an
awful lot of people will be a tiny pinpoint of self that
they will eventually find is probably resident well to the
back of the head or in the nose or just behind the left
eye. And this tiny little thing, all of a sudden, is them.
And they say, "For heaven's sakes! I finally found me! I'm
not very big!" And you get them expanding out from there
until they've conquered their nose, and then get them to a
point where they've conquered their left ear and their
right ear and so on - conquest! And keep stringing the
wire, and eventually you will have them conquering
themselves.

You don't pay any attention to engrams, not in this
technique, because you are dealing with present and future.
That's different, you see? That's different.

You ever hear of anybody erasing a future engram? Well, you
actually can! Because an individual could postulate a
thorough upset in the future for himself. He's been so
afraid of the future, he's been so afraid if something
happened to him, that he makes a facsimile of it. It's a
solid facsimile; it'll have thought, emotion, effort and
everything else in it. And you send him up and he'll erase
it. He will also live up to it.

Your fortune teller who sits over the crystal ball and
says, "In your future, I see a ...." (and they look at you
closely) "a dark. ... a dark" - you don't like that, so
they say - "a light .... a light .... a man - woman, yes!"

And you look astonished.

And so they say, "Yes, a light-complected woman, who has
light brown, light uh ... light uh ... corn-silk ... No ...
light red hair! That's right." You say, "And it's very
bad." Huh. The way you tell a fortune, you know? You just
gauge, gauge.

Of course, anybody who is telling a fortune on that level
shouldn't be telling a fortune anyhow. Really, the way you
tell a fortune is move over into the guy's head, see? And
you go .. whoosh, whoosh, whoosh .. and you say, "Gee whiz,
he did!" And you say, I see that there was a very bad
incident when you were twelve." You move into him and make
your body talk; it's very simple. He is flabbergasted too;
he can be counted on being flabbergasted.

The point I am making is that as your gradient scale comes
up, you are more and more able to reach and be where you
choose to be from any emanation point, because you'll find
the point that is you finally becomes you, and you'll
finally find that your action is so free that you are free
to act in any environment merely by wishing to act, wishing
to be.

And on your future time track you are not laying down
engrams of disaster; you are laying down engrams, if you
want to call them so, or solid structures of high-level
beingness. And you can put them in or knock them out at will.

Did you ever see a fellow dream a dream and then never let
go of it? You know, he says, "Rurhhh!" He's got it, he'll
never change anv part of it. He just can't change it; it's
stuck. He's too consistent. He's going to have a bad time;
he's going to have a bad time.

Other people come around sometimes and stick him with his
own dreams; that's a little bit different. It makes
him - necessary for him not to only erase parts of his own
dream, but to turn around and erase them too.

So you see what this technique consists of: ARC on all the
dynamics to achieve ultimate beingness. Not to just be in
agreement so that you can sell somebody something, but to
volatilely be somebody else so thoroughly, if you want to
be somebody else so thoroughly, that you change them on the
tone scale.

In other words, you decide to be George, not the tone level
of George. You get the difference?

Now, this society and all its salesmanship schools and
everything teach people how to be the tone level of! You
see? They confuse beingness with point or gradient scale of
beingness.

So they say, "Well, the way you sell tractors to this
fellow is you just agree with everything he says." The
salesman that does this is sick. All right. He will get
sick after a while, too.

No, the thing to do is if you want to be that other person,
you just sort of - you know that other person, and you be
that other person. But you could be him on your tone scale.
All of a sudden the guy picks up and becomes very cheerful.

You could theoretically sit at a table and look around the
table at a lot of men, and each one in turn, pick each one
up the tone scale - wsht, wsht, wsht, wsht, wsht. Make the
experiment some time. Get a little processing on 80 and
make the experiment; it's very interesting. Old men - their
wrinkles smooth out of their face. They all of a sudden
will relax; they look comfortable.

Faith healing is actually this technique; it's actually
this technique. But in faith healing they give you the
terrible lot of arbitraries. The way faith healing is
practiced, they say, "Well, now, you take the pain away
from the person, you experience the pain yourself and then
you ..." and so on, see?

Nah! If you can experience somebody else's pain, you have
no business doing faith healing! You've got to be hot
enough - you've got to be a hot rod on this basis, you
know? And you've got to be able to move in and be so much
in motion yourself that the moment you move in, that any
pain they've got goes pyeww!

Pain can't hit you if you are up the tone scale; it can't.
You're up above the counter-effort band as far as pain is
concerned. Neither can you get confused or ridden over in
any way.

So, you find ARC. But what kind of ARC?

You will find out, oddly enough, that as you get ARC on
your own body, there will be times when you are unable to
go into ARC with your right foot, with an ARC 16.0, because
your right foot, to be pulled up the tone scale, has to be
hit with a 0.5. And you say, "All right, at 0.5 and so
forth. Let's see, what's my right foot feel? It's dead! All
right, it's dead." So you hook up a dead communication
line, you understand? It's a communication line of death.
That's a hook-up. That's also an agreement; that also says,
"Well, I am awful sorry for you, foot." And the foot says,
"I've been sitting down here all this time and nobody
paying attention to me or anything." And you say, "Yeah,
that's too bad."

Of course, you really don't give a darn about the level;
you're just trying to bring it up the line. And so you come
up the tone scale with the foot. See? Then all of a sudden
you've got the foot alive, and there it is; you don't just
try to go bluntly into the line.

But somehow or other, if you have to, smash a communication
line through to it, any way you can get through to it.

But you'll find out that in running a preclear, this nice
little technique by which you say, "Now, there are various
points on the tone scale, emotionally, and those points are
so-and-so and so-and-so on emotion. All right, what is the
emotion of your right ear?"

And the guy thinks for a moment. "Apathy," he'll say. "My
gosh, yes, it's apathy."

"All right. Feel apathy with your right ear."

"Okay, I did."

"All right. Now what do you feel with your right ear?"

"I don't know. I don't know - sort of scared or something."

"All right. Feel afraid for your right ear."

"Okay. Okay. Yeah. You know, it - it feels resentful now."

"Okay. Okay. Be resentful with your right ear.

"Resent, resent, resent." Yeah. I don't know. It's bored
with the whole thing."

"All right. Feel bored with it. All right, let's feel
enthusiastic with the right ear now."

"Yeah," the guy says, "yeah, yeah, yeah, I can do that. You
know that ear is alive? It's been dead for the longest
time."

The next point on the line, of course, is, "What affinity
does your right ear feel?" You just come up the emotional
scale again on the level.

"What is the quality of communication with your ear?"

Now, let's not worry about the communication line, let's
just worry about being in communication with it. And at no
time - and this is an essence of the thing - at no time
try to pick up an understanding: "What does your right ear
think about life?"

"Well, it thinks mathematics is too hard."

Oh, you can get some wonderful ones: "It has the feeling
that it's about to be cut off."

Don't say "All right. Run the feeling that it's about to be cut off."

You know what you'll do? You'll just throw the guy into an
engram. You're running past and present when you do that!

And I'll show you another trick about this, because as soon
as you start up from 4.0, you move into the future. So as
soon as you get the right ear to be enthusiastic, your next
step up the line is "How does it want to be?"

And you'll find it'll sag a little bit. Now pick it up for
him, emotionally. ARC, ARC, ARC. "What's it in agreement
with? What would you have to do to agree with it?" etc.,
etc., etc.

There's a plotted line which I will give you in more detail
tomorrow night.

But it's stringing wire with ARC to every part of the body,
and then stringing wire on the next dynamic and then on the
next dynamic and then on the next dynamic and the next
dynamic, until you have strung wire in the present and the
future along all the dynamics.

By that time you probably won't be nine feet tall, you will
probably be anywhere up to 186,000 miles per second long or
something like that. I'm not quite sure what you will be,
but it'll be interesting.

The Theta Clear has been in process now, as a developmental
process, since about, as such, the first of January 1951.
The experiments were started on it in Palm Springs. I kept
the lid on it; it's such a habit with me to keep the lid on
it that I feel strange about taking any part of the lid off.
But it has gone along all that time until now. I know what
it can do.

Technique 80 is a little more experimental. You will have
some odd experiences in running it. And as far as I know
now, the best stunt that you can use in running this
technique is lay off of understanding. Don't worry about
the fellow running concepts of thought. Let's just hook up
ARC with that particular point, and then let him practice.
Then you have to get him to practice this way: hook it up
with the right ear and the left ear, and then hook it up
with both at once and then alternately, and then both at
once, then with the skull and with the eyes, then with the
mouth, the ears, the eyes, the skull - combinations. See, he
can be any combination he wants to, till all of a sudden
he's just up speed. His speed has come up to a point where
you say, "Well, be aware of your hands."

And "Yeah! I got hands. What!"

It's interesting that unawareness of the present-time body
is itself grace and aesthetics, good health, sanity and
happiness.

It's very odd. So let's not struggle so hard for awareness.
Let's struggle for the awareness level which will have to
be bridged to get us into a good state.

Tomorrow night I will take up this technique in a little
more detail, take up ARC in a little more detail, as they
apply to this particular thing - the treatment of the body
and all along the dynamics. And until that time, I bid you
all good night. Thank you.

================


Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 691
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Re: THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

Сообщение auditor » 30 дек 2015, 16:52

Route To Infinity Lecture #4

DECISION

A lecture given on 20 May 1952

[original title "Decision: Maybes, Time, Postulates,
Cause and Effect in Relation to Dynamics" T80-2A]

================

I would like to talk to you about decision.

Decision is, you will discover, one of the fundamental
points of indecision, and one of the fundamental reasons
why people are sane or insane. Decision.

You see, decision is a short way of saying choice. And
choice, of course, is the keynote of self-determinism. To
determine anything, you must have the choice to determine.
Choice to determine means that you must have the power of
decision.

Automatically, you will discover - automatically, in any
case - that the one thing that is holding up beingness is
indecision, a maybe.

In any engram that presents itself to be run - in any engram
that presents itself to be run - there is a maybe: two
choices which are relatively balanced, and their even
balancing makes an irresolution.

Now, there's a great deal to do with time in decision.
Decision and time have a lot in common. When we have clean,
clear decision, we have clean, clear time. And when we have
an indecision, there is an unclarity about time. if you are
trying to decide anything and having a difficulty in trying
to decide that thing, the root of its trouble is time. Not
even necessarily data; it's time. There's a time hangup
there somewhere. And if you look for that back of the data,
usually the data becomes needless.

Decision: The basic decision that life makes, that theta
makes, is "to be or not to be." Shakespeare's famous line:
"To be or not to be: that is the question." Hamlet was in
very, very bad condition that day. He was hung up on the
squarest maybe that anyone can be hung up on.

If you see someone facing a new job, a choice of whether or
not he's going to continue with his old job or take a new
job, you may think that he is resisting change or a lot of
other things, and so on. Re's not anything. I mean, he is
hung up until he decides one way or the other on a
beingness situation. So that any beingness situation where
you had a "to be or not to be" on a case becomes itself the
most aberrative situation.

Running an engram is really, basically, only necessary
until the preclear has reached, of his own volition and
evaluation, the decision he didn't make. He's found the
maybe in his life. He's found that maybe. And having found
the maybe, it is clearly enough in view so that he can
resolve it or evaluate its importance, and the rest of the
engram will blow. It'll disappear-become completely
unaberrative.

Postulates are important only because postulates are the
root material of decision. That is to say, you have the
decision and you make the postulate to reserve the decision.
"To be or not to be" is action or inaction, existence or
no existence.

Actually, there is no such thing as a black-and-white
decision. Aristotelian logic would like you to believe that
there is such a thing as a syllogism: A is to B as B is to
C, then A is to C, or something of the sort. This is very
easily confused into A equals B, and B equals C; therefore
A equals C. This isn't true. But it was a desperate effort
to see if one couldn't get over the awful hurdle of
yes-or-no. Syllogism: It gave you a way to reason so that
everything didn't keep coming out in the middle.

Aristotelian logic is based upon black-and-white solutions,
really. You'll find today the mighty and powerful churches
of the world believe in black and white for their people.
They tell their people it's black and it's white; it's sin,
it's good. There is no intermediate step here. It's one or
the other.

Well, it would be very fortunate for all of our sanities if
decisions could be made like that. If we could say it's a
black decision, which is to say "not to be," or a "to be" -
a "to be," a "not to be" - if we could say just those two and
resolve them very cleanly and clearly, we'd be fine.

Unfortunately, if you will look under the Logics in the
first section (they are printed in the "Handbook for
Preclears" and some other volumes) you'll find that
gradient scale of logic, and it demonstrates to you that
there is only relative decision. Relative. Just like
there's only relative self-determinism. And there's only
relative yes and no.

There are a million grades, a billion grades, of yes. There
are a billion gradient points on the scale of evil, and a
billion on the point of good. Things are only relatively
bad and relatively good.

Relative beingness, then, is what we are trying to decide.
And when a person comes close to the center of the scale
and hangs up, that is what happens: he hangs up. Now, why
does he hang up at that point? It's very simple why he
hangs up at the point. Decision has much to do with time.
if you have decision, you have time; if you do not have
decision, you do not have time. Now, it doesn't matter
whether you decide "not to be" or decide "to be." If you're
hung up in the middle between "to be" and "not to be," you
have immediately forfeited time, because the middle of the
scale is zero time. "To be" or "not to be" - and in the
center there, zero time. So when a person hits a maybe he
starts worrying about it.

What is worry? Worry is constant, irresolute computation -
constant computation on a certain point or a certain
problem. That's what worry is; that's what anxiety is.
Anxiety, you see, is fear added in. "I'm not going to be
able to resolve this." Then worry becomes anxiety. "I can't
resolve this," is just worry; "I'm not going to be able to
resolve it" - well, that's anxiety.

If you want to treat worry and anxiety, you can slug into a
case with just these points, these tenets I'm giving you
right now, and just tear the case to pieces. And the
fellow, oh, he feels good afterwards. He's got everything
all resolved. Trouble is, the most aberrative decisions
were generally made when a person was in very bad shape -
the worst ones. There is the decision of going on living or
not going on living in this body. You can find the places
where he makes this decision. "All right, I won't give up.
I'll go on living, I . . . guess. No, I'll give up. Uh ...
there's no reason to go on living. Yeah, I'd better go on
living. No, I guess I can't go on living."

"To be or not to be," you see?

It'll hang up a whole operation. "Now let's see, to go
on living I have to have this operation. If I have this
operation, it'll probably kill me." He never gets a
chance to decide this. Somebody takes him by the scruff of
the neck and lays him out neatly on the table and puts the
mask over his face. That's why your childhood operations -
tonsillectomies and so on - are particularly grim. They
affect the individual terribly because a child never has
a choice.

They can go around and say, "Now, Johnny. . . now, Johnny,
you want your tonsils out, don't you, Johnny? Now, it's up
to you to decide now, Johnny, whether or not you want your
tonsils out. But of course, if your tonsils don't come out,
you'll keep on having these nasty old colds. But you've got
to have 'em out now, and I just want you to decide . . ."
All they're trying to do is get him to agree, they're not
getting him to decide. And the eventual thing is that poor
little Johnny goes on the table.

By the way, the first thing that happens to him is his
central control post, that stands up above the other two,
generally flicks out during one of these operations. If you
want to find somebody's control post, you generally go back
through his childhood operations. Because he didn't have
any power of choice over the thing.

It's my belief that in a good society every child ought to
be equipped with and taught to fire a sawed-off shotgun.

It's like the hunter: He goes out and he shoots a doe or a
duck or something of the sort. He gets a big - he feels big
about this, you know? The thing to do is to give the duck
or the doe or something, you see, give them a shotgun too
and then teach them how to use it, and it'd come up to a
parity level. Well, it ought to be that way with kids. They
ought to have a chance. But they don't have a chance, so
there isn't any chance of deciding this until we've solved
this body problem, and we can solve that so we don't have
to worry about this anymore.

But the point I'm making is, is decision is sanity and
indecision is aberration. Now, you can't say "to be" is
necessarily sanity or "not to be" is necessarily insanity.
You see, those aren't the scale of sanity to insanity.
Because you see, you can always make the decision to be
insane. You see, it doesn't say what you're deciding to be;
it says that you're deciding. But what is aberrative is
whether or not one is able to decide, and the degree that
he's capable of decision establishes his sanity,
self-determinism, power of decision.

Many people have gotten hung up on the idea of willpower.
It was very fashionable a few years ago, particularly, to
go around telling people they didn't have willpower, they
should use their willpower, or something of the sort,
without defining willpower. Wonderful operation. Actually,
if you said that these people should rehabilitate their
decisional power, you would have a much different picture.
Willpower, decisional power: now you'd have a point there.

Any time an individual is put under duress, it is the
individual's effort to make a decision about the duress. If
the duress is very heavy and makes only one decision
possible, well, he falls into that category. It's not
terribly aberrative. He's been overcome, he will feel
degraded, he'll feel a lot of other things, he isn't free,
but somehow or other he can struggle out of this sooner or
later.

The way to drive somebody insane is to convince them that
they should have a yes, and then convince them equally they
should have a no. And then convince them they should have a
yes. "Now, Bessie, you've got to make up your own mind,
it's your own free choice of whether or not you get these
new shoes. Now, do you want black shoes or white shoes? Of
course, the white shoes are going to get dirty a lot faster
then the black shoes. Now, which do you want? The black
shoes or the white shoes? Oh no, Bessie, you don't want
the white shoes, you want the black shoes. The black shoes
are much easier to keep polished and they'll go with your
new dress. Hm-hm, yes. Oh, they're how much? Oh, uh, huh,
well, you want the white shoes, Bessie. Uh . . . Bessie!"

It's a wonderful mechanism. I recommend it. I recommend it
to governments and sergeants. It reduces individuals to
just complete weakness because it's chaos!

We used to draw this tone scale, you know, straight up and
still draw it straight up, and it's very, very easy to
graph that way, but it's not quite true. It's a curve, if
you add decision into the line. Actually, the point of 1.5,
if you want to know the truth of the matter, is the center
of the scale. Because if you make a person make a decision
and then unmake the decision, then make the decision, then
unmake the decision and make the decision, you'll
eventually make MEST out of him. And 1.5, you've got him
holding there, you see? You've got enough confusion so he's
holding there, and you'll stick him there. And then there's
a method of dropping the whole curve down to apathy and he
becomes MEST and he's part of the material universe and you
don't have to worry about him anymore!

All right. There's an actual scale, though, on decision
itself. And this is something for you to remember and
something for you to use in processing. Never forget to ask
your preclear where the indecision is in the incident.
Never forget to ask that preclear that. "Where's the
indecision here?"

Now let's put this in terms of motion. We can understand
it a little easier.

Now, all of the first Axioms have to do with a static
called life and counter-efforts and efforts. You have this
chain-fashion affair whereby in comes the counter-effort,
the fellow turns around and uses it as an effort. In comes
the counter-effort, he turns it into his effort and uses
it. That is what life is doing. That's what you're doing.
You get a counter-effort and you use it - counter-effort
and you use it.

And as long as you can use these counter-efforts, why,
you're fine. I mean, it isn't aberrative to get shot at.
What's aberrative is not to - yeah, to get hit! - not to
shoot back.

It isn't even aberrative to get hit, actually; I mean, so
you get killed. So what?

You know, at Pearl Harbor there was - I think it was a tug,
lying across from Battleship Bow. And the Jap planes came
in, and the high command up there, you know, they were all
on the ball and everybody was on the qui vive and FDR was
on the qui vive and the War Department, Navy Department -
everybody was on the qui vive - and they're all ready for
these planes. So the planes came in and knocked the fleet
out. And they had made a decision, by the way. They were
not on a maybe. They had decided they could lick the
Japanese fleet in five weeks. Huh! So they didn't go any
further than that. Making a decision prematurely sometimes
is quite effective in destroying oneself, but it's not
aberrative.

All right. Here came in these Japanese planes over this
little tug and into Battleship Bow - wham! wham! wham! And
actually, these planes were passing close enough over this
little tug so that they were almost knocking its stack off.
And the officer in charge had a full crew aboard. And
naturally, a tug, it was on a standby, it wasn't on liberty
like everybody else had been sent. So here sat this small
tug with a full crew.

The percentage of psychos and war neuroses and so forth who
turned up out of Pearl Harbor was enormous, because they
had received a motion they couldn't use, you see? They
couldn't do anything about it.

And this officer grabbed a few bins of potatoes as his crew
came on deck. And he grabbed these bins of potatoes and he
had his men standing there throwing potatoes at the Zeros.
And he didn't have a single psychotic aboard.

The crew was perfectly cheerful. And immediately after the
action, they patched up a few bullet holes in themselves
and went to sea merrily to pull things off the bars and the
reefs, and so forth.

Why? They were getting a motion, you see? They were getting
attacked and they were attacking back. And even though it
was just a token attack, it was quite effective as far as
morale was concerned.

Now, if you receive a motion, you should be able to use the
motion. Your indecision comes only when you refuse to use
the motion you have received. And anybody who has an engram
in restimulation (including the human body, which is after
all just an engram) - and mark this well - you have in that
person simply this: a motion which he will not use. That's
the only one he's stuck with - the only one he gets stuck
with.

A counter-effort comes in - wham! "Well," he says, "so they
hit you in the jaw. Well, that's something." And - doesn't
matter when - a few days, a few weeks from then, a few years
from then, a few lifetimes from then, he all of a sudden
remembers getting hit in the jaw, and a fellow's standing
there and it seems to him that's the motion he's supposed
to use. So wham! He hits the fellow in the jaw. He's
healthy.

The fellow that isn't healthy is standing there, you see,
and the fellow hits him in the jaw. And he says, "Shouldn't
do something like that to me," and he goes on for a few
weeks or months or lifetimes (short span of time). Guy
comes up - here's a situation where he's supposed to hit
somebody in the jaw - and he says, "I think I'll hit him in
the jaw! Nah, I wouldn't do a thing like that." After that
he gets a somatic. Why? He's called the facsimile up to use
and then he hasn't used it. He has a counter-effort which
he is unwilling to use. And when he has a counter-effort
which he's unwilling to use, it attacks him.

The only way you aberrate people is keep them from using
their counter-efforts. You get them out and you do things
to them, and then you don't permit them to do it. You say,
"Under no circumstances should you be able to do this."

You take little Oswald and you take him down and you kick
him a couple of times and you say, "You little brat," and
so forth. "Now get out of the house." And little Oswald
comes in a few days later - you notice children will do
this - and he'll take a look at you and he'll say, "You
brat!"

And you say, "You should not say that, Oswald. You must
treat your grownups with respect." You fixed him, right
there. He's all set; he's going to use this counter-effort
- it wouldn't bother him very much and he's going to use
this - but you don't let him. That's the way you aberrate
him.

The way you can aberrate a whole society is take and put a
police force over the top of them that permits them to be
arrested and manhandled, given traffic tickets and sent to
jail and pushed around and taken into courts of law and
everything else, and then you don't let the guy do it
himself. He then has a sensation of being handled, pushed,
handled, pushed, censured and so on. And he gets all of
these counter-efforts and he can't use any of them. Because
the police object to being shot and pushed. I don't know
why, it's only sporting.

But this country out here was a good, solid, healthy
country until they got their first reformer. It was.
Everybody used to carry an equalizer - called it an
equalizer. But somebody came up to you and said "You
blankety-blankety-blank," you just shot him! I mean,
it was simple, justice, so on. So people after that
were careful about calling you a blankety-blankety-blank.
Till one day you called somebody else a blankety-blankety-blank,
he drew faster than you and you're dead. But, it's an
interesting game. They played it with wild abandon.

Down to the south, down here at Tombstone, they've got a
whole hill there where people played it with abandon. But
at the same time, the country was pretty healthy. Guys
walked tall, they walked very tall. They didn't drive
down the street saying "I wonder if that cop saw me pass
that traffic light," see? Big difference between that.

I'm not, by the way, beating the drum for uncontrolled,
unlicensed action in an aberrated society.

The society gets into a big maybe. It comes down tone scale
to a point where an individual may or may not be ethical.
And the second the society gets to a point where it looks
at an individual and doesn't know where he is on the tone
scale and whether - or whether or not he is going to be
ethical, that society has to muster unto itself morals and
police power, and suppress all individuals because some
might not be ethical. And the second this happens, you get
an aberrated society, because everybody is hung up on a
maybe. "Is this fellow honest or isn't he honest?" "Is he
going to be irrational about the thing or isn't he?" I
mean, it's just maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe.
So people start thinking.

Thought could be said to be the resolution of maybes.
Computation and its purpose depends upon the resolution of
maybes. As you go way up tone scale, you get less and less
and less maybes, and you actually do less and less and less
computing, and you do more and more and more knowing.
That's quite important.

There is a scale here of decision, which I will draw here.
Unaberrated conduct to a marked degree is the making of
decisions which can be put into effect, as opposed to
making decisions which cannot be put into effect, and down
to indecision, and lower to irrational decision to force
irrational decision into effect, down to indecision, and
down to the decision not to be. The Tone Scale of Decision,
in other words, is that scale. [See Ron's handwritten notes
on the Tone Scale of Decision in the Appendix.]

Now I'll draw that scale for you. Up here we have "to be."
Up here, when you make a decision you put it into effect:
decision equals effect. When you're making decisions to put
them into effect, believe me, you're cause. (I'm going to
talk the second talk this evening on cause and effect and
how it applies to "be" and "not to be," how it applies to
going up the whole dynamics.) But this is very simple. If
you put things into decision, you're going to be a cause
and you're going to make an effect, very quickly.

Now, as you come down scale, you just simply come down to
this level: You make a decision here - this is well down
scale - that can't be put into effect. So you get a decision
that can't be effected. You're making decisions, see, but
they can't be effected. It's irrational, you see? The
fellow says, "I'm a - I think I'll be president." Well, he
can think he'll be president all right. He's made a
decision that he's going to be president, but he can't put
it into effect. In other words, he has not evaluated the
rationality of his decisions. Up here, he makes a decision,
it's a decision that can be put into effect. He doesn't
keep overmaking decisions or undermaking them. In other
words, he's doing a proper estimation of his decision. And
then we get down here, this is very mild effect, but here
we have an indecision, see?

And by the way, it's very, very interesting that low on the
tone scale we have people who put indecisions into effect.
Did you ever know anybody that put indecisions into an
effect? Well, they exist. Believe me.

This is getting way down the line here: We get decisions to
force irrational decisions into effect. Where is that on
the tone scale? What is it?

1.5. That 1.5, they're wonderful at that. They're always
making decisions to put irrationalities into effect. The
second you show them an irrationality, they'll put it
into effect; if you show them a rationality, they
won't put it into effect. It's as much as your life's
worth. As a matter of fact, if you want a 1.5 to act, what
you do is demonstrate that what you want to do is
irrational, and then they'll make you do it. You see how
that is? You show them what you want to do is completely
irrational; then they'll make you do it. That's a fact, it
works.

Then we get down here into indecision. And that is about
1.0. That's "Am I going to stay here or am I going to run?"
Fear is just below this, you see? But that's the borderline
of fear right there: indecision.

And now we come down here finally to apathy, which is decision
not to be.

Here is your enthusiast - people like me, always making
decisions that "can't be put into effect," you see? Saying,
"All right now, we - what we're gonna do is - is get this
and we're going to make this, and then get right in there.
And everything's fine."

And somebody points out to me, "Yeah, but we haven't got
the two million dollars that it takes to do that."

And I say, "Oh, well, all right." People have a hard time
with me.

Well, there's your tone scale of decisions. And you can
actually take a preclear and look him over very thoroughly
and you can find out what he's deciding to do and you can
say where he is on the tone scale. You can also spot him on
the tone scale and then predict very, very well what that
individual will decide.

Now, in interpersonal relations your problem is simply
this: the problem of other people's decisions. That
actually is the core of interpersonal relations. These
people, by being certain things, become very antipathetic
to your survival and happiness. By deciding not to be
certain things, they become helpful to your survival. And
again, by deciding to be certain things they become
helpful, and deciding not to be certain things they become
very unhelpful. You see how that would be, then? You're
continually faced with people's decisions.

Now, there is why individuals who are low on the tone scale
are so very hard to be around: It's this decision scale
more than anything else.

I told you last night that ARC - affinity, reality and
communication - add up to computation. They are
understanding. The three together will actually make
mathematics. They are computation; they are understanding;
they are a gradient scale of knowingness. A, R, C. So ARC
would also be beingness, wouldn't it? As you go up the line
on ARC, you get into beingriess. And therefore, clear-cut
ARC resolves into decision. And this is a tone scale,
again, of ARC and decision. So that you get your A, your R
and your C: Here we have "to be," decisions can be
effected, so forth, and we have affinity. Well, believe me,
when a person is up there on the tone scale, they decide
"to be" on an affinity level, it's really a big "to be."
Affinity. They just - wheeoww!

On agreement, remember that they're cause or they are in
parity with other people who are capable of being cause.
You start agreeing with people who are way up there to the
top of the tone scale and you're not going to be in bad
shape, you'll be in good shape.

You start agreeing with somebody down here, you're agreeing
with fear so that fear becomes reality. And if you start
agreeing with "not to be" - down, not to live, not to act
well and so forth - done yourself a very, very bad trick.
This is sympathy right in here in this band. You've agreed
that it's all right not to be.

You say, "Poor fellow. Poor fellow. It's all right not to
be," and the only thing wrong with that is, is you've gone
into agreement too low on the tone scale, which is
sympathy. All right.

Now, as far as communication is concerned, believe me, it's
relatively easy to communicate with somebody who is way up
at the top of the tone scale. It is very simple to do that.
In the first place, anybody up that high, theoretically, is
not communicating to any large degree through MEST. The person
is actually communicating very, very straight, and it's
pretty easy to hook up to. As a matter of fact, when that
is hooked up to on a communication level, it has a
deaberrative effect upon the individual. Down here when
communication is hooked up to, it has an aberrative effect,
because they'll start throwing you maybes and so forth.

There is ARC on the basis of decision. Practically all that
is really wrong with any preclear is basically, if he's in
bad shape, he's decided to be the things he shouldn't be,
or he's decided not to be the things he should be. This
isn't too bad. Might have said that a little bit wrong. I
mean, you know lots of people who seem to be getting along
fine, and, gee, they've decided to be the damndest things.
And you know people that are getting along fine who have
decided not to be, perfectly ... Some fellow, he decided
not to be a millionaire. See? That's what he decided.
That's all right - that's what he decided. Of course, you
won't go into very close agreement with him if you think
the thing to be is a millionaire. But that's just a - just
a matter of decision.

What's wrong here is the person who - "Am I gonna be a
millionaire, not gonna be a millionaire? Is it good to be a
millionaire? No, millionaires get into danger every once in
a while; I'm not to be a millionaire. Well, the communists
are liable to shoot us, so therefore it's better not to be
. . . Now, that isn't good enough. We're - not got any
communism over here. I mean, the thing to do is - well,
it's awful hard to make a million dollars. But then on the
other hand, I might make a million dollars, and I might
marry a girl that had a million dollars. Well, it's a ..."

Well, the way they get from there on down the tone scale is
in terms of maybes. Br-r-r, br-r-r, brr. And they keep
hanging up here, hanging up here. Timelessness sets in. Any
preclear that's very aberrated has a bad case of
timelessness. And the way to resolve timelessness is to
resolve decision, and it's the easiest way to get at it I
know. The way he got timeless is getting a motion and then
not using the motion. He's unwilling to use this motion. He
says, "Oh, that motion's very, very bad. Very, very, very
bad motion. I can't use that motion!" He can't even change
that motion. You can't - that's, by the way, what they call
sublimation (just a hobson-jobson back into an old cult
they used to have). Sublimation is the alteration of a
motion into another kind of a motion - very simple.

All right. The motion comes in, he won't use it, bluntly.
He says, "No!" Well, you know that's not so bad. It'll hang
him up with one. That's not so bad, because he still at
least said no. But the example I gave you a little while
ago: the fellow gets hit in the jaw, and then a few weeks
or lives or something later he says, "Oh, he will, will he?
Well ... " He's called the facsimile up and then hasn't
used it. He said, "It's all right to use it. No, it isn't
all right to use it. W-h-o-o-a!" And there it'll sit. And
he'll say, "I wonder what I do with this. Well, won't go
out there, won't go out there. I think I'd better go see a
dentist." That's what will happen to him, because it's an
unwillingness to decide on that.

He can say no and somewhat get away with it. "I've got this
motion. Now I'm not going to use it at all. No, it's just
bad and I'm not going to use it. I got my head cut off in
the last life and I'm not going around and cut off people's
heads, and that's all there is to it!" That's not so bad.
But if he comes around and he says, "I got my head cut off
in the last life and . . . Look how sharp that butcher
knife is. Huh. No. Ha-ha. No. Yes. No. Yes."

And you'll find people running around who say, "You know, I
have the awfullest time. I get near the edge of high buildings
and I just want to jump off, but ... " You know? So he jumped
off a high building some time or other, or somebody threw him
off a high building, and he's called this up. He said, "I
think I'll throw him off the building." Here's somebody
else - "I'll throw Og over the cliff."

Somebody threw him over a cliff once, so he sees Og
standing in the middle of a cliff. He doesn't like Og; Og
makes eyes at his cave girl or something of the sort. So he
says, "I'll go throw Og off the edge of the cliff. No. No.
No, I shouldn't do that. They passed this law in the tribe
a while ago, and besides he's carrying a club with a spike
on it. And if he turned around and saw me I might get hit
with the spike. No, I'd better do it, though, because. . .
No, I better not do it because if I - and somebody'd find out
. . ." Believe me, after that, every time he goes near a
cliff edge . . . Yeah. Is he? Should he? It's funny, but he
keeps getting the idea he wants to jump off! Well, that's
silly, because it'd kill him.

So he'll sit around the cave instead of going out hunting;
he'll get lean, he'll get thin and become declasse' in the
tribe, and be pointed out by the tribe elders to the little
children as the thing not to be. And there he is. Because
every time he walks out of the cave and every time he sits
down in the cave and anyplace else, he's worrying about
this cliff edge.

That's how people get obsessions. That's how they get
inhibitions, so forth. If you want to be utterly
uninhibited, I'm afraid you would have to use every motion
that you can tap - not have to use it but have to be willing
to use it. In other words, no inhibitions of any kind.

But, believe me, you've got to be pretty well up the tone
scale before you start using these things, because people
object. People object. Particularly when you think of the
number of facsimiles which you have and what kind of
facsimiles they are and some of the things that have
happened to you.

Now, if you turn around and think "Gee, I - would I have
to be able and willing to use any one of those, to be
completely uninhibited?" But you don't even have to worry
about that; you can be inhibited and still not have a body.

All right, the point is, in comes the motion. If you say,
"This motion I will not necessarily hold in reserve, but I
will classify: 'This motion is not to be used.'" In comes a
motion: "I'll use this motion." In comes another motion,
not to be used: "I consider this bad. I'm not going to use
it."

You know what's very interesting about reform motions: Old
lady by the name of Carry Nation one time bought a hatchet.
It was an unfortunate day for the saloon keepers of
America. And she went around and there was a lot of talk
about bills of rights and suffrage and all sorts of things,
but it started, more or less, with that hatchet.

I want to tell you something about Carry. When she was
younger, she used to go down in the basement and tipple. I
wouldn't like to have that known, but that's the horrible
truth of the matter.

Beware of these people who come around and say, "Now,
actually, we've all got to get absolutely down, wipe out,
murder, stamp out and kill and throw to the lions, wolves
or anything else that we can find to throw them to, the Z
class of the society." Not necessarily beware of them but
just know right that moment that they've taken a motion
from that Z class and they've said, "Shall I? No, I better
not." And then all of a sudden they say, "That maybe;
that's what's driving me mad, that maybe. That's what's
making me 'not to be' or 'to be' and so forth and I must do
something about this maybe. And it's this maybe that's
doing it. It's this maybe, I say!" And picks up the
hatchet, you see, and goes to work on the saloon keepers -
pardon me, it was the bottles.

I'm going to give you a little bit more about decision,
just a little bit more.

In interpersonal relations, you will notice that when you
have a person agreeing on a decision, you will get action.
If a person agrees on a decision, you will get action if
it's an action decision, and if it's a "not to be" or an
inaction decision, you will also get the inaction. In other
words, you get what you want by bringing to pass an
agreement. This is very, very important in interpersonal
relations and is actually the one problem of interpersonal
relations. You'll find all arguments are based upon an
inability to agree. You will find that all friction which
occurs between an individual and a group, an individual and
another individual, or a group and a group, is simply on
this basis of disagreement. And this disagreement comes
about because of a divergence of decision.

Now, decision is very difficult, sometime, to reach. But
this is one of these hidden things, actually, in an
argument. You are arguing with somebody. If you will
isolate out of the argument the decisions for action or
inaction - you see, a decision can be for action or a
decision can be for inaction - and if you have selected out
the action and inaction decisions which you want effected,
the argumentation will be minimal, because you have
clarified the problem of interpersonal relations before
you have tried to practice interpersonal relations on this
problem. You've clarified the problem. "Exactly what do I
want this person to do?" or "Exactly what do I want this
person not to do?" And from there you base your arguments.

Now, if it comes to a pass where it's very important
whether or not this person acts or inacts as you wish, in
interpersonal relations one of the dirtier tricks is to
hang the person up on a maybe and create a confusion. And
then create the confusion to the degree that your decision
actually is implanted hypnotically.

The way you do this is very simple. When the person
advances an argument against your decision, you never
confront his argument but confront the premise on which his
argument is based. That is the rule. He says, "But my
professor always said that water boiled at 212 degrees."

You say, "Your professor of what?"

"My professor of physics."

"What school? How did he know?" Completely off track!
You're no longer arguing about whether or not water boils
at 212 degrees, but you're arguing about professors. And he
will become very annoyed, but he won't know quite what he
is annoyed about. You can do this so adroitly and so
artfully that you can actually produce a confusion of the
depth of hypnosis. The person simply goes down tone scale
to a point where they're not sure of their own name. And at
that point you say, "Now, you do agree to go out and draw
the water out of the well, don't you?"

"Yes-anything!" And he'll go out and draw the water out of
the well.

The introduction of decision is also the end and object of
war. It is an unsuccessful war which is fought without
that. Any war fought without that as an object or an end is
an unsuccessful war. Really, there isn't too much wrong
with war, but there's a great deal wrong with waging war
with no end in view. So that's just enMEST.

Clausewitz, in his great treatise back in umpteen-umpde-umph,
has something to say about war being a method of persuading
the cooperation and more closely allied views on the part
of some other country, said persuasion being by force of arms.
That is not exactly the way he stated it; but he used a
paragraph about that long.

Anyway, force of arms is what you use in order to make a
decision take place.

Now, this country goes out and anchors all of its battleships
in Pearl Harbor, you see, and says, "Well, there we are."
They made no decision about the war. And we fought a war from
1941 to 1945. And the end product of that war was national
apathy and near economic collapse.

The youth of this country today have no feeling whatsoever
for any further action along any line. You take your
eighteen-year-old boy today: no goal. If he starts out in
any line, the army is going to get him. If the army is
going to get him, that's just silly. That's going to be
silliness and so forth, so he's just in apathy about the
whole thing.

There's no cause there at all. He lived through a period of
1941 to 1945, of a war being fought with no end in view.

And the war - if you'll notice, wars follow a tone scale.
The war of 1917-1918 was fought for a specious reason: "to
make the world safe for democracy." Bull.

Then people tried to find other reasons why we fought the
war. And they said the reason why we fought the war was
because J. P. Morgan had issued an enormous number of bonds
and we went to war to defend J. P. Morgan's bonds. And then
they said there were other reasons why we went to the war,
and there were other reasons why we went to the war and
there were other reasons ... But they didn't have a reason.

The propaganda reason was to make the world safe for
democracy, and what sprung up in Europe in its immediate
wake? That which sprung up in Europe was the immediate lie
to everyone who had believed that we made the world safe
for democracy. Because in the wake of this war which we
fought and secured in victory was fascism, communism, every
kind of political buffoonery known. Europe became a slave
state following this war.

And so people found out they didn't fight that war for a
reason or to introduce a decision. That war was not fought
for that reason. And a deterioration of national culture
ensued, because a war is a violent thing. And if it has a
maybe in it, it becomes a national engram.

The Spanish-American War was not a national engram. That
was a very interesting war. It was a short war, but that
wasn't why it was passed so easily. Well, we went down
there to make Cuba free, and Cuba got free - wham. That was
all there was to that. No maybes.

In 1918 we were making the world safe for democracy, and we
didn't and everybody knows we didn't. So we said we were
and we weren't. And so we didn't introduce a decision into
anybody's mind by the force of arms. After an enormous
expenditure of men and materiel and a complete disruption
of national economy, we had failed to introduce a decision.
Well, that's just that. So it was a maybe.

So we come up to 1941, and from 1941 to 1945 we don't even
bother to announce a decision. We didn't even have a phony
one. And now look at the national culture. You know, we're
sort of - kids are all down along the line. We had, for
several years, the world's most powerful weapon,
exclusively. All we had to do was bark and every nation on
the face of the earth would have jumped. And instead of
that, they barked and we jumped. And we have jumped and
jumped and jumped. And now everybody's got atom bombs. Now
we can all have fun.

You see the irrationality of it. It has wound up the
aberration of the society into a confusion, because no
decision was ever introduced for the last two wars.

I'm only citing this, not as an example of Group Dianetics,
but only as an example of interpersonal relations. There is
nothing wrong with you going to war with another human
being or a group as an individual. There's nothing wrong
with you being one of these nasty, snide, decisive
characters that somehow or other gets his own way.

When you were a little kid they told you, "You're not
supposed to get your own way, you can't always have your
own way and you must adjust to the fact that you can't
always have your own way because you can't always have
your own way. Get down tone scale, kid. Let's go a little
bit lower. You can't have your own way, you can't, you
can't, you can't." And finally he grows up.

You'll find a person has to be pretty well up the tone
scale in order to commit decision, because committing
decision often goes into the commission of an overt act.

There's nothing wrong with you being right. And there's
nothing wrong with your exerting that rightness on a
wrongness in order to get a complete agreement on
rightness. There is this factor, however, that you
shouldn't pick people six feet six inches tall to exert
this force of arms upon unless you've got a club. And
that's a rule I'd like to have you remember.

But in the course of interpersonal relations, you will find
two people trying to resolve a problem, usually, in this
society, and they try to resolve the problem this way:

"Well, I don't want ..."

And the other one says, "Well, I don't want ..."

And then this one says, "Well, I wouldn't want ..."

And the other one says, "Well, I don't ..."

You know? They're not going to solve anything. They're
going to get a government bill or something out of
this - nothing constructive - because each one is saying
"I don't want" and "I won't be."

"I won't be."

"All right, I won't be."

"Good! Neither of us will be. Hooray!"

You will find the last time - I'll just make this venture -
the last time that you had a little clash with another
human being, neither of you won. Neither won. Possibly both
of you said "No." "No." And if you went around now and
discussed it very thoroughly after you found you'd given up
a point, if you went around and discussed it with the other
person, you would find that a much more active decision
could have been reached.

You very often have forsworn something in the society.
You've said, "Well, I'll do without so that he can,"
something of the sort. And you go on doing without - nobly
- and doing without and doing without. And after a while
you find out, shockingly, that there wasn't any point in
it. That's very upsetting. The other person didn't want you
to do without. And as a matter of fact, the other person
starts tearing his hair out eventually and saying "Please
don't do without! Please." "I never expected . . . I don't
want it," and so on. Big rift occurs at that moment.

The best way you can help people is by very thorough action
- not doing without, giving away an inaction.

Power of decision applies, then, between two people on
interpersonal relations, since they decide something and
become a group on that decision. And the moment two or more
people have decided upon something, they are a group so far
as that decision is concerned. And that's something you
should mark very well. They become a group about that decision.
And the strength of that group is a measure of their survival.
Therefore, it had better be a strong decision.

So mincing words with social lies does not reach the point
of a strong group or a decisive action. It gets nothing
done. Reaching a low point, then, is bad, and a high point
of decision is good. But in order to reach a high point of
decision, you will find out you often have to be very
punitive, very decisive, and that the action you envision
must be capable of being effected. And if you follow those
rules, boy, the people that combine with you will be a
pretty strong group.

The power of decision is actually the power of sanity. And
just as you can run away and then become afraid, as well as
become afraid and run away (it works both ways, you see:
you can become afraid and then run away or you can just run
away, and by the action of running away become afraid,
because you're dramatizing being afraid, so you will
agreeably become emotionally afraid), so it can work that
simply by being decisive, you come way up tone scale. You
just artificially get decisive. You come up tone scale. In
other words, don't look at this - don't look at this now as
"The only method of being decisive is to come up tone scale
and then be decisive." No, there's another method. And that
is get decisive and come up tone scale.

If you just mercilessly search out of your life, in the
actions and the common actions of your life, all of the
maybes on a decision level, and if you suddenly assert your
decisions where you have withheld decisions, I can
guarantee you that your life will smooth out pretty well.
If you do that in a big office, for instance, where there's
a big staff, it may very well be that by asserting your
decisions they fire you straight out the door. That's where
you belong, then. You're a lot better off outside that
door. If this environment has smothered your power of
decision, you don't belong in it. Most of the indecision
which you will meet in life is strictly based around choice
of environment and the ability to exert decision in that
environment.

There is a therapy, all by itself, of placing a person in
another environment: environmental therapy. Merely by
changing the environment you bring the tone up of the
preclear. If you've seen a preclear in somebody's home -
this preclear is in somebody's house and his power of
decision is being nullified continually in this house - by
moving him to another house, you will bring him up tone
scale to a point where he'll run much better.

================


Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 691
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Re: THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

Сообщение auditor » 30 дек 2015, 16:53

Route To Infinity Lecture #5

DECISION: CAUSE AND EFFECT

A lecture given on 20 May 1952

[this may be T80-2B "Early Methods of Dealing with
people, entities", Ron talks a little about entities
about 270 lines deep into the lecture, but references
things he said "last night" on the subject which may
be missing from this lecture series. Also, this lecture
is much shorter than the others. We suspect editing and
omissions, if anyone has the original reels, please check]

================

Now we'll take up the second part of this talk: cause and
effect and decision as they relate to "to be," "not to be"
and going up the line on the dynamics - how you expand
through the dynamics on the basis of cause and effect.

Let me say first what I mean by cause and effect. Back in
the ninth, tenth century, there was quite a bit written on
cause and effect. Those were the days when men were very
oppressed about saying what they thought. Now they are not
oppressed, so they don't bother to think.

But the day was when they had to join into secret cults and
hide in the mountains in order to think anything. And when
they thought of something, to commit it to writing was
tantamount to being burned at the stake. And so when they
committed these things to writing, they committed them in
symbols.

Some of the old books - Roger Bacon and so forth - are
very interesting for the complete indecipherability. Matter
of fact, they've left riddles around which cryptographers
are very fond of working with; they are the most marvelous
riddles.

The whole subject of alchemy is a - nothing really, more
or less, than a code. A few of the stupider ones went
around trying to make gold out of lead, but actually what
the alchemist was doing was trying to transmute the lead of
a human being into the gold of spirit. And it was so
flagrantly and directly into the teeth of the existing
church and was so swiftly punishable by the rack and the
stake that they put it in code form. You read an alchemist
textbook, and if you think you're reading about chemicals .
. . Nope, it's code. Also, there are alchemist books which
are about chemicals, which, of course, confused everybody.

Now, one of the prime principles that they worked on in
those days was the principles of cause and effect. They
were all very interested in this problem of cause and
effect. They were interested in it on a very, very high
echelon; they were interested in the cause being the Prime
Mover Unmoved, or what was he? and the effect being the
whole universe. Cause and effect - puzzle, puzzle, puzzle.
Well, it needn't be very much of a puzzle for you - not
that I have resolved the riddles which they have
propounded, since those riddles are not necessarily
susceptible of solution and fortunately do not necessarily
need to be resolved to resolve the problem of the human
mind.

Here's cause and effect. There are only two rules, really:
ALWAYS BE CAUSE. Be cause as yourself, or be of a group
which is cause or a species which is cause, or be cause as
life, or be cause as the material universe, or be cause as
theta itself or be cause on the infinity of all cause.
That's rule one. Of course, that says without saying in rule
one, "Never be effect." This was, with all its pristine
purity, the highest goal that you could attain: to always
be cause, never be effect.

Of course, you say right away that's impossible. When you
look it over it becomes impossible, unless you changed your
state in some fashion or other. Not in the existing state
could you always be cause. No, you couldn't be. But by
looking at these rules of the game, you can change your
state and always be cause and still have good interpersonal
relations and still be happy.

And the other one is NEVER be the effect of your own cause.
And that was the deadliest sin of all. Never be the effect
of your own cause. Don't cause something and then become an
effect of it. Actually, every time you postulate something
you become an effect of your own postulate; that's why
Postulate Processing works so beautifully.

The fellow - "So, all right," he says, "I am a man." Two
seconds later on the time track he's a man, if he were
postulating like that. He's now thinking of himself as a
man. He's saying, "I will now be a man!" Two seconds later
he's now being a man. So he sweeps on down the time track
now being the man. The only trouble is he goes into a
solution - I mean, a problem where the solution is not to be
quite this man.

Maybe he goes into a problem where swinging a little hot
music on the "git-box" would resolve it a little better
- under a window or something of the sort - instead of
being the man. Well, if he's hung up with this solution and
he wants this girl, and this girl doesn't appreciate a man
but just loved that fellow twiddling on a "git-fiddle,"
he's stuck! With what?

It isn't that he can't resolve the problem; it's the fact
he's made a postulate which makes the problem impossible to
solve. Because the second he goes up against one of his own
postulates, he says, "I'm wrong," and that's the bottom of
the tone scale. So he can't go down to the bottom of the
tone scale just to be right, because if he did he'd be
wrong. Maybe, see? So what's he going to do? There isn't
anything he can do about it, I guess - except, of course,
pick up the postulate; that's rather obvious.

If you're in good shape, you can pick up all the postulates
you ever made clear back to the beginning of time. I won't
say what you'll come out to be here though; you might
suddenly turn into a griffin. But that's a danger you can
risk.

So it doesn't matter what postulate you've made, that
postulate is bound to make you into an effect by it. So you
must be willing to some degree - if you're going to live in
a time stream, in a time span - to be an effect. See how that
is? I mean, if you're going to be in a time stream at all,
you must be willing to be an effect at least of yourself.
And of course, most everybody is affected by everything;
this society makes a complete dance out of being effect;
never be cause, be effect.

Or, if you wanted to avoid this utterly, you'd have to live
in no time. Maybe that's desirable. I don't know. Here's no
time. It's desirable if it's up here at the top of the tone
scale, because you can get everything done in the world.
Because up at the top of the tone scale, you see, you don't
have any concept of time, you have concept of action, which
you can change at will. Down here at the bottom, why, it
affects you. Effect down here, cause up here.

All right, let's talk about going out on these dynamics.
Now, you think you have experienced being somebody else
when very often you have only experienced being the effect
of somebody else. Do you get the difference? This is
important - important - in Technique 80. That's one of the
most important things about it, is the cause-effect
relationship of what you are along the dynamics. Because
right now there's hardly anybody who isn't simply an effect.

He's an effect on the first dynamic. That's gorgeous. I
mean, you can't get any less than being an effect on the
first dynamic, so that's why you must go up the tone scale
with the one, two, three, four, five. Last night I told you
about going up the tone scale one, two, three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, by just being into the other dynamics.
Well, there's that; it's perfectly true.

But "to be" is cause. And "not to be" is effect. And so "to
be" along the dynamics you have to be cause along the
dynamics. And when you go into another person's valence you
can say to yourself "Yes, I am being that other person."
No, you're not. If you were being that other person, you
would be able, actually, to see that other person change if
you were cause. Whereas by going into his valence, you
become effect a little bit and you change, see? Different.
When you go out along the dynamics, you want to go out
along the dynamics so that by being the couch, you don't
become the couch, the couch becomes you. See the
difference? Now, there's a very important difference.

You go into this group. Now, maybe everybody who goes into
this group.... And by the way, everybody, if they're way up
on tone and so forth, or even if they've postulated
themselves way up on tone, or they act way up on tone,
actually could be very high-level cause. Everybody in the
group could be high-level cause. And being high-level
cause, this becomes a terrifically powerful group, because
anything that faces the group sort of has an effect of
being an effect. And then what happens? It becomes part of
the group, so the group keeps on being, being, being, which
is the same thing as saying owning, owning, owning. You
couldn't get a group of people together who - all of them
were high-level cause - who would fail to do anything but
own practically everything they laid their eyes on.
Impossible, see?

Now, here is what an aberrated effect-level action amounts
to when you try Technique 80. This is a low-level
aberrative effect. Here are two people: they're both really
effects; they're both effects amongst effects; they're
really down tone scale. Somebody goes
thumpity-thump-bumpity-bump on a bass fiddle or something
like that and they go thumpity-thump-bumpity-bump, you
know? Somebody turns on a television set and says, "Buy
Wheaties! The breakfast of Dianeticists," or something, and
they go out and they buy Wheaties. Somebody says, "Smoke
Luckies," they smoke Luckies. Somebody says, "You have to
have a car so you'll have transportation," so they drive a
car.

Here's the point: You take these two people. Each one of
them is about 98 percent effect, and they are so leery of
being more effect than they are - because if they go any
further down the effect scale, they're dead - that they get
next to each other and they never really make a group. They
just stand here and they say, "Which one of us is going to
be cause?" because it's an anxiety. Because they're each
saying, "Maybe I won't be." An insecurity, an anxiety,
"Maybe I won't be cause." And so they never are able to get
together; they can't form a group. They can't form a group
for the excellent reason that they have an anxiety, each
one, that he may not be cause.

In order to be cause such an individual has to assert his
causativeness on the first dynamic only, and he has to do
the darnedest things to convince himself. He's really not
trying to convince anybody else if he's on the first
dynamic, he's just trying to convince himself that he's
cause. He's sort of presenting the picture of "Well, here I
go now. Here I go. This is what I'm going to say. That's a
good boy, that's a good boy. You said that all right. You
really caused that. Okay. Did I do all right? Yes, I guess
I did all right that time; of course, I'm not sure. Yeah,
they look like they were affected all right. Well, I'm not
sure that they were." The first dynamic in action on the
aberrated level - confusing.

Take two high-tone-level people - and this guy is cause. He
knows he's cause, but the first thing he's done is become
cause to himself. He's such cause to himself that he
doesn't even have to observe himself. I mean, that's open
and shut; he's just cause, that's all. He says "Jump" and
he jumps. He knows. Instant action, because he has made a
very important division. He has made the division of cause
delineation: where and what is causing what? He knows that
his body is never anything under the sun, moon or stars,
and never will be, anything but an effect! And there's
where your full argument comes in. "Am I cause or am I
effect?" You're saying, "Am I theta body or am I MEST
body?"

Of course your MEST body is always an effect; anybody can
come along, kick it, boot it, run over it, play things at
it, do anything to it. It's created so you have something
whereby you can become an effect. And then somebody came
along and said, "You are your body." That was the second
part of the operation. "Now, we're going to take you as a
theta body and we're going to fix you up so you have a body
and then we [you] can be an effect" - that's stage one. And
then they say, "All right, now you're your body and you
don't exist over there anymore. And you're your body, and
now here's the whips, swoosh-pop! We're all set now. Go to
work at nine! Get off at five! Draw your paycheck! Eat
Wheaties!" They got you!

So the first place we take the riddle to pieces is right
here on the basis of "What are you?" And the first moment
you realize you're not your body - bang! You can at least
stand over here. Your body will always be an effect, and
there is no reason for you to go on through life going and
winding this riddle round and round and round on "Am I a
cause or am I an effect? Or am I an effect or am I a cause?
Because if I step on a nail I hurt; therefore, I am an
effect. Therefore, I could never be completely at cause,
because if I step on a nail, why, then I hurt and that
automatically makes me an effect."

You better locate that part of you which is always cause
and then recognize that you are that part. And that's very
simple - very, very simple.

Right here on the middle of "youness" is an imperishable,
completely indestructible motion source. It is a motion
source which itself has no motion. That is your inheritance
as part of divine beingness. That is it, and don't think
that is a small part of you or merely a part of you,
because it's not. That's you. You have immortality in that
part of you which is you; that is immortal. If you didn't
have that, you wouldn't be here.

Every cell basically has a tiny spark of this, but you,
your beingness, is so tremendous, actually, that the force
and power of this small "you" can actually burn down
mountains. If it couldn't, why do they go to so much
trouble to fix you so you can't? Now, that's one of those
problems that proves itself. Nobody would have taken any
trouble to get you aberrated and get you under the thumb if
you weren't dangerous. You're dangerous! Ornery, mean,
causative! Do you know you're liable to go down the street
and cause something? "Hem him in, pin him down. Put the
ball and chain on him quick, because in the center of his
beingness, he is. And don't let him ever find it out,
because then he will be."

I told you last night that you're going to have a little
bit of difficulty finding out which is you - finding out
which is you.

Earlier lectures I told you about entities. These entities
are very interesting. Your theta body has been chopped up,
cut up and given impressions so that you have a position in
your body into which a new personality can be injected -
actual other life injected into it parasitically.

There are two operations on an entity: one is fixing you up
- your theta beingness - fixing it up in a certain way so
that it can have another thought implanted on it. This is
the basis of all of your demon circuits and everything
else. This is where the little voices in your head that
talk to you - they're a soft spot in you into which a new
thought can be implanted, and that's an entity. That
thought, by the way, can be injected long range. It can be
injected as a whole personality, a beingness. A very, very
interesting operation. And you could even handle that
personality to such a degree that it has actual life, and
elsewhere it does have actual life. But you can be affected
that way.

Well, you don't have to process all these things to get rid
of them. That's just a soft spot in your personality. And
with all of these entities - and sometimes there are
seven, and sometimes twenty-one basic circuits or basic
entities, twenty-one. And every one of those injected
personalities is sitting on a soft spot in you where you
are - really been made an effect, somewhere on the track.
Well, where are you?

You stop and think about it for a moment: "Let's see, where
am I? Who am I? Where am I? Am I on this side of my head or
that side of my head, or the bridge of my nose? Or am I
resident down here? Or am I back here?" You can get pretty
excited about this problem. You keep on saying to yourself,
"Gee! Gee, I better find out where I am! Gosh, I might get
lost. Where am I, down here? Gee, this is a rough deal.
Where am I? Who am I? Just what part of my being am I?
Let's see, I've got to find it."

Well, stand at ease. If every entity and being in your head
and in your body was a balloon, a hydrogen balloon, you're
just one of them. The "you" which you know as "you" is just
one of them. And if somebody suddenly chopped the top of
your head off and let all the hydrogen balloons out -
whoooh! - the one that's you has still got "you" on it!
It's marked; it says "I" as it goes floating up in the air.

Well, I stress this point because you - as you use this
technique you're going to have preclears becoming very
excited. They're going to say, "Well, let's see, which am
I?" And the reason I'm stressing this is because this
technique makes you emanate from your point of beingness.
And you start emanating from the point of your beingness,
and the first thing a fellow wants to know is "Where is my
point of beingness?"

And you say, "Well, you emanate, and you will be emanating
from your point of beingness."

"Well, where is it?"

"Well, you see, it doesn't matter where it is, because if
you start emanating, you will emanate from it."

The fellow says, "Where am I?"

Good, huh?

So where are you? There I was.

Well, the answer is - the answer to this is - is geographically
you aren't anyplace; you aren't anyplace. But if you're
alive, if you breathe (and some people do), if your heart
beats, or even if you're out of your body living
comfortably without these mechanical motions distracting
you all the time, you have a point of beingness and you are
that beingness. And that is very important. This is the
point from which you emanate. And beingness, in this regard
and to this degree, has to be tracked down, because that
beingness is cause. And it is the one single cause and the
rest is effect.

(If you'll hold it for a moment, I'll draw the only diagram
I'm going to draw and then you can put it down.) [See
diagram five in the Appendix.]

Here is the first dynamic, actually. That point of
beingness is the first dynamic. Now, it might be having an
effect upon your body which is so tiny - so tiny - that you
are only affecting, actually, directly, maybe your right
ear. You may be in no more real possession of your body
than that, and the rest of you running off sort of mechanically.
But there is a point of beingness!

Now, the first thing that point of beingness must do (and
by the way, with the techniques I'll tell you about
tomorrow night, you can bypass entities, soft spots,
everything else) - you just spread this point of beingness
out until it is in full command of you. It's got you!

Now, this point of awareness that preclears sometimes tell
you about and so forth, you can attain it directly - very,
very directly - in this fashion. But this is you - this point
of beingness - and here, the next line out is, of course,
the first MEST that you contact - the first MEST that you
contact - and that's your body. Your body isn't you and never
will be and never has been. The first point of MEST you
contact is your body, so be sure you don't omit that step,
because it's something like trying to cross a very wide
river and a range of mountains which lie ... Here's the
river and here are the mountains, you're over here and you
just cross the mountains.

If you do this, and there's an observer over here, I
guarantee something: this observer is never going to see
you cross the mountains if you don't cross the river first!
Now, it's just one of those funny geographical facts that
in your conquest of the material universe and the emanation
of you - until you can be cause to the widest possible sphere
sarts with your being cause on the first neuron. And this
cause dot is not even located in a neuron, it's not in a
cell, it's not anywhere. It has zero size, and it has
potential of infinity size. And when you start out, it's
pretty close to zero size.

So let's take it out here and hit the first dynamic. And
that includes from the top of your head to the tip of your
toes, from the right fingers to the left fingers. And that
includes not only awareness of these points but the right
and ability to cause this object, your body, to do anything
you want it to do without even thinking about it; it's
complete unawareness.

You're so causative that as far as your own body is
concerned, it doesn't exist. It exists. You can reach up
and touch it. You can hit your right hand, your left hand,
you say, "Well, I'm here. Think of that."

Oddly enough, your aesthetics come way up the line; your
gracefulness comes way up the line, everything comes up the
line if you do this. That's all you have to do. You're not
trying to attain awareness, you're trying to obtain
complete cause! If you can attain complete cause, believe
me, you know you're complete cause; you aren't just aware.

All right. Let's take, then, this next step - the next step
out. There's two kinds of MEST you are interested in here,
and one is the kind of MEST that breathes and lives; that's
easy to take over because it's already partly been in
conquest. Theta has already captured it to some degree.
It's a living organism; therefore, it's easier for another
theta to come over and take it. You don't like to eat
rocks, but you rather enjoy eating strawberries: Well,
that's because theta has already fixed up the strawberries
so they're edible for you. And they haven't fixed up the
rocks, or has fixed that up too darn well. Okay.

Your next level out here, then, goes into the most
immediate concern which you have, which would be the most
intimate personal relationship which you have. Did you ever
run into anybody who was very sick one day and then next
week he meets a beautiful girl and he's radiant too! "I'm
in love! I'm in love! I'm in love! Hooray, hooray, hooray!"
He is sick as a dog, and then all of a sudden - wham! He's
in love!

Well, it's just he forgot about himself and got over here
into the second dynamic, or the second organism, and he all
of a sudden found out that he was cause. Or she found out
that she was cause. And the second they found that out,
they come up the tone scale enough to make them utterly
delirious, or at least uptone! All right. So there's Mr.
Second Dynamic.

You take a kid. You get a new kid around him - a nice kid and
so forth. Gee, if you're really in good shape, this is
really fine. Huh, because boy, can you be cause with a kid.
(God help the kid!)

Anyway, your next one out here is a group, a group. You
become causative with a group. That is to say, you must
exist with this group to the degree that you're the group
with complete unawareness and are causing with that group
whatever that group wants to cause, or you can cause that
group to cause something else.

We're not dealing in awareness, we're dealing with the
tools of beingness. Beingness actually needs few tools, but
once it has conquered these tools such as your body, the
group body, your sweetheart and so on, your kids, all this
- tools, house - the causativeness is automatic. And it's
automatic: The graceful dancer never thinks of what he is
causing very much, he just causes. Now, there is one of the
main things.

So, you get out to the group, then you're getting out to
any man you run into, any woman you run into. And then out
here you're getting out in your sphere of activity - way out
here - you're getting out into all life forms.

Actually, just for a gag as far as cause is concerned, you
should be able to take a good look at a cat and be the cat.
But that doesn't mean go in and be an effect of the cat.
You get the difference? You be the cat. Well, you could be
the cat and you could make the cat jump up and down off the
curb. You're being a cat. You're jumping up and down off
the curb. The cat's body will obey you because you are more
causative than that cat's body. All right.

This is just giving you the reductio ad absurdum of the
thing. The actual point of it is, as even Rhine in his
experiments has recently discovered (big discovery, this;
they've been doing this since Daniel) - anyway, you take a
dog's nose and you hold the dog's nose shut and you think
"Go to the red dish, go to the red dish, go to the red
dish," and you let his nose go, he'll go over to the red
dish. Of course, you planted an engram in him. But you got
his attention fixed on you, you see, by causing a little
pain, and then you just entered his head and thought.
That's animal magnetism. Known to Moses, known to a lot of
fellows who weren't as good as Moses were at this sort of
thing.

Moses, by the way, was probably so good that he could enter
into a cane and have it wriggle and bite somebody! All
right.

The next line up here, we start out in a gradient scale of
theta; you can be across the line in theta. A lot of people
say "Well, I'm very telepathic." Actually, what they are
is, they're telepathic receivers; that's quite different
than being causative telepath. A causative telepath is a
person who sends. And what you want to get is something you
can send or get messages back on that you want. Okay?

Then, of course, we get out here along the line - you can be
all with total unconsciousness. When you can be all and be
aware - first, aware of all and then be all with total
"unconsciousness," we're going to start the universe over
anyhow. A lot of reconstruction work to be done. Any of you
that get up to this point start it over again.

Now, that's being facetious, perhaps, but this is actually
a divine line.

All right. You get out here, you can be the MEST universe
if you want to be. But when you get out to the line,
there's how far out poltergeist is. It gives to laugh,
somebody who has never become complete cause to himself,
saying, "Well, I'm going to cause this ashtray to move."

The point with everything on cause is that you can effect
it, but it can only affect you as you wish it. You always
have a power of choice over being an effect. So it isn't
good enough to sit down and concentrate and say "Well, now
I'm going to move this ashtray." No, because you're not
going to make the grade. If you can't make yourself jump
six feet off the ground - whap! - without even breathing
hard, don't try to move any ashtrays. All things in their
places. All right.

This target is the universe in all of its aspects, and that
is the target you will want to be cause to. It doesn't
matter how far up the line you go or how far out you cause.
You will find out as you start being cause that you will
attract to you other people who are cause. And as you enter
other people who are cause and they enter you, your
individuality increases. Now, that sounds funny, doesn't
it?

If you start in at the bottom of the tone scale and you're
way down at the bottom of the tone scale, you start into
other people and you start to merge. See, you don't know
who you are. You don't know who you are. You must be Joe or
you must be Bill, and "Gee, I feel like Agnes today." You
know, back and forth, back and forth.

As you go up the tone scale, don't think that you merge,
because you don't! You become more independently alert as
"I." And you get up to a point where you're never anybody
else but you.

But the ultimate personality of you and the personality
which you are happiest in - the personality happens to
have certain definite characteristics, and they are written
across the top of the Chart of Attitudes. But you're happy
to be those, and you are actually struggling to be those
and you're merging on up the line. Only the very aberrated
love their eccentricities. You're not getting out into a
limpid something or other. I don't think there's anything
more devilish than somebody at about 32.0 on the tone
scale.

I know one preclear, by the way, that I stopped working on.
I wasn't tough enough to take it. I could take working on
this preclear all right, but I couldn't take what would
happen to the human race if this preclear came all the way
on up the line, because this preclear was coming all the
way on up the line, but too causative, too causative. So I
said, "Well, I'll let that aside for the moment, because I
want some of the race left for you people to practice on."
And I want you to thank me for that. I think that's very
considerate.

All right. There is cause, "to be," and "not to be." The
very funny part of this is, you can get into some of its
expression simply through action. You can make a decision
all of a sudden to be perfectly willing to use your body
for anything. The second you do that, you take this
tremendous value off the body so that life becomes much
less serious. And when life becomes much less serious it
becomes much less worrisome, and you become much more able
to know, and you're able to think and able to do. So you
take the value off, this tremendous value that you're
putting on the body: "Must keep my hands clean; must keep
my fingernails clean." Well, you will anyhow. I mean, the
higher you get up the tone scale, the cleaner you get
anyhow.

But if it's a strain to do all this and so forth, you say,
"Oh, I'd never squash a spider with my foot. Huh, a bare
foot on a spider?" Well, why? Why? When did your MEST get
that valuable? That's a fact.

Just think of some of the things which you wouldn't even
begin to do with this piece of MEST which you have, a human
body. Just think of it. Every single one of them is an
aberration! Heavy.

Just practice action!

Be willing to use your body to its complete endurance.

Be willing to use it in any direction to accomplish a
purpose which you have decided on beforehand. And if you do
that, all by itself, you'll come up the tone scale-whsht!
And you can go on from there with more processing.

Thank you very much for coming out here tonight and listening
to me.

================


Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 691
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Re: THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

Сообщение auditor » 30 дек 2015, 16:53

Route To Infinity Lecture #6

THERAPY SECTION OF TECHNIQUE 80: PART I

A lecture given on 21 May 1952

[T80-3A "Therapy Section of 80: Clearing up overt
acts, dependencies".]

================

Tonight I would like to give you the therapy that goes
along with Technique 80. So far in these lectures I've
talked to you about theory. Well, this technique combines
understanding with actual mechanical running. You can just
take a preclear and start him with this technique, but he
won't get too much out of it. He has to understand what his
goal is.

Now, if you take any individual or any group of people and
you start to work with them and you don't tell them what
you're trying to do, they don't do very well; you know,
like the government does. Of course, the government doesn't
know what it's trying to do. But you as the auditor should
know what you're trying to do with Technique 80.

You're trying to make it possible for this person to be
cause on all dynamics. How high you get him up is up to
you. Believe me, if you got him up to two, the second
dynamic - one and two - you'd have Superman. If you got him
to one, two and three and nobody else was using Technique 80,
why, you very probably have - oh, I don't know - governor
of the state or the president or somebody. I mean, somebody
who would just sort of automatically step into that
position.

Don't think you're starting out here with anything light;
it's not light. But oddly enough, the technique itself is
almost like light processing. There isn't any heavy running
of engrams, there isn't any heavy running of secondaries.
You should know the techniques of thought, emotion and
effort, but it's not necessary for you to get into the
beginning of a heavy incident and run it through, because
that's not what you're aiming for.

What you're trying to do is locate the points of unresolved
incident that impede a person from being, and on the other
hand, impede him from not being. And, by the way, it might
be a new thought to you that somebody could be impeded from
not being. Well, it's quite a thought. You ever a little
kid and have to brush your teeth, and so on? Well, the
little kid wants to be dirty, and he is impeded from being
dirty. Well, that's a perfectly good ambition; he wants to
be dirty. So?

All right. Here's somebody who knows very well that if he
becomes a sergeant in the army he's going to lose all his
friends who are privates. And so he is trying to not be a
sergeant - goes up on the bulletin board anyway. Well, that's
upsetting to him - very upsetting. Of course, that type of
incident of which I am speaking now is very light, it's
very mild, but it's almost funny, the mildness of
this-lifetime incidents which impede not-beingness and
beingness. It's almost funny; they're just nothing, really.

If you take some preclear, he's been run over by trucks and
thrown off buildings and so forth - terrific casualties have
occurred to him. And incidents, heavy physical-pain
incidents - they're not what's wrong with him. But here he
is, he's got a bad leg and, oh, his eyesight is all bad and
he feels horrible and so forth.

And you say, "Well, gee, we'll have to run out all those
incidents in order to make him capable of being - we'll
have to run all those heavy incidents."

No. This technique doesn't care about heavy incidents at
all. It wants to know why these incidents are hung up in
maybes, and that's all this technique wants to know.

It's going to resolve those maybes. And you will find that
the real maybes - the real maybes - are very light. There
isn't anything very heavy about them. But the fellow has
come up against something which has made him halt in a
decision between two heavy incidents.

Now, you take the "Handbook for Preclears". There's a Chart
of Attitudes in there. Across the top of the Chart of
Attitudes you have such things as "I am," "I know,"
"cause," "everyone," "owns everything"; and there should be
two additional columns on it - "freedom" and - forgotten
what the other column is.

Female voice: "Win and lose."

Yes, that's right: "win and lose." Very silly, I was trying
to read the Chart of Attitudes and it isn't printed on
there.

Well, anyway, you take those top bands. Now, you take these
bottom bands. If a fellow has decided finally - "I don't
know," he says; "I just know not, that's all, I'm ..." or
if he's decided "Well, I'm dead," that's not very
aberrative. But don't get him between "I know" and "I know
not."

Fellow says, "I know. No, I don't, I know not. Oh, well, I
think I know, but I'm not sure I know not," and he goes
this way, bing, bing, bing - rrrrrr.

And, you'll find one, two, three or four circumstances in
the present lifetime which are sufficient to aberrate the
case very thoroughly and inhibit very strongly a state of
beingness for the individual. One, two, three or four or
five; hardly more than that, usually just one. And it has
to do with the fact he received a motion and then he tried
to use the motion and then he said, "I won't use this
motion." And that's the indecision. You see, that's
basically the only indecision there is. "I've received a
motion. Now, shall I or shall - I'm going to ... No, I
won't use that motion." It's that cycle of action.
"Something has happened to me here and I'm going to do
something, but I'm not going to do it." And he promptly
goes into a maybe.

And you may think you have to take the whole case to pieces
to find one of these things. The weird part of it is, is
the preclear will give you everything necessary to resolve
his case, usually in this technique, in the first session
certainly, and certainly within three or four sessions.
They'll tell you everything you need to know.

The incidents are right there; they'll tell you all about
them. They will no more than sit down and they'll tell you
this incident. And you say to yourself, "This can't
possibly be what's wrong with this case because this is too
simple." And so, you take this incident and you put it
aside and you say, "Well, we'll park that over here and
we'll go in for something - we'll go in for blood over here."

No, no. They tell you about it. But the reason you haven't
picked up this incident the first moment it showed up is a
very simple reason: You didn't pick up the combination of
incidents. He gave you one end of the incident, and it was
up to you to guess the other end of the incident. But once
you know how to guess the other end of the incident, it
ceases to be a riddle and becomes a very scientific
problem.

The preclear will always give you the wrong side. And he'll
give you the side that's in view as far as he's concerned.
He says, "You see this? Well, this is what's wrong with
me." He'll tell you, and that isn't what's wrong with him.
There's an incident down here which matches this incident,
which actually is locked together solid, and it won't let
this incident resolve. And here's this incident over here.
And why won't it resolve? Because there's a maybe right
here.

Now, here's incident one. All right, this is an early
incident. Now, the first thing that happens on this first
incident - it's injurious, the preclear recovers from it.
There was some impulse in this incident to use force or do
something. There's a little unresolved decision right in
that incident.

Now, the next thing that happens to him that is aberrative
regarding this incident may happen to him any time during
the next lifetime. It can be five minutes from then, five
years from then or fifty years from then. This incident
could coast in just sort of a little annoying little spin
sort of a thing. Every once in a while he'd kind of think
about it; it wouldn't amount to anything. He'd go on being
effective in life, until one day something happens.

One day he says, "Here is a motion," and something
confronts him about this motion. And the second he's
confronted with something that requires him to use this
motion, he says, "Well, here I ..." There it is - maybe.

So, what's happened is he comes along here, along the
track, and way up here - all of a sudden here's another
incident. There's force involved in this incident one way
or the other. And he says right there, "I'm wrong. I ...
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I. . . maybe I. . . But
it couldn't because it didn't; I mean, it - but, on the
other hand, if I had have ..." What happens is, is this
incident moves over - this one moves over - and we get
them locked together.

What is computation? Computation is the resolution of
problems. Computation is taking the maybes out of
existence. So long as you can remove maybes by the process
of comparing data and get a situation which balances out
yes or no, you are thinking smoothly. But the second that
you get a proposition where "maybe it's yes, maybe it's no"
- zong.

Well, now, you see this in thought all the time. I mean,
people do this with a thought - well, a person has a thought
and then he has another thought and then the two thoughts
are in conflict. Or he goes up and somebody tells him one
thing, and then he goes over here and somebody tells him
another thing. And then he gets hung up on a big maybe here
in the middle, so he starts thinking about it all the time
and he can't think about it all the time, so he eventually
kind of goes into apathy about the whole subject.

Well, that would be different. What I'm talking to you
about here is force, effort - good heavy effort. There's
effort in both of these incidents, effort in both of them,
so that it is a maybe which is hung up with effort in it.

Now, oddly enough, you will find that this effort here has
a lot of locks in it; they're little locks. It's all wound
up. There are a lot of maybes, maybes, maybes. In other
words, this thing can wind into the whole life pattern; it
could just pervade all computation. It can become
compulsive, obsessive, inhibitive, all sorts of strange
things. It gets to be a mess.

If a man has this sort of a situation happen to him (as
everyone has), he eventually - if you took a look at his
brains - mind, rather - and had all of his facsimiles, it
would look like an alarm clock some kid had taken apart.
It's just all snarled up.

Now, there's the computational view. I'll give you a - give
you an example. A little kid, he's two years old. Somebody
comes in and steps on him - bang. Didn't hurt him very bad,
but stepped on him. He's lying on the floor. When he's
twenty, the person who stepped on him jostles him a little
bit and he hauls off and hits him. Two incidents, both
containing physical force.

It just won't work out. He shouldn't hit this other person;
he knows he shouldn't hit this other person. The other
person didn't do anything, they just jostled him. Well,
now, from twenty on, you'll find this man worrying about
this. Down in a substratum he's thinking about it all the
time.

But what's he tell you when you ask him as an auditor "What
happened to you in your life?" Supposing this was his uncle
George. And he says, "Oh, I'm a wreck because my uncle
George did so many bad things to me. All he did was do bad
things to me. You know, when I was a little kid I remember
going into the store and I had ten cents. And he said I couldn't
buy any candy. And another time I wanted to go for a ride in
the car, and so on, and he kept my - he kept telling my mother
that she ought to punish me. And the whole trouble with my
life is George and the horrible way which he acted toward
me. And I understand that when I was a little baby, why, he
was awful mean and brutal to me.

You start to run him, and the first incident he'll present
you is Uncle George stepping on him. Is that the incident
you want? No! He's not going to tell you this other
incident. And the other incident is his hauling off and
hitting George. And George - he's a young man of twenty by
this time and his uncle George is pretty old. And yet here
he is, Uncle George jostles him a little bit, restimulates
this thing, and he hauls off and hits Uncle George - bang!
See? "I shouldn't be hitting Uncle George, I ..." Well,
Uncle George never worried him much up to that time. But to
hear him talk afterwards, you'd think that Uncle George was
the - well, he was the devil incarnate.

This is what is known as justification - justification.
He's justifying, and he justifies by presenting you with
motions like this, so that he won't have to face this one.
He don't want to face that one. No, that was hitting Uncle
George. Oh no, no, no!

Well, you ask him about it, he'll tell you about it. Maybe
he's forgotten it, by the way, and maybe not. But if you
ask him about it, he'll say, "Yes, well, I did. I hit Uncle
George once. I hit him and I felt kind of bad about it, but
that hasn't got anything to do with it." Oh, yeah?

You say, "Well, it hasn't got anything to do with it, but
let's run it anyway - hmm? Shall we just go through this?
Just scan this, very ... ?"

"Well, it hasn't got anything to do about it."

"Well, how about just scanning through it just once?"

"Well, I tell you, it's got nothing to do with it!" He'll
get frantic after a while. And you'll finally take him by
the scruff of the neck and you shove him into the front end
of the incident and you run him through a few times. And
finally he says, "You know, that's funny. My back hurts."

"Well, what are you doing now?" you say.

"Well, it's this incident. I tell you what the incident
that's really wrong with me - I'm lying on the floor and
Uncle George comes in and steps on me.

You say, "Run hitting Uncle George." You see? You see the
complete mechanical justification? He's giving you this
one all the time, and all he's really trying to say to
himself, and he's never even able to say this, is "I had a
perfect right to hit Uncle George, because look what he did
to me.

The first thing that you get into when you try to stop a
fight between two little kids is this: "He hit me first."

Well, actually, it's as simple as that; simple as that.

If you find somebody hating, snarling and writhing about
somebody else, find out what they did to that person. If
you find a preclear who wants to do nothing but run engrams
about how horrible some member of his family is, how much
he was abused by his mother and all he'll do is run these
engrams about his mother: his mother did this to him, his
mother did that to him, his mother did something else to
him, his mother did . . . You know, you could waste a long,
long time without resolving that case - lot of time you could
waste. Because the fact that he's presenting you with all
of these incidents and so forth - just look at that in
interpersonal relationships, around in life or on the
therapy couch, look at it either way, simply that he's
saying, "I was justified, I was justified, I was justified,
I was justified." It doesn't matter whether he says "So
this teacher grabbed me by the back of the neck and slapped
my face and so forth. And I was expelled from school. And
this and that happened to me, and - and, boy ... Just boil
it all down to this: "I'm justified, I'm justified, I'm
justified."

And it's your job as an auditor to find out just this datum
as your opening wedge in 80, just this datum: justified in
doing what?

Now, it may take an E-Meter to find it. Actually, they have
a tendency to sort of look at an E-Meter and they say, "All
right, I'll take hold of the cans" - sort of like "Let's make
a little pact here, that you don't ask me any of these questions
that are really hot."

And you say, "Well, now, let's see. What happened to you?"
and so forth.

And he says, "Well, so, my younger brother kept hitting me
over the head with a brickbat and he hit me over the head
with a hammer and did this and he did that and did this and
did that."

"Come on," you say, "now what did you do to your younger brother?"

"Nothing." The needle will go wheww!

And you say, "Well, now, you're sure you never did anything to
him?"

"Oh no, no, no, no." Whewww!

You say, "Well now, what about it? Can't you just give us
just a little inkling, maybe?"

"No. Hah. Well, of course, there was that business about
the kiddie car, but that - that was nothing, that was
nothing."

"Well, what did happen?"

"Well, I ... Well, I don't know. You see, I was never sure
- my mother said I was, but I - I was never sure that I
did knock him off of the kiddie car."

"Knocked him off of what kiddie car?"

"Well, little kiddie car down the street that I brought in.
And, of course, it fractured his skull and he was in the
hospital for about six months, and he's never been quite
right since. But ...

Now, you'll get this type of interplay in any case and it
follows some very, very definite rules. It follows some
very definite rules.

Any time a person is protesting about a motion having
happened to him - and this is a hard and fast rule, by the
way: Any time a person is protesting about a motion that
has happened to him, you can be assured that he has tried
to use this motion and has hung himself up in a maybe, or
he is merely telling you about a lock on that situation.
One or the other.

Now, any time he gets one of these computational things
that won't resolve, his mind is neither peaceful nor clear
and his beingness is impeded on all fronts. You can be sure
that if he's protesting about any motion of any kind - that
something that's happened to him, if he's protesting about
that motion - or actually if he's protesting about any
motion on any dynamic violently, you know very well that
he's guilty as sin of having tried to use that motion and
found out it was the wrong motion to use.

In processing a case, if you will follow that thing
through, you will see a case start to fall apart in front
of you.

I dare say there are people who have run for a couple of
hundred hours - as much as that, maybe; maybe many more.
Nearly all the auditing was merely their justification.
They were just running justification, justification,
justification.

And they're not going to run out of justification - as long
as you leave untapped - the incident that they are trying
to justify. So, "What are you trying to justify?"

You know the religious world tells you "Repent, ye
sinners." They tell you, "You're all sinners." And
everybody says, "Yup, yup, we're sinners all right. It's a
good thing the fellow up there on the altar doesn't just
know how much." But what's sin?

Well, they seldom bother to explain that; they make a big
plaque or something of the sort and they say, "Sin is one,
two (not putting a dollar in the collection plate), sin,"
down the line, they give you a nice long list of sins.
Well, there's no reason to list it. A sin is misusing a
counter-effort you have received. That's all a sin is.
Because every time you do, badly, it'll wind you up in this
squirrel-up.

It makes computation, then, very difficult, very difficult,
because everything a person is thinking goes over and
under and around this and so forth.

You remember the cartoons of Rube Goldberg about the little
man takes off his hat which knocks lever which throws
basketball and so forth? Well, that's the kind of diagram
you'd have to draw to get somebody's thinking apparatus if
he's got one of these things badly in view.

Now, that's the first thing for you to remember on this.
Actually, it's an overt-act proposition, and you know about
overt acts.

If you refuse to commit an overt act, or if you commit one
and are very sorry for it, you will then be unable to
remain yourself, but will do, to some degree, a life
continuum for the thing you hit.

You say, "Bang! I regret it." That means that you go right
around here, and that is not beingriess on other dynamics;
that is being an effect, not a cause.

There's two ways that this sort of overt act happens to
you. One, you're cause and you go along and you're just
fine. And you receive a motion of some sort or other, and
you've got that back here, and you've never worried about
this motion before. But you're being cause. And one day you
decide to be cause with violence, so you pick up this
motion and you go wham! with it. But just as it's going,
you say, "Snnnff!" but it's too late. And you spend the next
thirty, fifty or five thousand years trying to pull back this
instant of time, which keeps you there on the time track.

Well, therefore, the first entrance into a case with
Technique 80 is simply to find out what the fellow is
protesting about. And then, of course, "methinks the
preclear doth protest too much." And what you get is a
justification and you turn that around and find the overt
act. Then run the overt act out and you'll find out you
don't have to exhaust this thing very much; you just run it
just a little bit and it'll unbalance.

He'll try to run the earlier one, then try to run the later
one and so on; they're all snarled up. You've got a perfect
picture of a person trying to run an incident. He's going
around and around, first in one, then in the other, first
in one, then in the other. They're usually almost to the
character of locks. It'll blow; it'll blow.

Now, there's another reason why a person will protest: if
somebody has tried one way or the other to make him an
effect, and this person has worked on him to make him an
effect, make him an effect, make him an effect - by being
nice to him. And they've practically taken over his whole
anatomy just by being nice to him. And eventually he'll get
to the point where he'll realize that he no longer owns
himself. The ownership of self has moved out from
underneath him, and so at this time he says, "I'm just
tired of this," so he'll begin to say that this person who
is doing nice things for him is doing bad things for him.
And there's a big maybe. He's gotten to the point where he
realizes that all of these nice things, these nice things,
these nice things, for him and his hands and his stomach
and his clothes and his time and so on - somebody is being so
nice to him. You can't protest against that; I mean, it's
just something you can't protest against.

And the guy will finally, if he's ever going to save
himself, he suddenly - he suddenly hauls off and says, "Oh,
you're hurting me, you're injuring me," and he'll try to do
something to the person or do something to himself. And
he'll get hung up in that maybe. And that is another kind
of a maybe: the protest against nice things.

There's the fellow's protest against himself of having
slugged, hurt, injured, with thought, emotion or effort -
some other being (you know, overt act), which hangs him up
in a maybe. But you're only interested in the maybe
characteristic of that, you see. He's hung up in a maybe by
doing this overt act or his thought of doing it or an
emotion that is overt, or a real effort that's overt. He's
hung up in that line or he's hung up over here on a
dependency line. He's been made very dependent, very
dependent.

Continually in this society, you'll find a sixteen,
seventeen, eighteen year - old kid is in a high state of
revolt. "Papa, Mama - they're no good anymore; they're
old-fashioned. They can't understand. They wouldn't be able
to understand a woman of the world" (or a man of the
world, as the case may be). "They don't have a person's
best interests ..."

All they're - all the kid is trying to do there in his
teens is simply break this: "You're helping me, you're
helping me, you're helping me. I've got to do something
about it because I'm getting owned, owned, owned. And I
don't own myself anymore. And I'm getting worried about it,
so I've got to protest, and I'll find anything to protest
against." And the kid, at that stage, will have the
doggonedest things wrong with his parents. Oh, he just has
terrific numbers of things. The parents have done this and
done that, and done this and that to him. And actually,
what he can't face is the fact that his mother fed him
every day.

One preclear had a very bad set of teeth, and the bad set
of teeth was just in protest of having been fed very well,
very long. He knew his mother was tired. His mother would
cook special things for him. He'd plead with his mother not
to. And his mother would cook special things for him and so
forth, and he'd eat them and so forth. And he finally got
down to a point where he didn't want to have anything more
to do with this, so he got bad teeth. And all of his
toothaches went by the boards the second this computation
was clipped.

Interesting, isn't it?

In other words, you can have suffered any quantity of
damage. Actually, personally, you can have suffered any
quantity of damage without having anything very bad take
place - just damage, as far as damage is concerned. The
engram that hangs up is the engram you tried to use and
couldn't use and restrained yourself from using; you hung
yourself up with it - or somebody was too nice to you too
long.

And by the way, if any of you have ever had the experience
of trying to help somebody else, you know that it invariably
backfires. Sooner or later, sooner or later in trying to help
somebody you'll wind up with a backfire.

Hm?

Female voice: I don't agree with you.

Oh, it'll work out in the long run.

Well, I tell you, whenever you find a preclear whose mom
and pop are "no good," suspect then one of two things:
They've been very nice to him or he's done an overt act
against them. Those are the two things you suspect.

Now, isn't that strange? Doesn't it sound to you, as I tell
you that, irrational? It's perfectly rational, but doesn't
it sound to you irrational that a person would get to a
point of where he will tell you "My father beat me every
day" (his father never laid a hand on him)? "My father beat
me every day, and this happened and that happened and other
things happened," and so on. Not a word of truth in it.
What did happen: his father was too nice to him too long.
Because, you see, there's a way of being nice to people
which actually is a very insidious way of taking them over.
You know, you just interrupt their initiative enough so
that they keep getting grooved along your will.

It actually is a nice impulse; there isn't anything mean
about it really, but it ruins the self-determination of the
person to whom it is done. And that is what they're
protesting against. They no longer are owned by themselves
but owned by somebody else.

In either case, a person will become owned by somebody else
- in either case. In other words, if you injure a dynamic
badly, you have a definite commitment with yourself to
continue the existence of that dynamic. That's the overt
act, that's life continuum, of which we already know.

All right, life continuum, the overt act, is simply your
moving out of yourself, your disownment of yourself. And
you go over and try to be this dynamic and say, "I'm awful
sorry, dynamic, I didn't mean to do that. I will be you."
"You bum over there," - that's you, see that? You just change
it completely. And that's a very bad situation. Or the
fellow just works so that people are nice to him and nice
to him and nice to him; he'll finally blow up in their
faces. And then he says, "I'm awful ashamed for having
blown up and I realize I don't have any cause to blow up,
and, gee, you've been nice to me all this time so there
must be some reason why I'm mad." And what he doesn't
realize is that he is being owned, little piece by little
piece, first his left finger and his right finger and his
left foot and his right ear, until he's all owned over
here. And he doesn't like that, and that's what he's
blowing up against. His lack of comprehension of it winds
up in a computational snarl like that. All right.

Now, the reason why it is very, very nice to resolve this
very early in the case in Technique 80 is because the case
will play all sorts of tricks on you with the additional
technique, unless you resolve the overt act and the protest
against dependency.

You could say, then, that there's an overt act and a
dependency - those two things. If you resolve those (very
easy to resolve, they're right there in sight; it doesn't
take long), you're then free to get on the road, because
for the first time you're processing the preclear's first
dynamic. Unless you get these overt acts and these
dependencies out of the road, what you're trying to process
with Technique 80 will be somebody else.

And that's very disappointing; you've got a preclear there
on the couch and you're processing this preclear and you
want this preclear to own himself and then finally get out
along the line of the rest of the dynamics. And this is all
going to be fine, except you worked for fifty, sixty, seventy,
eighty, ninety, a hundred hours and all this time you've
been processing Grandma. Well, all you've done is
rehabilitate the valence of Grandma's ownership of the
preclear. Well, that isn't getting anyplace.

So it's up to you to resolve the overt act and the
dependency problems on the case. And then, for the first
time, you've got him enough inside one so that he can carry
on from there. And having gotten him that far inside one,
you go on to give him possession of the actual physical
facts of his own organism.

The end in view, of course, actually is continually
interrupted by new overt acts and new dependencies showing
up every time you go out to the new dynamic - the next
dynamic, see? So here you are with your preclear and you
just get along fine. You get his overt acts and his
dependencies very beautifully resolved, and you've got that
all nicely resolved, and now we're going into the second
dynamic.

Now you'll find out that there's new overt acts and new
dependencies on the second dynamic. And now you've got to
resolve those again, but they again are very easy to
resolve.

Why doesn't he like children? Why is he terribly
over-anxiously concerned about children? - whichever way it
is. There'll be an overt act or a dependency involving this
"maybe" computation. And you find out he doesn't like
children. All right, he doesn't like children. (By the way,
an E-Meter really speeds this thing up.) You say, "Do you
like boys?"

"No."

"You don't like boys?"

"No, I don't like boys, no. No, particularly little boys.
They ... they're bad, they're bad."

"All right, what did you do to one?"

"Oh, I didn't do anything to one. Oh no, no, no, no, no. Of
course, except that ... Well, I ... I like children."

And you say, "Come on, what did you do?"

"Oh, well, it wasn't anything really. It was at this tea
party. I mean, this little girl was having this tea party,
and - yeah, I was invited over there and it was a hot -
well, anyway, I dumped his head in the punch bowl, and he
got a bad cut in the head."

All right, run it out. I mean, it's one of these "big,
major incidents." And all of a sudden, you'll find out that
he - little boys are little boys. And just carry it along
like that.

You'll sometimes find a dependency on a children level. He
feels utterly dependent on children. This is a great one,
but it's a very simple one. It's usually, a child - as a
child, this preclear was taken care of by older children
and he's never noted the fact that those children are no
longer children now but have grown up. So he's sort of hung
there as dependent upon all these kids taking care of him.

And they tuck him in, you see, and they help him to walk
and they show him how to run a tricycle, and they do this
and they do that and eventually he says, "I'm not going to
be owned like this anymore!" And he flares up and says,
"You're hurting me." And you'll sometimes resolve the
dependency one by finding that it lead into an overt act.

He went in and said to Mama, "She hit me." No, she didn't,
but he said so. He'll go in and make up all sorts of
stories to protest. So let's get the protest off, then, on
the second dynamic.

Now, we take - of course, women for men and men for women
come in on the second dynamic. Well, you get a very special
kind of interpersonal relation and a very special kind of overt
act - very special, highly specialized - when it comes between
a man and a woman who are sexual partners. Procreation in
this society is practically an overt act in itself. Boy,
that's bad. So you just resolve a few overt acts along that
line.

By the way, you find out that very often they're not very
violent, what you're running into, so that you can clear up
this dynamic so that you can practice the second part of
the technique on that dynamic. Because this is just the
half of the technique I'm telling you about here - that's
clearing up overt acts and dependencies. You'll find out
that they're quite simple to resolve. Something happened to
him and he tried to make it happen to somebody else and
then he stopped himself from making it happen to somebody
else, and he said, "Bang!"

So he's hung up with that, and on the second dynamic those
can be very interesting.

On the third dynamic, of course, we have the same sort of a
situation. Very often his first concepts of a group are in
childhood. Why Freud had to stress childhood to the degree
that he stressed, I do not know, unless he was hung up
there on the track. But he did completely overstress it,
because when you think of all the childhoods that you can
have, all the adulthoods you've had and all the other
experiences you've had, this little section - childhood -
isn't very bad.

But you know something about childhood? It's occluded on
most people; it disappears from view. And man has an
instinctive curiosity, that when something gets buried or
hidden from view, he's like a hound dog, he's got to root
down there and find it. Whatever it is, he thinks it's
there. Well, very often it is there, but quite as often it
isn't.

The reason childhood gets barred from view, by the way, is
a very simple one: everybody owned you and you didn't own
yourself, so therefore you don't own your memories. And
these memories just sort of disappear along with the rest
of you. And your childhood is full of overt acts and full
of dependencies, both ways.

Very often you can spring a whole childhood into view by
merely solving a couple of little minor overt acts that
happened in childhood.

I remark one of about a five-year-old girl. She kicked her
mother in the stomach, gave her mother a bad stomach ache,
and there went childhood. Gone, right there. She just - "Poor
Mama," and so on, and she just buried all that. Big overt
act. Blew this one into view, and so forth, there came
childhood. There it was, all lying out perfectly arranged
in order.

Gives you just exactly the mechanism of how things get
buried from view - just exactly. And that is the mechanism
of how they get buried from view, too.

All right. You go out to the third dynamic, you'll find out
that in a gang of kids, in a classroom, something or other,
this preclear of yours has done a betrayal - an outright
betrayal - one way or the other, of a group, or has hurt the
group or has been very villainous on the subject one way or
the other, or later on has become so entirely dependent
upon the group that he hates the group.

And you realize with that, that we've moved right straight
into the modern economic system?

Why do people hate people? As far as the third dynamic is
concerned it seems inevitable that they would, because the
dependency of each on the group has been magnified to be so
great. Oh, everybody teaches the kids this, they teach you
this, they tell you this all the time: "You're dependent on
the group, you're dependent on this social culture, you're
dependent on this economic system, you're dependent on it."
And then they never bother to tell you that this economic
system, without you as individuals, wouldn't mote... - it
just wouldn't function.

At this tone level of the society, they have a little sign
they like to hang up in stores: "If you think you're so
necessary to existence, go on down to the cemetery and take
a look; they thought they were too." You know, cute. In
other words, they say, "Here's this group, this mighty
group here; it's all - important and you're not important
in it."

If you don't believe this is what happens, look at the
number of votes that get turned in, in a presidential
election. Probably very few people here tonight believe
that their vote is very important in a presidential
election. You say, "Well, that's just one little vote, and
it doesn't amount to anything." Oh yes, it does.

Far as the fourth dynamic is concerned, you get some very,
very interesting overt acts and some very, very interesting
dependencies.

A man fares better because he's a man, because the rest of
man helps him. But every degradation of man, as a form,
actually lies on the fourth dynamic.

Every time a person himself acts badly, unethically,
degrading himself in some fashion, or is degraded, he has
immediately the sensation that he is degrading the whole
race.

Think of what war does, by the way, on that. Here are the
bodies - because the fourth dynamic, as far as we're
concerned as we go up these dynamics (we're on Technique
80, which has to do with bodies) - and on the fourth dynamic,
out on the battlefield, they throw the corpses around with
a wild abandon. Anybody who has been through a war comes
out the other end feeling a little bit degraded.

Natural. In the first place, he's lived like a dog; in the
second place, he's committed overt acts against other
groups, which are antipathetic to the fourth; but most
important of all this, he has acted, himself, disgracefully
so as to degrade the form and the physical being of man.
And that, all by itself, is probably your strongest level.
You would say automatically that, well, you don't think
very many people would have offenses against the fourth
dynamic. Oh yes, every single time you've not acted with a
high level of ethic and pride of race and have yourself
deteriorated in any degree or become less, you recognize
that you were offending on the fourth dynamic. Because you
have a certain face to keep as far as the fourth dynamic is
concerned, and you consider it a very sacred trust. So look
for those degradation points. They are what are important
on the fourth dynamic.

Far as the fifth dynamic is concerned, that's very easy.
Again you get the overt act and the dependency. There's a
lot of dependency on animals but we don't seem to mind it.
We don't seem to mind it too much. Where we get it is the
overt act.

Now, a person can get so bad - a person can get so bad, so
wicked, so... so ... just mean - that they eventually come
to a point where they are utterly, mawkishly, stupidly
saccharine about animals. But that's the cycle.

You see somebody who is super saccharine on the subject of
animals or a type of animal and so on: "What did you do,
fellow? What did you do?" Because his sympathy for all
those animals, and this and that and so forth, is his
protest that he hasn't done anything to them. "Here's this
nice kitty. I haven't done anything to cats; look how nice
I treat this cat here. I haven't done anything to cats. You
see, the cat likes me. Well, I haven't done anything to
cats. You know, men are no good, but cats are all right."

Well, the truth of the matter is, every time you get this
pushed way over - the sympathy on the line - find out what
he did to a cat.

And it's a little act, it won't amount to much, it'll blow
rather rapidly. But, boy, will you have trouble getting him
to run it.

Now, the thing he did to the cat unfortunately has to be
preceded by something a cat did to him to really be a bad
louse-up. But usually what the cat did to him was somewhat
accidental - didn't amount to much - and he took it out on a
cat but that was wrong to take it out on the cat, so he
hangs up in a big maybe.

As far as the sixth dynamic is concerned, our concepts of
MEST (matter, energy, space and time) do not allow us to
recognize what a good, solid overt act against MEST can be.

We build cars that are guaranteed to last upwards to two
years. We build houses - well, they'll be all right in
fifteen. Oddly enough, we build skyscrapers - fine, proud,
sweeping skyscrapers - and they're designed on the engineering
blueprints to last twenty-five years.

We're really temporary. Maybe you didn't know that.

What fools them is the Flatiron Building is still there and
so is the Woolworth Building. They were built to last a
little bit longer. But the Chrysler Building - in another
fifteen years, watch out. Somebody will have to go in there
with skyhooks and pick that thing up, because it's not -
you know, the marble facing on it is about that thick. They
got a real thin saw and made real thin slabs, and they
glued them on it. Great stuff.

Well, this temporariness permits a deterioration of MEST.
Actually, have you ever noticed how a Negro, in particular,
down south, where they're pretty close to the soil,
personifies MEST? The gatepost and the wagon and the whip
and anything around there-a hat. They talk to them, you
know? "What'sa mattuh wi' you, hat?" They imbue them with
personality. Well, you don't do that very much anymore,
because as you go down tone scale you don't do this.
Because, actually, all that MEST is, really-you might
consider it in the same range and the same band as solid
thought. But it's, by aesthetics and other things, molded
up by man into being what it is.

And an overt act against MEST: you're going to find that
people will treat their MEST very, very badly - very often
treat their MEST very, very badly. Car: Well, they go on
driving it and driving it and driving it. It knocks and it
spits and it snarls and sniffs and jumps, and they just go
on driving it, although they really know that if they don't
get a little thing fixed on that car that the next thing
you know the car is going to start getting a pyramid of
things happening to it.

Well, this again will give you an oddity; they have a
dependency incident or an overt-act incident - one, two,
three, four, five incidents - on the subject of MEST when
they do that. And they've got this one on the sixth
dynamic.

Now, you say, how would you possibly make an overt act
against MEST?

Nothing easier. You could have them way back or just recent
and so forth. You know that wrecking a car is a heck of an
overt act against a car.

And you say, "Well, I shouldn't have done that," and so
forth. But you say very often, "Well, it wasn't a very good
car anyway and the insurance will pay for it. I don't want
to look at this car. Yeah, well, it's just a car. Doesn't
matter." Well, a boy has to get pretty bad off if he gets
to a point where he says "Well, this car ..." Little while
before that, he liked it. But now he's got to demonstrate
that, well, it didn't amount to much, so the overt act
can't be very much.

Compare that with your feeling of possessions when you were
maybe three, four or five years of age.

What we should have used childhood for, in researching in
the field of psychotherapy, was to find out how good things
could be, not how bad they can be. And if you find a child:
a possession, an object, a piece of MEST - they personify it,
they take care of it. Of course, they are very forgetful;
they leave the doll out in the rain and so forth once in a
while, but actually they don't do it on purpose until they're
taught to - until somebody takes their MEST away from them.

The little kid, at first, he doesn't pay too much attention
to MEST, he's not very careful about it, but when he has it
he likes it. Well, you're not supposed to be too careful
about it, but when you have it you like it. And if you like
it a lot, well, you kind of take care of it and you keep
taking the rag doll to bed, and you take this and that and
so on.

Then all of a sudden somebody comes along and says, "Dear,
put your doll away."

"Don't wanna."

"Go on, put your doll away."

"Why?"

"Well, if you don't, I'll beat the hell out of you!" (They
don't say that.) Well, after that has happened a few times,
you see, the child has the idea that it no longer owns this
doll, and has moved away from beingness as a doll. So it
won't take care of the doll.

And at first, a little kid is delighted with clothes. "Oh
gee, clothes." Gets them dirty, not too careful of them,
but clothes, gee. Nice frills, ribbons - little girl, you
know? Little boy, you give him a Confederate hat, put it on
his head, something like that - boy, that's really
something. He really likes that.

All right, what happens to him later on? Why does he sort
of get a strange idea about hats and frills?

"Dear, why don't you brush your shoes? Take care of your
shoes." "Don't walk through the mud puddle." "Don't get
anything on your pants." "When you're eating at the table,
don't spill things upon your shirt. Mother has to work and
slave and wash and wash and work her fingers to the bone so
that you can stay clean."

And after a while - and after a while the kid's convinced
that he doesn't own any of these clothes. They're not his,
so he moves out of the beingness of clothes.

Of course, before he's very old in this aberrated society,
he will have moved out of the beingness all the way down
the dynamics including his clothes and his own skin. Now,
you see, there's the reverse process. Now we're trying to
take him and put him back in his own skin and then give him
back these things. Well, you go on up the line.

Overt acts against the seventh dynamic are much easier than
you suppose - much easier than you suppose. Because,
actually, it's an overt act against aesthetics, which is
the key on the seventh dynamic. There's where it shows up
mainly, because aesthetics are mainly manifested on the
seventh dynamic. And so you get this way up the line there,
aesthetics.

You've all had your aesthetic values and interests and so
on pushed around pretty badly. But there's a dependency and
there's an overt act on the seventh dynamic - aesthetics -
that you should hit. There's nearly always one there. If the
beauty of the world has disappeared for somebody, and he
keeps saying so and he keeps saying so, find out where he
killed it for somebody else.

And you find that lock and his beauty will turn on again.
And I don't know anything else that will turn it on. In
other words, if the world is not beautiful to him anymore,
find out where he killed it for somebody else.

That is a very, very nice way to get into the seventh
dynamic. There are other things on the seventh dynamic if
you've been fooling around with mysticism.

And then we get to God. Well, now, I haven't had any
conversations lately in that department. I always more or
less ran on the theory that you couldn't do much injury
to something that was that big and that vast, but you sure
can injure yourself in doing something to it. And here
again we have the two facets: overt act and dependency.
That person who has gone on being dependent on the subject
of the eighth dynamic, of course, he gets to a point
where he finally says, "There is none! I'm not going to
have anything more to do with it. No. No, no. Anything
that would own me that thoroughly must be bad; therefore,
I'm not going to have anything to do with it, and I'm
going to throw it overboard, nearest possible line." And
he becomes a professional atheist or any number of things.
And oh, he goes through a lot of mad gyrations. But, you
see, there's actual overt acts against that dynamic.

Processing an entity one day that had come from the deep,
dark fastnesses of Siberia, and had been a perfectly valid
being up to the moment when this entity had foolishly
robbed a church.

That was an overt act many centuries ago of such great
magnitude that it had taken this thing down from any status
at all to just zero - sheww! Hit that one - bang! Came right
back up again. This, by the way, is in Entity Processing.

Now, there's an overt act of a highly specialized kind, but
you start asking the preclear and you'll find out that
there are many overt acts against the eighth dynamic- many
of them, many of them, many of them.

It depends on what the individual believes the eighth
dynamic is. He's told what the eighth dynamic is: "God is
everywhere, God is everything, God is in everything, God is
outside of everything, and it's in everything, and it
watches you, and the watchbirds are watching you, and God
is watching you and everybody's keeping his finger on
you ...." And the first thing you know, the fellow is going
to say to himself, "Hm-mm, there's something wrong with
this. I wish I had a little privacy." And this is hard on
him.

So if he's accepted this - this concept or this description
- which is perfectly true; I mean, God is everywhere; he
isn't watching you, you are it. Anyhow, perfectly true,
maybe, to him, that God is everywhere and he'll do
something which he knows would be very offensive to what
his concept of God is. And he knew that God was watching
him, so therefore this is an overt act against God.

And do you know you can pick that up out of almost anybody
that has ever been infected - I mean, ever studied
Christianity.

Now, that is so deeply buried, by the way, that it takes
considerable digging sometimes to make your preclear find
this one.

The dependency one is easy; everybody knows you depend,
depend, depend, depend. But on the other side, that is not
as easy to find. When did he do something that was an overt
act to God? But it's one that you have to solve on the case
or you'll never get him up here where he'll play God. And
by the way, that's a terribly hard thing to do - terribly
hard thing to do - unless you happen to be completely,
ravingly insane and merely are playing God and nothing
else, which doesn't count.

Well, as I've shown you this, you go on up the dynamics one
right after the other until you have found your overt act
and dependencies in the preclear on each one of these
dynamics, all up the line. And you don't find very many of
them on each dynamic - one, two, three, something like that.
You don't have to run them very much, just sweep them a few
times, take the charge off of them. All of a sudden he'll
recognize them and suddenly begin to compute on the
subject.

And there, every time you start this process of 80, your
first step is to clear up the dependency and the overt act
on the dynamic you're working on. And then you use the
second part of the technique.

================

Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 691
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Re: THE ROUTE TO INFINITY THE TECH 80 LECTURES OF 1952

Сообщение auditor » 30 дек 2015, 16:54

Route To Infinity Lecture #7

THERAPY SECTION OF TECHNIQUE 80: PART II

A lecture given on 21 May 1952

[T80-3B "Therapy Section of 80 Continued]

================

I want to give you the therapy portion of Technique 80.

The running of engrams, the running of secondaries, Lock
Scanning and so forth, does not apply in Technique 80. In
this technique we are not trying to achieve understanding,
we're trying to achieve possession.

It isn't very necessary for you to put anything on a time
track and nail it down hard merely to possess a certain
portion of your body.

As I have talked about before, the theta body - that is to
say the thought body, the thought beingness of an
individual - has at remote and obscure points upon the time
track been treated in such a way as to make it susceptible
to implantation.

Actually, this was a very, very routine and mechanical
procedure which was followed out with a grim persistency
and a consistency which to me today is very frightening,
because it's probably all going to happen again, you know?
I mean, you're probably going to get somebody all cleared
up and so forth, and people are going to start objecting.
So a few hundred thousand years from now, why, they'll
probably start this all over again. But at least we'll take
a breather on the line.

So here the body has actually been made susceptible - and
by the body I mean the theta body - to an implantation of a
personality.

Now, actually, these implantations are very sharp. There's
one here just within the shoulder, it goes up across that
side of the face. There is one here, there is one out here
in the wider body, and one out here in the wider body and
there's one on the stomach. Addition to that, there's one
in the middle.

Now, that little spot that shows up in the middle of a
preclear's forehead - shows up as a somatic - actually is
one of these susceptibility implants. You tell a person to
move center, and if they move center they quite often feel
that spot in the middle of their forehead; they're into
their center beingness. Well, you can move a person through
all of these points of beingness.

I might tell you one more thing about this: There's two
items there in the middle of a human being. One of them is
the genetic-line governing center. That is the line which
reaches back through evolution here on Earth to the beach,
to the sea, so on. The line that the biologists are so fond
of recounting, and which the fellow that draws Pogo did so
well in Life not too long ago. I think the fellow's name
was Glob, wasn't it? Some such thing, and he spent a half a
million years after he got out of the sea just sitting on
the beach thinking about it.

Well, what Glob would be, his personality and so forth, and
all the things that happened to him, are on record in this
center theta body in the middle of the being. Might sound a
little bit wild to you, but that's a fact. That is the
emanation point.

The Greek, for instance, believed that very thoroughly, and
according to an E-Meter and according to processing and
according to results, he seems to have been right. The
resident being of the evolutionary theta body which evolved
here on Earth is in the stomach or solar plexus, not in the
head.

Now, up the line, back of that much earlier, goes this
enormously long line - enormous, long line - and it goes back
there; in some cases it'll register up to 60 trillion
years. That is your theta body proper and that has come all
the way along. That's really who you are. You're a tenant
in this center being's body, which can get very confused.

I wouldn't tell you about all this unless it resolved
cases. I'd keep it to myself and write a book about it
sometime which could lie on the library shelves and get
very dusty.

Anyway, here's your theta line; comes along here, goes
through the weirdest and most complex adventures
imaginable. And over here on Earth is this genetic line.
Little tiny time span, only occupies maybe three and a half
billion years, if that.

Now, this body comes along here and gets all developed, and
then all of a sudden you come in from somewhere else and
take it over, and so on. That happens, by the way, just
before birth. And if you audit that incident, your preclear
goes way up in tone.

And now that I've told you all this and you have it all
committed to heart, this is just something that you avoid
in Technique 80. You don't use it. But it's there.

Now, what you want in Technique 80 is first to discover the
overt and dependency acts on the first dynamic, and that I
would like to give you a little more data about.

You see, a fellow can commit an overt act to himself. This
is very easy, because, you see, he confuses his body with
him. A person is not his body. A person's beingness is who
the person is, and he just happens to have this body. And I
just mention this to show you how many sources of body
you've got here - lots of them. There's lots of bodies and
control centers, just all thu-thu-thu - and so you start to
worry about "Who am I?" or "Where am I?" and you can get
completely lost in all this maze of implants and synthetics
and entities and ray guns and Republican elections and
everything.

So, once you've resolved dependency and overt acts on the
first dynamic - you've resolved those and what's a person
done to himself, more or less (sometimes you'll hit a
gunshot; I mean, you just have to hit anything you can hit
in the case to resolve one of these big maybes that I told
you about in the last lecture) - you start in, then, with
making the individual locate his point of emanation. And
then point out to him that any time he senses that he is
emanating from a point, he has stood back of that point and
looked at it. You see how that is?

You say, "Now, where are you thinking from? Where are you
being from?"

And the fellow says, "Oh, well, that's easy. Uh ... Yeah,
right there. Yeah, right there."

You say, "Where are you deciding from that it's right there?"

"Oh, I am deciding that from the middle of the head. Well,
I couldn't be right there if I am deciding it from the
middle of the head."

"Well, all right. How do you decide you are in the middle of
the head?"

"Well, that's easy, it's uh . . . back here," deciding the
middle of the head.

Now, if you just do that process with a person for a short
time, at first they'll get very bewildered. And they say,
"Where could I possibly be? Where am I? I'm lost!" But the
truth of the matter is that all you're demonstrating to
them is they're not a geographic location in their body.

The first trip, then, of the problem "you are not your
body" is effected. You're not your body, you're you. Well,
where are you? Well, you see, you happen to be a point of
beingness which has neither time nor space, so how can you
even exist in that fashion? Simple. All right. You're just
you. And you sort of get the fellow at last reconciled to
this, that he can be anyplace. All right.

Now, the next thing we want to know is such a question as
this: "Well, now, let's see, what is the chronic emotion of
your body? What is your chronic emotion?"

The fellow will think for a minute, then he'll say, "Well,
I don't know; I don't get angry very much. I don't get this
way very much. I guess I just couldn't decide what the
chronic emo ....

"Yes, that's it," you say. "Ha-ha, that's it! Run the
concept of 'not being able to decide,'" if that's what he
said to you, you see? What he's done is try to reach around
and describe something, and while he's describing it he
names it. Only he names something he doesn't think he's
describing. You get the idea?

The fellow says, "Oh, I don't know. I've ... I just ...
Life isn't that important to me that I would think about
such a thing."

You say, "That's right. All right, run the concept through
your whole body of 'life is not important.' Run it from your
center beingness into your body: 'life is not important.'
Get the feeling 'life is not important'."

Fellow tries and tries. "I can't get it in my body."

"Well, where can you get it?"

"My right thumb."

You say, "Okay. Let's run your right thumb - let's run
between you and your right thumb that 'life is not
important,' but run that feeling with your right thumb,
'life is not important."' He'll run it for a moment and
oddly enough it'll change on him.

You say, "Well, what is it now?"

"Well, it's uh . .1 don't know, I guess it's 'you got to
take things easy.' Well, except that's my whole hand. I...
The whole hand is 'you've got to take it easy.' That's
the way - that's the thing I'm getting now."

"All right, run that feeling, 'you've got to take it easy,'
with your hand." The fellow runs it.

In other words, he just gets this concept, and he gets this
concept consistently enough and identifies it as a
concept, and it'll blow; it'll actually blow.

And you get the next one, you say, "Well, now what? Now what,
with that hand?"

"Well, feels pretty cheerful; feels pretty cheerful."

"All right, run your hand feeling pretty cheerful."

Now, about this time he'll probably get a somatic
someplace; probably over here somewhere - and he'll get a
somatic. And you say, "All right, now. What's the concept
there? What's your concept of that?"

"Nothing much with the somatic. What do you mean 'concept
with the somatic'?" "Well, what's the thought? The thought
of the somatic?"

And he says, "Well, it doesn't have a thought. It just
doesn't have one. It ... it ... it's, you know, it's - you
know, life can be pretty doggone upsetting and so forth
when you got somatics ...."

"Run that feeling, 'life is pretty upsetting.' Okay, run
that with that somatic: 'life's upsetting.' 'Life's
upsetting.'"

The fellow - "Ow!" Yeah. Well, it goes away.

You say, "All right. Now, what's the next sensation that
you run with that point where you had the somatic?" And
you'll get another one, and you'll get another one, and you
get another one.

And here's what's happening: In each one of those cases, up
the tone scale with the concept. He'll start down here
anywhere from apathy on up, and you just keep bringing him
up the tone scale. Well, you're not just running ARC to the
body. You can run love, love, love, all you want to without
getting any action on the body, for the excellent reason
that it's way up here, and there's parts of the body that
are way down there. And just treat it like this: treat the
body and its parts as though they were preclears. Just
treat it like it's a preclear.

And did you ever come up to a preclear who was in apathy
and say, "Well, come on, old boy, cheer up. Ha! That's the
thing to..." He won't have anything to do with you. Well,
here's this right foot that's been feeling put upon and
stood on all these years, and it doesn't like it at all,
and you come up to it and you say, "Love, love, love. And
everything is fine and everything is cheerful," and the
right foot says, "Oh, nuts!" You can actually get it saying
"Oh, nuts" too.

Now, the thing to do is to pick it up as low on the band as
it is and start it on up the band. Now, you're not worrying
about going back down the time track to it. Why go back
down the time track to something that's there? Why do that?
There's no sense in it. It's sitting right there. And it's
evidently sitting somewhere near the spot where it's held
up or you wouldn't be able to get it that easily, and so
you just run it as a concept and you bring it on up the
tone scale as a concept. And it's a very simple proposition.

Run a hand, then run two hands, then run the arms, run the
legs, run the center of the body, run the whole body if you
can. But run it in these various concepts. And each time
you get a concept, you'll get that feeling. Make the person
describe what the feeling is in words, and then get that
feeling and then run that feeling with that part of his
body. And then you'll find out that he comes up the scale
and he's got another feeling on the same area, and then
another one, and another one, and another one, and you're
running him on up the tone scale with that body.

Well, you see, down here on the tone scale is effect, at
0.0; that's complete effect. And up here at 40.0 is cause.
So you can't ask a preclear to be cause - just suddenly say
"All right, be cause" - if he feels all subdivided and parts
of him are dragging back and other parts of him are low
down the scale and this and that and he's not in the least
bit integrated. Here he is, he's all over the tone scale,
various split-ups and so forth; he's just all over the tone
scale with these parts of his body. Well, let's even him up
and let's bring him all up the tone scale, and then you
will find that it is possible for him to be cause on the
first dynamic. That is the essence of the technique.

Now, you'll find out that he'll yawn; you'll find out all
other sorts of things. And all of a sudden, some preclear
you haven't got much on the overt or dependency line on,
he'll run one of these feelings and he'll all of a sudden
start telling you. Because if he's got one of these down
feelings, it's on a dependency or overt-act reason. And he
starts running one of these feelings and all of a sudden a
picture shows up - a facsimile, a memory shows up. Well,
he'll maybe want to run this whole memory out.

Well, if it's a physical-pain engram that happened to him,
it is not even vaguely important. It means that there is a
time when he was too dependent or a time when he was too
overt. So you get the physical-pain engram, you find out
why it is hung up in a maybe. You knew that he tried to use
it one time or another, and you knew that that's the reason
why he is so mad at Uncle George; Uncle George did this
to him and so forth.

So, every once in a while, as you're running this
technique, you'll get - a section of life will show up.
Well, don't worry too much about running that section of
life; just blow it on an overt or a dependency line, that's
all.

Now, you run the body one way, the other way, and so forth.
And you're running it with this in view: because you think
you are the body, you think you can be aberrated. Well, you
can't be. I would like to see somebody catch the central
point of emanation, put it in a box and do something to it
to make it aberrated. The centralness of you, the core of
you, the you that is you, is absolutely incapable of being
aberrated. Also, it is cause, even though its power may not
seem to be very great to you. It is cause; it is never
anywhere but way up here, never anywhere but way up there.

Now, that's something you've got to remember in running
this technique. You get a somatic - it's some sort of some
weird cross-computation because of these various circuits
and other things and so on. You wouldn't give yourself a
somatic, so there's some kind of a lineup here that's
wrong. And it's merely wrong because there's an overt act
or a dependency which is crossed up. And there are two
motions which are crossed - two motions. And you just can't
resolve those, so you as you are sort of standing back
looking at this computation. You say, "What am I going to
do about it? It just goes on and on. What can I do about
this computation that keeps running?" What it is, is an
overt act and an act done to the preclear, or something
like that.

But "you" isn't involved in that or aberrated by it. It
merely is, you are unable to fight your way through this
computation. But you even got the sense, all the time that
you've got that computation, of trying to fight your way
through it and clean it up and clear it out and get it off
the road. You know that.

So, what you're doing now is trying to run out and get
upscale to the level of cause every part of the body - which
cleans up the first dynamic. It may take you quite a little
while to do it, and it may take you a very short time to do
it. The point is that when it's done, you are a unity with
you, and you should be completely unaware of the body.

You're not trying to achieve awareness of this body; you're
trying to achieve complete unawareness. You're trying to
achieve it to the point where you are willing to use this
body of yours for anything. You can drive this body as no
slave driver ever drove a slave. When you are capable of
doing that, you are all right on the first dynamic. When
you can work for thirty-six hours at a stretch and all of a
sudden the body is just going like this, and you say "Come
on, let's go," the body says "All right, we'll go."
Because, you see, you have the particularly beautiful
virtue of never getting tired. But your body does.

Now, if you are sufficiently cause, your body won't even
get tired. And furthermore, all these endless incidents ...
It's very interesting. And an auditor should know what
they are, and he should know where they exist, and he
should know what entities are, and he should know how they
act and what they affect and where they are and this
thought-injection mechanism that's being used and all that
sort of thing. But Technique 80 bypasses them.

Sure you've got an implant over here - you got an implant
over here and it gives you rheumatism. That's fine. The you
that's you wouldn't keep it unless there was a big maybe
riding there. Well, what is the overt act or the dependency
that made that maybe?

In other words, you're sort of tricked into paying
attention to a maybe, and only then can you have a pain.
Because it makes you abandon that part of your body and say
"Maybe it doesn't belong to me. Well, it hurts, doesn't it?
Well, it couldn't possibly belong to me. No, I wouldn't
hurt myself. This is silly. So it can't belong to me."

Your ability to take it over, then, is your ability to
process the various parts of the body. You ask yourself
sometime, "How do I feel?" Ask yourself right now, "How do
I feel?"

Well, for Technique 80 that's the feeling you run first.
Simple, isn't it?

You get this technique? It's simplicity itself. You just
ask how the fellow feels or how this feels or what's the
concept of this - any part of the body - what's the concept
of it or what's its feeling, something of the sort, and
you'll get an answer. And you run that, and after you've
run that, you'll find it's a little higher in tone, so you
run that and you'll find it's a little higher in tone, so
you run that. And all you're doing is establishing ARC,
ARC, ARC, all in a package with that part of the body, and
it goes right on up tone scale.

And when you get it up to the top of the tone scale, you'll
find, oddly enough, if you go on to the right foot, having
done the left foot, and you'll come back to the right foot
the next day, and I'll be a son of a gun if it hasn't
bogged in too. It says, "Huh." And you say, "Well, I've got
to do it all over again." What you're doing is running
through successive waves of not-beingness, and you can
count on running through many successive waves of
not-beingness on every dynamic. But it's rather rapid when
it comes down to a final showdown; it's rapid simply
because you're not going to waste a lot of time running
thought, emotion, effort, thought, emotion, effort.

When you find an effort, a facsimile, that is hung up, that
is offering itself to be run, just by asking the body for
its feeling in the area where that exists, you're putting
the fellow right straight on to the line where he'll tell
you about the overt act. And if you're running him with an
E-Meter he says, "Well, I've got an awful pain now in my
epislumpiglos."

And you say, "Well, that's fine. Who'd you kick?"

He says, "Nobody. Well, of course, my grandmother, but ...
You say, "That's fine. All right, let's go on to the next
incident." And very often it'll blow just that fast.

This is how you kick things out of restimulation and a
technique which kicks them out, not a technique which runs
them; it's a different thing, you see? And just by asking
the body how it feels, how it feels - "How does it feel about
this?"

Now, you want to take the Chart of Attitudes, and you know
all those columns on the Chart of Attitudes. Here's "I am"
and "I am not." And over here, "be" and here's "be not"
(that isn't what it says; it's the same thing). You've got
various parts of the body hung up in various places on this
Chart of Attitudes. Because this is what you're doing:
You're processing by attitudes and you're processing parts
of the body by attitudes.

So you say, "All right, let's see ... um ... Are my feet?"
Feet sort of say "No." "Well, all right. Let's have this
feeling. What's the feeling of 'not being' as far as the
feet are concerned?" It's very startling, but very often
there'll be some terrific sympathy wave turn up, or the
most unlooked for things will suddenly show into view when
you start a communication line.

But what do we know about ARC? In order to get into ARC
with an individual, you have to be able to approximate his
ARC to some degree, unless you're being cause and just
taking him over completely. So this is a method of
stringing the line on the existing ARC and then raising it
up, because this point of beingness that is you is way up
here at the top.

But unfortunately, it doesn't quite have the horsepower at
the beginning to just say - whooo! Well, maybe some of them
can just suddenly say, "Wham! Well, I am. That's all.
Bang!" And you go off like a rocket from there. Could be,
could be. I've never put any postulate in otherwise, even
though it isn't true. Anyway...

So, here's your scale of beingness and not-beingness. And
you'll find out very often that your preclear is going to
be at many parts of that Chart of Attitudes with many parts
of himself. Quite interesting. When you get the first
dynamic processed on this, you'll find out that the body
will work for you. It's a very interesting question on
Technique 80, though, to ask the feet "Why won't you work
for me? What are you afraid will happen?" You're liable to
get the feeling "Work, that's what; that would be bad."
Just run that feeling of "not desiring to work" or
"tiredness" and so on. So that is your first finish-off
on the first dynamic. That is dynamic one - to parts of the
body, parts of the body, parts of the body.

This isn't the old Effort Processing technique, by the way.
Let's not get too confused in them. There we merely felt on
"Feel alive in the foot." "How did your left foot feel
about it? How did your right foot feel about it? How did
your right hand feel about it? How did your left hand feel
about it?" and so on. By distracting the person's
attention, we got the somatic in on him, and we got the
somatic through and we got the somatic run out. This
technique does not do that. This technique runs by
concepts. And by getting those concepts, when these
somatics show up, if the feeling just won't run out - as it
usually will - you know, a somatic starts to turn on, he's
done an overt act. Now find that overt act and clip it out,
and it will usually just come out as a lock. Because if
he's holding on to the overt act as an overt act, then
there is another overt act that makes him hold on to this
one, you see? You just find them and you find the right
lock, and all of a sudden the puzzle just falls apart -
bang! - and you don't run the incident. But you get these
most clearly by running these concepts. You can run the
whole body up to the top of the tone scale.

Then you take the second dynamic. And how do you run a
second dynamic? Well, you run it with kids, you run it with
future, you run it with any way, shape or form that is
pertinent to the second dynamic, that's all.

You could consider this, you know, on sort of a basis of
going out on a crusade to clear the whole world. You say,
"Well, now I'm going to clear me, and now I'm going to
clear this one and that one, and so on."

But your first step is like this: You're clearing these
various dynamics here - clearing these various dynamics
with relationship to you. Now get that as the proviso:
You're clearing dynamics one to eight in relationship
to you. You clear from two on in relationship to you
and your body. That's a difference.

Now, you could consider this: that after you got the first
one cleared up, then you were going to go into the second
one, then you were going to go into the third one, then you
were going to go into the fourth one, and you're going to
clear them all up. Well, maybe somebody can do it that way,
but right now the easiest way to do it is just to clear you
with regard to that.

It may surprise you that this business of requiring photons
for sight is one of the most interesting of aberrations.
You see, you put out a radar sight-wave beam and you see on
that beam. And the implant is so strong that when you close
your eyes, you say, "Well, that's because the photons
aren't coming in and I can't see. Somebody turned the lights
off, so I can't see." Nonsense.

Have you ever - any of you, ever been in processing and
suddenly found yourself lying there on the couch with your
eyes closed looking at the room? If you did, you probably
promptly stopped. And you said, "No, no. Got my - have my
eyes open. I mean, I'm supposed to do that." The fact is
that that's the way you see: You put out a beam and get it
back. Bats hear that way, and so on.

But all of your attention units that have anything to do
with seeing, you see, are parked right in back of the optic
nerve; they're fixed right there. So, they're supposed to
sit there and when something comes over the optic nerve
line, they're supposed to see. Oh, it's cute, very cute.
I'd like to get my hands on the guy that did this one the
first time.

Anyway, if you don't believe that, by the way, anybody here
want a horrible headache? Well, all you have to do is just
run the bunched-up feeling of attention units back of your
optic nerve - just run that bunched-up feeling and you're off
to the races. But if you do run it, run it out, because
very often when people run that, they go blind and things
like that.

Now, blindness: Blindness is just getting these two groups
of attention units off to the side so they can't see
through the optic nerve; that's hysterical blindness.
Nothing much to it. If you're going to resolve a case of
blindness, just get them to run the attention units which
should be standing behind the optic nerve, and then find
what they did about seeing.

By the way, blind men usually have burned somebody down
with sight, or think they have. Fascinating. And they'll
never suspect this one, and you ask them about this, it
will show up on the E-Meter and you start to run it, boy,
do they protest. But if you run it their sight should turn
on.

Now, your Technique 80, then, concerns itself with the
parts of the body and the dynamics as they influence you
all along the line, with attention to the overt act and the
dependency situation. And you just run, run, run, and then
out in the environment and so forth. And the way you know
that a person has come up the line a little bit on
Technique 80 is a very, very interesting way. It's when he
stops seeing by photons, and realizes that he is feeling by
something else besides photons.

Now, some of you, by the way, can do this right now; you
just don't realize you can do this. You can look at
something and feel it.

You look at this board, and you get the board. I mean, it's
just as though you came up in front of this board. You get
the board. Well, don't think for a moment that's because
photons are bouncing off this and hitting you; that's
because you're throwing out a feeling beam that hits the
thing and bounces back. You're actually over here at the
board, going mm-mm!

One preclear looked at a milk bottle - you know, milk
bottles are covered with wax and they're cold and so
forth - and he was running on some of this. And he looked
at this milk bottle and ... He had inadvertently looked at
it hard enough so - to sort of push his face up against it.
And it's cold and it's waxy and it's greasy and he didn't
like it, not worth a nickel.

Did you ever look at some very, very rough piece of lumber
or something like that and say "Oh, that's bad"? You don't
like that rough piece of lumber - splintery. You might say
it's "Well, it's because I might get splinters in." No,
it's not; it's because it doesn't feel good. Now, why is it
that a little kid likes his dolls when he's very young and
later on doesn't? It's because his beingness is driven out
of those dolls. He looks at the doll, actually, and he puts
himself in the doll and he feels "doll." And that's what a
doll is to him. And so therefore his environment, his doll,
the floor, the ceiling, the kitchen table - all these things
are live entities. Why are they live entities? He looks at
them and he invests them with himself.

The whole world is a very bright world, he's got it all
invested completely, and the days are beautiful and bright
and so forth. Why are they? It's because he makes them that
way. And after a while he's done something damaging to the
day, so he thinks it's damaged after that, so he doesn't
invest it anymore. And that's simple, isn't it?

Now, all of the dynamics will operate this way. You've got
a feelingness out into the environment. There's an actual
drawback on these peripheries as a person goes on getting
older and older and older, and he draws back, back, back,
back, back, back, back, until finally he exists as this
little spark. And he's drawn back on dependency and on
overt act. He's done overt acts or almost done them, and
thought, emotion and effort, overt or dependent, and he's
just done these things, done these things, done these
things. Finally here he is, sitting way back here, till he
doesn't even invest his own body.

Do you know that many people, you could take their hand,
the back of their hand, or something like that, you could
actually touch it and it would feel dead to them? It
doesn't feel alive at all. That many people have areas of
anesthesia on their bodies? A doctor is always fascinated
with this. Doctors will find these. They get the patient
there in bed, you know, and the doctor gets a nice needle:
"Don't feel it, do you?"

"No."

"Oh, good." "Anesthezed area, nurse. Put it down, yeah.
Hm-hm." And you turn over, you know, and blood all over
the bed, but it's all right!

Now, there's an anesthesia which is very, very intimate to
you. It's on your body, and most people to some degree have
anesthesias. And there are very many ways to undo these
anesthesias; many of them are much more complex than this
Technique 80 method. And Technique 88 does them even more
rapidly, but it's dynamite. And Technique 80 is your
prelude and lead-up to a use of 88.

You're doing with 80 an expansion of beingness, an
expansion of feelingness, an expansion of livingness into
yourself and all the dynamics on out. Technique 80 makes it
possible, by these simple mechanisms, to invest, any way
you please, any of the dynamics, or invest all of them, and
gives you a high level of beingness with you in a body and
all right with the world - as far as you're concerned, there
in the body.

Eighty-eight sweeps up and audits with hammer and tongs a
method - the various methods which were used in the past
to make you have a body; it audits those out and blows you
out of the body. But 80 is very good here, and some people
are so conservative and so forth that they think they ought
to have bodies. Most people have their fingerprints on
record that have been in the armed services and so forth,
and the FBI and that sort of thing, and they think this
sort of should attach them to the society one way or the
other. People have a responsibility about having a body.
They think they've agreed to have one; that's one of the
tricks.

But Technique 80 should not be put into any wild
classification or any wild category at all. Whether or not
you believe that you could be able to do without a body
with great ease is beside the point as far as Technique 80
is concerned. Technique 80 is an extension of beingness and
it works in that direction.

Now, there's another little subtrick on Technique 80 that
I'll tell you about. And that's when the incident shows up,
burn it down. It's very interesting. You're the
disintegrator ray. And I told you about going over this
incident and over it and over it. And why does it erase?
Well, you're burning it up. You're not rubbing it out;
there's nothing MEST there to rub on. You're just burning
it up; you burn it up, burn it up and finally it blows.

Well, there's no reason why you can't just sort of get
mmmmmm-psshew! Now, the fact of the matter is, you take a
light lock - take some little light lock that's completely
inconsequential and practice on it for a while and say,
"How do I burn this thing down?" Get a visio - a visio of
something - and just go finally, until you find out how to
make the visio go. And oddly enough, if you get the trick
rather easily, it will then develop on up the line with
magnitude. But, of course, there is an implant on the
track that tells you you shouldn't do this, you shouldn't
do this. This is bad; bad to burn things up like this,
because you've got to have facsimiles!

"I tell you, if you didn't have facsimiles, you wouldn't
have any experience; if you didn't have any experience, you
wouldn't remember how police could get so tough, and you
wouldn't remember it enough to do all that labor for us!
And so you've got to have facsimiles, and they're very
valuable, and therefore let's all study eidetic psychology
because a facsimile is the only important thing! Beingness
is not important but the facsimile is important, so
therefore you got to have pictures of everything you've
ever seen, been and felt or heard. Don't go ramming up and
down the time track through time, you know, and taking a
look in person - not done."

Anybody here, by the way, every time he tries to go back
down the time track and return to another place, just sort
of sits and looks at himself sitting where he was sitting?
I mean, he never quite gets out of present time whenever he
starts to look at something? Anybody here who does that?

Yeah, he says, "I'm going back to the time when I was
sitting in the chair there and scan all that out." And he
doesn't seem to go anyplace and he looks at himself sitting
in the chair. And he runs it a couple of times and it's
gone, but what he's actually doing is he dubs himself in as
sitting in the chair and then dubs in the incident that
happened to him and then says, "Now, I'll run it out." And
so he rubs out what he dubbed in and then he says, "Now I
feel better." Well, a facsimile is a little bit different
than that. A facsimile is pretty quote unquote "solid."

But somebody else would love you to have facsimiles and you
don't need any. The less facsimiles you have, the faster
you can think. The less facsimiles you have, the better off
you are. And yet the second you start to rub out the whole
bank - and if you were to suddenly say "I'm going to take all
of my memory banks, and I'm going to wipe them all out -
psheww!" Oh, you say "O-o-o-oh, no. No, no. No, because
that's me. Hm-hm. Yep, yep, all those memories, they're me.
You see, I don't exist anywhere, so those memories are me.
So if I wiped out any of these memories, of course, I would
be gone. Yeah, I need those."

You get people who have this so bad, by the way, that locks
won't blow. And that is the principal reason why locks
won't blow on some preclears: because they've got to have
this memory bank because this memory bank is them.
Actually, it is not them at all. They are a vital spark of
beingness. And that vital spark of beingness happens to be
cause, and it happens to know, and it can know anything it
wants to know instantly. And it's a wonderful little
gimmick and it's the one that does all of your thinking for
you anyhow.

But an implant can be put on to you to such a degree that
you've agreed that this and that is the case, so the best
thing for you to do is to go back and look at the facsimile
or go back and remember what you were taught in school or
go back and do something or other, and then think it all
out and then get into present time again and then say
"Well, I remember it." Oh!

It's nonsense! There is no knowledge worth knowing that's
in your memory bank. All the knowledge that's worth knowing
is outside your memory bank - in complete and perfect
contact with the beingness that is you. Seems hard to
believe, doesn't it?

But, actually, you can understand completely how an
automobile drives by being the automobile. You can slide in
behind the wheel.

Maybe sometime when you were a little kid you could do this
before some grownup grabbed ahold of you and said "Ooh,
oooh - no, no! No, we have to teach you. And we're going to
teach you now. Now, let's start in at the beginning and
let's not try to run before we learn how to walk. Now, now
if you learn this thoroughly, we can get you feeling mighty
stupid, and then, then we can get a lot of work out of you
when you grow up."

But there have been times in your life when you suddenly
looked at something and you knew it. And then maybe a
question came into your mind; "Well, how could I possibly
have known it, because I didn't have access to it?" Well,
you were it for a moment, so of course you knew it. And the
whole business of knowingness is beingness. If you can be
something you can certainly know it; if you know something
you can certainly be it. There's no trouble with that, but
it doesn't have anything to do with time - nothing to do with
time.

Now, after you have learned to be along all the dynamics,
expansively all the way out, in relationship to you as a
body, then you can start very adequately to be all the
dynamics, so that all the dynamics can clear up, so that
all the dynamics can come up tone scale. And of course,
when you finish that project utterly, there will be no
universe left. But that's all right; that's all right.
Somebody by that time will have gotten into such shape,
I'm sure, that he can think a couple of thoughts and there
will be one again.

All this universe is, is a thought.

That's why some people get so very careful about unthinking
things. They say, "I mustn't unthink this, because
something is liable to disappear around here." They have
that definite feeling, "I mustn't unthink." You'll run into
that. But as you go out along the line with Technique 80,
don't be afraid of skipping - don't be afraid of skipping
around if your preclear just suddenly starts to head out
over something or other, and you know he's not quite ready
to soar yet. Don't worry - he'll fall on his face; he'll come
back to where you think he should be. So let him go.

But let's not have any of this, with this technique, of the
guy suddenly saying "Oh, beingness: to be, to be, to be, to
be, to be. Yeah. Now I got the postulate. There I am. Now
the whole world is it, now that's - that's that; I'm Clear."
Because if it could happen that fast, there would be lots
of guys I know who wouldn't be here tonight. It just
doesn't happen that fast.

And let's not have this sort of thing: The fellow is
sitting down, and you say, "What are you doing?"

"I'm being."

You say, "Brother, you went too far! Come here, come here.
This is where you ought to be, right here."

If you find people being very careful about being, too,
that's very interesting. But just for your own edification
and just to illustrate for yourselves some understanding,
you should make this little experiment tonight, tomorrow,
of looking at a rough object and being the surface of the
object. And look at a smooth object and be the surface of
that object. Just try it a few times on a few objects and a
few things, and you will all of a sudden sense that there's
more there than you knew what of. And that will give you
just a little touch of reality.

Of course, that will come in automatically as you clear
along these dynamics; it will come in automatically the
second that you get the first dynamic cleared up, or
halfway clear, but you should try it out because it's quite
an experience. You see, you don't need to be the effect of
sound, sight and so forth to be, because you can be the
sound, be the sight; you can be the source of the sound and
the sight, you see?

This unnecessarily complicated world into which you are
born this generation has indulged in a little too much
search for randomity. Too many people have selected too
many people out for too many kinds of randomity. That is to
say, we've gotten too high a level of individuation.

Engrams create individuation. Dickens' ch&acters are very
great individuals; they are walking engrams. All you have
to do to take an individual of this characteristic and spin
him round and round and round is just key him in a little
bit stronger, because if he's that (quote) "individual"
(unquote) he's on the thin edge.

Actually, your sense of individuality is much, much higher
than that as you go up the tone scale. You become more and
more sensible that you are you, even though you can be
elsewise. Something you should realize.

Another thing here that I should remark on is the fact that
all this is perfectly safe to enter upon, particularly
since the ethic value of the individual increases as he
goes up the tone scale. He cannot indulge in this technique
without going up the tone scale. And as soon as he begins
to, his ethic level rises. His ability to be cause, then,
is very stable and it becomes good cause. Good cause.

The other thing I should remark on here is that you are
going to hit apathy on the line as you run this technique.
And if you hit something on the line that makes you think
you have been put in a printing press and binding press and
so on, very solid, if you hit a somatic that is just - all of
a sudden an incident that's just thaaah, you just can't
move it or anything, don't think that it is some
present-time activation or something of the sort, or you've
suddenly been sailed in on by an entity or something: It's
an apathy incident.

Apathy is almost solid matter, and apathy has a
timelessness about it. Apathy is very hard for some
auditors to run because they won't recognize it for what it
is; it's almost matter. Well, you just plow on through the
thing, you plow on through it, and you plow on through it.
You don't have to run it so much with the emotion as you
have to run it with a disintegrator pistol - prrr! And the
next thing you know, why, you've burned up the apathy.

But, also, don't be too disappointed if you run an apathy
incident for three weeks, because an apathy incident is so
timeless that it takes quite a while to run them sometimes.

Many of the somatics that go around and pass for 1.5
somatics on the tone scale are actually apathy somatics.
And you get the distinguishment between the two and they'll
resolve, but if you kept trying to run them as complete
wholes they won't resolve. All it is is a complete
not-beingness with a confusion. And if you get a complete
not-beingness with a confusion even about that, the fellow
just - thaah. And he'll get some nasty somatics. And
because they don't run out right quick, he thinks he's
stuck in a chronic somatic.

Well, the thing might be running out; he might have been
running it out for the last year or so, but you can speed
it up a little bit as an auditor and he'll go through the
thing fairly rapidly. But you're going to run into a
feeling of apathy here and there. And all it is that
creates apathy is unresolved problems, so you can get an
apathy up without running it.

And if you find somebody sticking too long in an apathy
incident, get him without running it.

There is an apathy about knowinguess. There is a plant on
the track which, every time a person tries to know, he goes
into apathy. You know how to resolve that; it's very
simple. It's just all the times your preclear tried to keep
somebody from knowing. Very simple. Don't bother to run the
apathy. Then all of a sudden this shows up and "I'm not to
know," it says, and the guy is just stuck right there.

Don't bother to run it as a feeling or a concept so much,
because it's clear down here on the tone scale and you'll
be three or four weeks running it. Just skip it and say,
"Well, let's get all the times when you kept somebody from
knowing," or so on, because it's an overt act, you see? And
the guy has had a maybe on it, and he knew it wasn't right
to keep people from knowing but he did anyhow, and that
wasn't right. And after all, he was dependent on knowing,
himself, but he didn't let the other fellow know and so
therefore - so on. And you start running off, you'll find a
chain of locks will spring off, on this. Second they spring
off your apathy incident should blow.

Because apathy is at once the whole bottom of the Chart of
Attitudes. And any time you get one of these concepts that
shows up at the bottom of the Chart of Attitudes, you can
either run it as a concept clear on up the line or you can
find the time that the individual on that dynamic enforced
it. You see, "I am not." You get "I am not" and the fellow
starts running - oh, he runs this terrific apathy. Ohhh, his
chest feels solid and so on; he says, "Oh, why did I ever
start into this Technique 80? I'm practically dead."

Your auditor, if he's very sadistic, says, "Well, let's
start in at the beginning of it and run it." The guy will
probably only run it for three or four years; that is, if
he lives that long!

What you want to do, you see, is to spring the overt acts
on "I am not." How many people has he tried to convince
that they were not? Or how many children did he try to
convince they were not? Or how many pets? Or how many times
did he try to convince MEST that it was not? You know? Beat
it down, beat it down, beat it down. Because you'll find
then that the other incident will spring, spring with ease.

And if you're an agile auditor, if you understand this
technique, if you run it on the basis of running the
feeling long enough to get the overt or the dependency, you
got a very rapid technique here. If you're running it with
an E-Meter, particularly, it becomes a rapid technique,
because then you're spotting. Nobody can lie to you, and
they'll lie, lie, lie, when it comes to telling you about
what they are justifying.

They won't tell you about the time they took little Agnes
down and held her in the mud puddle for minutes and
plastered her face around and broke her left leg. No sir.

So here we go on a speed-run up to the top: Get to the
overt and the dependency acts, and run it right up the top
with overt and dependency acts - spotting them, spotting
them, spotting them with an E-Meter. Getting them into
sight, getting them into sight, running them - dynamic,
dynamic, dynamic, one after the other.

All right, that's fast; but it's as fast as the auditor is
agile. Any auditor will get there someday; any auditor will
get there someday, so that I can't tell you this is a fast
technique really or a slow technique until I see in whose
hands and with what equipment.

Now, if he's running without equipment, it's going to make
it longer; it will make it considerably longer. And if he's
just going to run the feelings all by themselves, it's going
to make it a lot longer, but he might even have a better job
in the end if he ran it with all the feelings. You don't know.

But if you're going to run it just long enough to find out
what it is or run it up the tone scale a little
bit - preclear gets the feel of it, you've spotted it on the
meter, you knock out the incident, you go on to the next
part of the body - it could be a very rapid technique. So
I would say at a conservative estimate, it takes anywheres
between twenty and five hundred hours. And I want to make
that precise estimate for you, so that you will know
exactly how long it will take you to go through Technique
80!

I hope you've at least been restimulated somewhat by these
talks these last three nights! I wrote down some very
nonsensical lines there and put them on a piece of paper.
That's really just horseplay, but I thought some of you
might find it amusing. There's also some clues to 88 in
there. [See the "Dianetics Jingles" in the Appendix.] But I
thought you might find it amusing on that handout tonight.
And please don't frame it or anything. And don't tell
anybody who wrote it!

I want to thank all of you for being here. And I hope that
the organization here can be of service to you, and I hope
that we've at last, at least come into the lower points of
our objective, and that Dianetics can sail on from here
with a little less upset than it's had in the past.

Certainly we have the muzzle loaded, double-charged weapon
now of techniques which work. We've got handbooks that
work better and do more for people than auditing did two
years ago.

And we've got a lot of technology, a lot of technology. We
got a lot of validation. It's the kind of validation you
don't even have to write down. People around the country
now know Dianetics works. The old surge of invalidate,
invalidate is sort of passing by the boards. The only
reason they invalidate now is they're kind of scared. Well,
I don't blame them. Here I am telling you about Technique
80. On June the 15th, I'm going to start in teaching a
professional class here. And there's going to be a summer
session I think on the 23rd, and the week of the 23rd I'm
going to talk about Technique 88.

Here we are talking about a technique which does the most
dangerous, horrible thing that could happen: It deprives
people of bodies to put to work and it lessens police
power. And that's pretty bad. So don't tell anybody about
this. In the first place they probably wouldn't believe
you - unless they stopped and thought for a moment and
thought how many times they stepped in and out of their
body every day anyhow.

You know, if you want to know whether or not you can get in
and out of your body, have you ever been out of valence?
Have you ever, by the way, been so thoroughly out of
valence in present time that you were sitting looking at
yourself all of a sudden? It can happen; it can happen.
Well, don't think that there is any difficulty in getting
out of your body at a low level on the tone scale; the real
difficulty is staying in, and that's why you're worried
about it. You're on a complete nervous anxiety and almost
worn to pieces with trying to stay in this piece of MEST.
And we can either resolve that anxiety with Technique 80,
or we can just let you abandon the whole thing with 88.

And by the way, people who do run 88 have to furnish their
own coffins! We won't furnish those here. You also have to
leave a suicide note for the police. And you also have to
promise me to do me one favor.

Well, I want to thank you very much for coming down here to
the groves, and I do hope to see you again in later series
of lectures.

Good night.

================

Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 691
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01


Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 3