View source for How to Run Change Processing (1ACC 531030)

'''Series:''' 1ACC

'''Date:''' 30 October 1953

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1ACC|Back to Series]]

05 47 24A 45 30 Oct 53 How to Run Change Processing

[ 47A 24AA 30 Oct 53 Considerations and the Mest Universe

(this one is listed as missing from archive in the master list)]

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard AICL-47 renumbered 24A and again renumbered 45 for the "Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space" cassette series.

NOTE: AICL-47A is not included in the clearsound cassettes. (it is listed as missing from the archives - see Master Tape List.) But this transcript is quite long and the material is appropriate to the title, therefore it is probably the second half of the transcript below.

HOW TO RUN CHANGE PROCESSING

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

This is the afternoon, October the 30th - afternoon lecture of October the 30th.

The talk today Concerns itself with - its title could be "Do you take a motorcycle down the road or does the motorcycle take you down the road?"

It also could be called "Consideration." And it also could be called "Extent of Viewpoint." Could also be called "Scientology: October 30th Lecture." Let's see, are there any more titles that could go on it?

And it includes, in addition to that subject, Step III auditing commands and a list on the MEST universe for Change Processing.

Let's say-what is known as "viewpoint" must somewhere or another have a shift point. You must have somewhere on the line where a viewpoint stops being looking and starts being thinking - just to make a clear division there because people normally consider this word viewpoint as something for thinking. And it is actually looking; it's - viewing is the main consideration.

All right, what would this point be? It would be the consideration of whether or not one was taking a body down the street or the body was taking one down the street. It would be at that fence that you jumped over into viewpoint being thinking and at that point, from there on everything takes on more and more significance; everything starts meaning something else, not itself.

As long as one is taking the body down the street and knows he's taking a body down the street, he can look. Good, bad or indifferent, he can still look. And his emphasis is on the gradient scale - dwindling as we come up to the fence - the gradient scale getting less and less of looking; and then starts into some looking and a lot of considering; quite a bit of considering and then on up to all consideration.

Now, when you see this, you could see this as a kind of a double cone which comes down to a point; and the upper part of the cone - if we start at the top it's all looking and then it's less and less looking. It's not more and more of something else; it's just less and less expanse of view. And then gets down to the fence line and then stops being expanse of view and starts being "think of the thing" instead of "look at it." Well, it's at that fence point, too, where one starts to use facsimiles; one starts to save energy.

Now, of course, because of this look-emote-effort-think band, we realize that lying on both sides of that point where the two cones come together, we would have emotion and effort; and it would be emotion and then emotion with some effort and then emotion with all kinds of effort and then there would be no emotion and all effort as we jumped across the hand. These things go together.

Of course, they're going together on little tiny gradients as it goes down, you see? I mean, it's - it isn't a clear-cut double-cone picture. It's cones incoming to a point and going out into a new cone, coming down to another point and going on to a new cone and going down to another point and into a new cone. So that you get your DEI or Cycle of Action, so forth, on it.

Well now what determines - what determines whether or not you're taking a motorcycle down the road or the motorcycle is taking you down the road? Really, basically, it's just whether or not you know you're taking a motorcycle down the road. But much better than that, it's where do you consider it. Do you consider that the motorcycle is there to take you down the road? Or do you consider that you're there to take the motorcycle down the road?

Well, one abandons the latter viewpoint - one is there to take the motorcycle down the road on the basis of: it's sort of a slavery to a particle: and that's not quite the right answer. So we'll go on the other side of it and say, "Well, the motor - I - the motorcycle is there to take me down the road." Well, that's not quite the answer to the thing but at the same time, where one starts dwindling off on the effort band, of course, one starts saying immediately, "Well, gee. I have to have the motorcycle to take me down the road."

It just dwindles on the whole spiral. Now, if you had this double cone which goes down and you've got a sort of a little fence between those two points - that's the jump point where one changes his consideration utterly, where there's the utter change of consideration - we'd have another thing, and that would be, these would both fit into a great big cone. These two cones would fit into a big cone which had its point below the base of nothing on the second, lower cone.

See, you have these two cones and then you have this great big cone they were both sitting in. And that great big cone would represent the dwindling spiral of fun. That's all.

One is perfectly satisfied and considers that it's a lot of fun, at the top of cone one, just to look at a motorcycle going down the road; that's fun. Then he passes through the gradients where it's just less and less fun. And the least fun it is at all is to be an inanimate object going down the road on a motorcycle, where you have - the motorcycle is concerned - inanimate object, dead body on a motorcycle; that's the least fun.

Dead body in an automobile: that's people going to work. That could be the motto of this civilization today: dead body in an automobile. It's rather sad but you walk up to one of these jaspers (somebody was here today from Texas), you walk up to one of these jaspers and you say - you say, "Hey, what do you do in the morning?"

Fellow says, "Go to work."

"Oh, you go to work? Well, how do you go to work?"

"Drive down."

"Okay." You say, "Is it any fun driving down?"

"Fun!" The guy would be stunned just at this whole idea if he might possibly be able to bail himself out sometime to the point where he could have some fun.

This fellow can still have fun; he can go fishing and have fun; he can actually go for a drive in the country once in a while and have fun. But the fellow says, "Fun? What do you mean?"

"Well, do you have any sport driving down the road?" You've got to put more significance into it, see? "Is it sport getting into your car in the morning and going on down and parking it and so forth? And driving out here on the speedway and so forth? Is that fun?"

"How-how do you mean?"

"Well, is there some small feeling of pleasure in moving down the road on a motorcycle?"

"Oh, I don't know."

"Well, do you ever remember any pleasure you had in taking one down?"

He'll think for a long time. "Had - had a new - no, no, not on the road to work. I had a new Ford once and took it out and - and it was quite a bit of fun; went fishing with it. So we had a very good fishing trip!"

See, he just lost the grasp on the thing. If you were to grab him - you get his - his fun would diminish to the point where the thing had significance because fun is essentially a gradient scale, as it goes upwards, of no significance; the glorious irresponsibility. Of course, low on the scale, a person has to be practically an insane idiot to get any kind of irresponsibility in which there's fun. You think some psychotics are having fun; they're - it's what they call fun, that's the most they can reach.

Well, you get way down the scale, way down to the bottom of the scale there and we find the fellow driving to work in the morning. If we were to stop the car and pull him - pull ahold of his arm and say, "Are you driving a car to work?" he wouldn't look at the car; he wouldn't look at the road; he might have to think for a moment before he answered you because you've just interrupted the fact that he'd had a fight that morning at breakfast or something or other had happened. He's still at the breakfast table and he's in that car and he's driving - total automatic response. The car certainly is taking him to work.

So we match up together in this wise as we gaze upon behavior - we gaze upon behavior and discover that when things have the most significance, they are the least fun; when things have the greatest amount of significance, there you'll find the mostest particle; and the idea is to get there with the leastest - unlike war, where you have to get there "firstest with the mostest."

Now, if you arrive with the leastest number of particles, you will certainly arrive firstest and you'll probably have had some fun on the road. But if you have to be moved there by a large number of particles, you're going to be in trouble.

What's happening with a Step V? He's got to be carried through to Clear by the body or by the auditor or by the processing. It's by the "something else;" you see? He isn't driving; he's riding. See, but he's driving, but he's not driving. And there we have the gradient scale of exteriorization.

In order to have anything arrive, he has to be taken there because his point of consideration is simply "the motorcycle is taking me down the road." Only he wouldn't probably be too much inclined to even think about that. "Motorcycle is taking me down the road; the automobile is taking me someplace." He's so accustomed to this as an idea that there has to be a reason to go anyplace. When he doesn't have a reason to go, he stays.

But all arrivals are connected with having been taken there. You start to process him and what do we find? He expects you, as an auditor, to take him there. Processing to this degree becomes vehicular to him. Of course, he isn't going to be taken there.

It's only processes, then, which cause him to change his consideration on a gradient scale which win with him easily and they win very easily - processes which change his consideration.

Does he move a mock-up, or does the mock-up move him?

He might have had a mechanism one time or another that made his mock-ups; if this is no longer working, he doesn't get mock-ups. So you just have a broken mechanism putting up mock-ups for him that doesn't put up mock-ups anymore, for a while, and you'll get surprising results with a V - a broken mechanism which puts up mock-ups which doesn't put up mock-ups anymore. "Now, let's get that putting up mock-ups." And he'll start activating the mechanism enough to look at it.

Or you just simply cut the Gordian knot and don't get so significant about the whole thing, just have him put up mock-ups, that's all; just straight - straight stuff. Have him put up mock-ups. Or have him give himself some space.

Because if you were to draw these two cones, they wouldn't be equal-sized cones. When it comes to thinking, you've got tremendous significance, you've got enormous effort, you've got all sorts of things parked around all over the place; but you don't have this other: who is taking who where?

What is the consideration for art? The basic consideration is simply whether one considers. Now people - there are artistic things around which people know that people are supposed to consider so that they can enjoy.

The movies, for instance, are considered to be enjoyable. People go there because they consider this enjoyable. And very possibly it is. It's fulfilling their inability to have any action, to have dead bodies and things. But again, it's a consideration.

In order for a movie to get any consideration today, it just isn't just plain beautiful.

There was a color organ came in up at the University of Washington. Did you ever see one? They throw up the most fabulous patterns on a screen - brilliant, clear color. And the university science department went over to see how it worked. The recital was otherwise unattended. Nobody went to see the color patterns. They were merely pretty; there was no significance to them. See?

And a movie today has to have significance. If it's very, very, very significant, if it's a social triumph or something, why, you've really got something there. Everybody goes to see it because it's so significant of the age or time.

We hear of old movies being quoted as being good because they are so significant. We have stories being submitted to magazines and magazine editors writing long letters about how significant they are. Significant of what? The hidden standard; the hidden standard that there is something to be significant about.

And one - as long as one believes there's something to be significant about, he keeps looking for significance. But he's sort of driven away from doing anything else because he's always trying to find something in the middle of nothing. So of course, he winds up finally and says there's significance there.

In other words, "something" is a sign; s-i-g-n. Significance: a sign or symbol of something else. And here you have logic. Logic is the art of making a symbol of a symbol of a symbol of a symbol, so that all these symbols, when combined, can make a symbol. And one considers this is good exercise. I'm sure it is. I'm sure it is. Never happened to try it myself. I have to try it sometime; must - might be very interesting.

A symbol is about all a fellow can look at when he's really down on the second cone. A little higher on that, why, he'll occasionally glance around.

Do you take the motorcycle down the road or does the motorcycle take you down the road? Well, completely aside from difference of case, it's actually simply a difference of consideration. Above all it's a difference of consideration.

It's the difference of "Are you somebody who manipulates particles or are particles something that manipulate you?" It's a different consideration.

A person could suddenly make up his mind that he's moving everything. If you want this idea of being, just decide you're self-determined, just try this one. Just right now try this one: „Anything that's moving around here, I'm moving it.“

Try it again. "Anything that's moving around here, I'm moving it."

"Anything I hear around here, I'm making that noise."

Male voice: Hell of a lot of junk.

What happened?

Male voice: It just keeps getting bigger because there's always some more out there that's moving.

That's right. That's right; there's always some more moving.

You stop and consider for a moment that within a few hundred feet of you, there are people driving cars. If you're indoctrinated into the idea that it takes a great deal of experience and care and skill to drive the car and you suddenly find that there's a car in your immediate area of control or look, you get the idea that if you really were driving the car or motivating the fellow who was driving the car, and if the car ran into anything, why, that would be very bad indeed. Well, you'd get the full flashback of its impact and the pain connected with it, you see, just by experience. You've got perfectly good pictures of this happening way back on the track.

"I mustn't think about something happening because it will happen" is one that all mystics get. See, they won't put a postulate out into something.

One of the ways to - one of the ways to chip away at mysticism is, so on, get them to put a postulate out into MEST. "Oh, no. No, no, no!" They might cause it and - B would be very bad indeed; they can't be at A.

So if you think of all the activity going on if you were - had complete sensory perception on everything within a radius of ten miles of here, you would include the city of Philadelphia. You would also include its water system. See, you just don't want that in your area of perception. Why? Because you consider it's bad or you don't consider it's bad. There are people out there you consider bad or evil. As long as you consider them bad or evil, you don't want them in your sphere of influence. There's just the buildup of choosing randomity.

Here's also the preclear. Something starts to happen with this preclear and all of a sudden the preclear stops it from happening. They recognize that if they extend their sphere of influence any further that they've extended it into an inability. They've got the idea that anything that comes into their sphere of control has to be controlled. That's all that's wrong with them. They have compulsive control.

There's no reason why you shouldn't have a driver of a car in your sphere of influence who is driving a car madly and wrecking it and everything else. No reason why you shouldn't have the Philadelphia police force; anything bum. They're running the police force. Just because it's in your sphere of influence is no reason you have to start running the police force.

This is the idea of your attraction of attention - fixation of attention. That's because people believe that if something is in their sphere of influence, it can only be in their sphere of influence if their complete attention was on it. If their complete attention was on it, why, therefore it's in their sphere of influence and therefore they can't have that much attention because if their attention isn't on something, then they don't control it; if attention is on something, then they have to control it.

Why would they have to control it? It'd be just because it'll collapse a few terminals and bring them some pain. Well, that means they can't tolerate pain.

One of your first entrance points on any case is just get them over the idea that they're subject to the violence of the universe around them. They are - they think they're entirely, completely subject to it. Here's your other gradient scale that goes along with this.

Well, as we look this over, we find out that there are several relatively artificial methods of indoctrinating people into the idea that they're doing it. One of them would be to simply take a handball and throw it up against the wall, catch it again. There you've got communications lines going and so on. Just make them do this for a little while and they feel happier.

But you'd have to tell them it was for exercise. They'd do it for the exercise. And then they get the idea that "Well, if they did this, then they'd do that for the exercise, then they would do that for some other exercise and they'd do that for some other exercise; and that exercise, then, would restimulate their glandular system and that would make them sweat. Sweat would be very good. And that would put them into a better frame of - that would put them into physical condition which of course would put them into a better frame of mind."

You know, they're adding up the symbol, like the symbol, like the symbol, like the symbol. The whole truth of the matter is, simply throwing a handball up against the wall would be an action where one is demonstrating that he has control of a particle rather than the particle controls him.

You could go through and have the fellow running away from a handball; having a handball rolling him up against the floor - have the handball throwing him up against the wall. Actually, that is his frame of mind; he thinks that if he played handball, it would be a process of a handball throwing him up against the wall.

If you ask somebody who doesn't ever take any exercise suddenly, "What would happen if you rode a motorcycle around a racetrack?" his immediate reaction would be "It would throw me." See? I mean, it just wouldn't occur to him that he would be taking a motorcycle around a racetrack.

The idea of learning how to ride one in a very short space of time and then taking it around a racetrack or training his body up so that he could do it - this idea would never occur to him. "Let's see, train the body up so that it would ride around a racetrack on a motorcycle; that would be very, very cute to watch. Yeah. Oh, I think I'll do that. By - probably a very interesting control pattern has to be worked out there in order to do that. I mean.. Interesting!" Sure it would be, very intriguing.

But his thought pattern doesn't go like that. You're operating into too big a jump on significance. You ask somebody to think his way out of something, and boy, you have a picnic on your hands; because his thought pattern has a tendency to be in its own plane of significance, which is to say, the symbols are just as big as the symbols which are just as big as the next set of symbols which have to be just as big as the next set of symbols. The only way you can get him out of that is to hit him by gradient scales which is why gradient scales boost people around. It gets them out of their symbol plane.

Now, you'd have to know this about a symbol: A symbol is a similarity, which is probably its derivation - similarity. And one fact, when it is the exact next fact, is identical to that exact next fact; but the two are indistinguishable, so therefore they're the same fact.

Now, in order to get a symbol of this first fact, you have to slightly alter the second fact. Now, to get another symbol and get a chain of logic going, all you do is slightly alter it again, and slightly alter, and slightly alter And each time it's a slight alteration until at length, although the alterations were so slight as to be almost undetectable, we have arrived to a point where the last symbol which you've got on this chain is so violently different than the first symbol on the chain - which is the first fact on the chain - that you couldn't interchange them unless you went back on the same gradient scale.

One picture is another picture unless the second picture has on it a tiny dot or something that the first picture doesn't have on it, you see? That's the way they figure. That it occupied two different spaces, that sort of thing, would be entirely foreign to them.

So let's look at logical facts for what they are. You've said, if you write arithmetic, 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 - if you just wrote it down, 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 4. Now, that's a perfectly correct equation. Well, why don't you - why do you write it that way? Why don't you just write 4 equals 4?

Well, it's - you see, it so happens that 1 is an identical thing with 1 if we're not saying one what. So the symbol can therefore stand as an independent liar; it represents nothing. And all the way down the track it's representing nothing. And symbols across the boards never represent anything but nothing.

Now, ask somebody sometime to listen to the silence in a piece of music. Ask somebody sometime, when people are talking, to listen to the silence in their voices. Ask people to look at somebody and notice all the nothingness - not look at the person, but notice all that space around them and start looking at the space and looking at the space.

Just by doing that, you'll unfix people's attention on the somethingness. Their attention is so fixed on somethingness and the somethingness is so much symbolically nothingness that they will wind up in the soup every time because they're just kidding themselves. Why keep on kidding themselves?

Look at the space around the telephone up here. Just do that exercise for a moment. Let's take something - let's look at the space around that lampshade.

Now once more look at the space around the lampshade.

Now please look at the space around the lampshade.

The space around the lampshade.

The space around it!

Now let's look at the space well out from it, on both sides at the same time.

Look at the space two feet out from the lampshade on the left, two feet out from the lampshade on the right. Look at the - all that space out there.

Now let's notice that again: two feet out on the right and two feet out on the left; let's look at the space around it.

Now let's look at the space above it. Just the empty space above that lamp shade.

Okay. Now look at the empty space in the front wall.

Look at all that empty space in the front wall. Isn't that gorgeous, that beautiful empty space in that wall?

You know what I bet is happening when I ask you to look at - some of you - ask you to look at the beautiful space in that front wall? I bet you keep seeing a wall. And I'll bet you for an instant you don't see a wall and then there is one. And I'll bet Rome of you, when you looked at the beautiful empty space around this lampshade up here, had your attention immediately center on the lampshade, just spong! - if just for an instant; you looked at the empty space and spong! You were looking at the lampshade.

Now let's look at this wall again; let's look at the empty space in that wall.

Come on, let's look at the empty space in the wall. The empty space.

Look at the nothingness in that wall.

And again, let's look at a nothingness of wall.

Now let's look how real it is.

Let's look at the somethingness of the wall. Look how something it is. Look how wonderfully something it is.

Look how something that wall is. Look at the actuality, the heaviness, thickness of it; just look at that!

You tell somebody to hold up the two back anchor points of the room, what do you tell them to do?

You can close your eyes right now - close your eyes right now and just get the idea: The MEST universe is actual!

MEST universe is real.

And the MEST universe is visible.

Did any of you, by some accident, get the idea that it suddenly vanished for an instant? Well, it sure does if you...

Male voice: I'll say it did.

Yeah, if you don't - if you aren't real careful... By the way, there's a process connected with what you just had there - is you do this exercise, not because the exercise does anybody any good, as far as just getting the concept is concerned, but to find out what remains in the room. That object and its whole class of objects for the preclear has too little space in it, so we make space out of it; you know, mock it up eight times for a space. The next thing you know, why, we haven't got it either.

Preclear is liable to get real scared doing this process because he's afraid with this and some other processes, all of a sudden he's - some of his most gorgeous automaticities he has will suddenly blow up and he'll have to do it all himself and he's been told this is bad.

What's the consideration? Well, you consider that there's something there. And if you start considering on a conviction that there's something there, you wind up with total significance and nothing. Because by the time you've hit into the second cone very far, everything starts to disappear anyway. You're no longer good enough to hold it into actuality. See, your ability declines and then it declines negatively. It declines to nothing and then goes into delusion.

Do you see what a delusive case is? Do you know that there are people walking around, as a routine and ordinary thing - they see things where nothing is and they think that it must be there but they can't kind of complete it or run into it.

Here's your case that's fallen all the way through on mocking up the MEST universe, time after time after time.

Might as well give you this process rather than sneak up on somebody and work on it; there's a lot of little processes like this. Anytime you want to undo an automaticity, all you have to do is force the preclear to do it or persuade him to do it. Whatever he's doing automatically, if you will make him do, himself, for a little while, he will lose the automaticity.

But where you get to a delusive case, the automaticity has been bypassed and it has gone so far that you've got an automaticity of delusion. See, it's making up now what ain't. He is on a negative agreement with people. That's why the wall disappears when you say is real. It looks at first glance like it's the reverse vector. It's not the reverse vector. That's only an energy explanation. The fact of the matter is, you've just stated the truth to yourself. The second you state the truth to yourself, it comes true for an instant and then the automaticity machine cuts in and it ain't true.

Now, a fellow can actually unmock his body with this process. You talk about bailing people out of their bodies as though it's a tough one sometimes. Its not tough. What's tough is having a body, seeing a body, feeling a body and staying in one. I mentioned this before.

But we could go through the process of reviving motion the way we were doing on communication lines this morning. You know, you - the particle going down the line is going at the rate of 1/c, whatever that figure is; it's a beautiful piece of mathematics; its just gorgeous mathematically. It's utterly incomprehensible what 1/c would be; it just won't solve. And in the hands of the mathematician, never will, until we add the consideration for speed; because we've gone to the ultimate as far as the consideration for speed is concerned in terms of mathematics. Mathematics today is stopped at 186,000 miles per second, roughly. It stops right there. It doesn't go any faster than that. Man does and viewpoints do but mathematics doesn't. Mathematics is essentially something that we have mocked up for this universe.

All right. We have the preclear moving himself between two positions, only we make him do it. We have himself walking; we could get him - mock him up, and he walks from one position to another position. See, he walks between these two positions in the mock-up.

Now, he gets that all right; he arrives at position B - just starts in at A, walks across to position B, and there he is - pam! Nothing to that - very simple. You say, "All right, now, we will mock you up at A. Okay? Now, we will unmock you at A and mock you up at point A prime, which is one-eighth of an inch toward B. Now we will unmock you at A prime and have you mock yourself up at A prime prime taking the next step." Like an animated cartoon - we'll just take the whole thing to pieces on the terms of an animated cartoon.

Stopped motion when flittered across the screen, when riffled in a book - like these little cart-moving cartoon books - these stop-motion pictures, when combined together and riffled fast enough, make motion pictures. You think this is a symbol of motion? It isn't; it is motion.

So we make him mock himself up walking from position A to position B - mock himself up and unmock for each new change in space which he's going to have his mock-up take. He's taking a long time to do it; it's very exhausting. And when he gets about three quarters of the way or even less than that, he suddenly realizes what you're up to. You're going to unmock the whole damned universe on him if you are allowed to proceed. He very often has that reaction.

An auditor just progresses on, makes the guy do it some more; gets into some very interesting situations. Well, now, what happens to the - you see how that is. I'll make that more graphic. We'll pick up this microphone here. See this microphone? We'll hold on to two corners of this microphone and we will move this microphone now, from where it is now to this position B which is about nine-and-a-half; ten inches from it; that's position B; over here is position A and here's position B. All night. Now we're going to move the microphone to position B. There it is; a very simple operation, isn't it?

The hand reaches down and moves the microphone from position A to position B. Or does it? Now, this is not even a brain cracker. Once you start this operation in processing, you find out immediately that you're into hot water.

Because the truth of the matter is, this is the way it's happening: Here we are, position A. Now we unmock it at position A and mock it in position B, see? Now it's mocked up. Now, we unmock it there and we mock it there, see? Unmock it and mock it. They're separate pictures but it doesn't persist across - mock-mock-mock-mock-mock-mock- mock-mock-mock-mock-mock-mock, see. Mock, unmock; mock, unmock; mock, unmock; mock, unmock mock, unmock.

How far apart are each one of these things? The distance is 1/c, which is the speed of light which is the motion of particles, and that's how fast you mock or unmock things. But you do all that automatically, see? So we got mock-unmock, mock-unmock, mock-unmock, mock-unmock, and we're at B.

Now, a thetan, the only way he can get between two places really, is just to say, "We're at A; we're at B! Ha! Ping!" There's no motion in between. A thetan does that; there's nothing to that. That's Change of Space Processing.

All right. But no matter how heavy the object, no matter how burdened the thetan is with care, he's still able to do this! He gets the impact, he mocks up everything and he does it in complete agreement with everybody else because, boy, is he on an agreement pattern!

Now, you are going to run a couple of concepts on this boy and have him out of agreement with the MEST universe? No, you're not! You sure aren't because he might lose this ability to be able to pick up this piece of MEST and put it over here at B by moving it through all of the interspaces. See how easy I do that, from A to B just pang! Anybody does it; perfectly easy to do. The thing is, therefore, actually made of real particles. This is what you call an unwarranted conclusion. There is no slightest excuse to make these two conclusions come together.

I have a hand to reach over here, grab it - it's at A and then you see me move it to B, and now, all I have done mentally or physically is to move it from A to B. Bull! There's this terrific automaticity going on.

Now, you start chipping away on a preclear's automaticity and he'll let you go quite a distance before he all of a sudden starts to look around for the shotgun.

Truth of the matter is, you read about this in storybooks, you read about jinns or janns, as they're referred to in The Arabian Nights, suddenly putting a whole palace down. There it is - boom - beautiful big palace complete with servants and so forth. In the later Arabian Nights, they get horses and goats and turn them into servants, but in the earlier ones they just appear.

Now, we have - we have this proposition here where we take the person to A and we move him through to B. We have the actuality, in theory only, of a person being able to unmock it at A and mock it up at B with no intervening steps! He just omits the rest of it. If he has the potentiality of doing it at the rate of 1/c, he then has the potentiality of running at some other speed.

And this is why we say it's so hard to get somebody to deconsider himself on the subject of speed; although speed is a matter of consideration. So we would have what we dream about in science fiction and so forth, called "teleportation": A to B - bam! That's all there is to the process. All there is to the process is Change of Space Processing.

If you want to clear a preclear, you just have him be in different spaces and the significance of the spaces will shake loose; it's because there aren't any particles there anymore, But he knows there are. Because the fellow who gets very bad at this after a while, starts getting sloppy and leaving residue and so he is making facsimiles of everything he sees. You catch?

Now, the dissertation I've just given you is theoretical but it is supported by processing evidence, Because the second that you start making this preclear mock and unmock, mock and unmock, mock and unmock, mock and unmock, you change the devil out of his own speed. His communication lag stops being in a complete agreement with the MEST universe and starts coining upwards.

People are on - when they get into trouble - they're on a negative speed line; they are slower than optimum and they are leaving mock-ups behind in everything they do Now, this in aircraft recognition and so forth becomes very apparent.

In aircraft recognition, they can receive at a seventy-fifth of a second an impression of a plane and recognize it although it's at a strange angle and a strange distance. They're not used to this picture of this plane, hut it only flashes on the screen for a seventy-fifth of a second and they can tell you what kind of a plane it is out of hordes of planes and hordes of pictures of each plane - seventy-fifth of a second. A normal recognition, sometimes, if somebody is real good, it's about a fiftieth, but ordinarily it's the speed of Brownie box camera.

How long does it take for that to flick across the lens? One knows the shutter has opened and closed. How long did it take for the lens to open? A twenty-fifth of a second - fifteenth to a twenty-fifth of a second.

And you'll find out that normally, if you flashed on a screen a spot of light for a twenty-fifth of a second, people would actually be able to see its dimension. But at any less - at any faster speed than that, they would just be aware of a flick or something; they would not have a picture, they'd just get a spray of particles which are so brief or so instantaneous.

For instance, I have a - I have a German flash gun, an electronic flash gun, which shoots at a seven-hundredth of a second. And it is so much faster than the normal eye reaction time that people see its afterimage. It's come back and flicked into a building and then kicked back and forth between the two window ledges or something of the sort several times and they will see the flash there because it's quite powerful, but they don't see the gun go. They know the gun has gone and they know they saw it go. But anybody with better eyesight and so forth, sees then what they saw go. Which is: the flash goes out, strikes several things, ricochets, comes back, hits something broad; by that time has spread and slowed and comes back in and flashes on the plastic lens which covers the electronic flashing device. And they think they've seen the gun flash; they haven't seen the gun flash at all.

The reason for this is, they say, "Well, I know - I - I know I had my eyes open when you took the picture because I saw the flash." And the picture will demonstrate that their eyes were closed. If you're making them blink just make this test. They're not looking at the actual flash.

In other words, there's a lag time there, and a very broad .. People get up to a seventy-fifth of a second, in other words, and they're getting lost; when they get up to a seven-hundredth of a second, they're in hellish shape. And my God, when they're getting up to something like C, well, they just had rather not look at that because they would see everything. And I suppose that is why the mathematician has instinctively called this C, C. He just has called it that, because it's called that in practically every society and every mathematics there is here in the MEST universe I have ever run into.

Okay. What's the process of automaticity and what is the goal of automaticity? It's to make it so automatic that you can sure see it. But of course, any automaticity deteriorates and as the automaticity deteriorates and as the skill of the automaticity is lost, why then theoretically, the person goes into a negative of control. And it's at that point that he jumps the bridge we were talking about first into thinking. He can't feel it anymore; he can't see it anymore the way he should, so he has got a deteriorating perception and this deteriorating perception becomes an anxiety to him, so he thinks about it Why? Because he's merely operating in the plane he's in.

He's trying to hold on to, my God, as little as he has. He's got to hold on to as little as he has left; he knows this. He can't make it any worse. The funny part of it is, it's generally - because of the behavior of facsimiles - it's going to get worse before it gets better; so you get a deteriorating cycle.

Change of Space remedies this condition very easily and is a recommended process.

Another process which is not a recommended process, necessarily, is a process which you can use, and there are many recommended processes which stem from it. It's just this process of have him mock up something at A and then something at B, and then have him mock up the necessary mockups in between; mock them and unmock them; mock them and unmock them. Make him perforce in his (quote) imagination (unquote) go through the entire gamut of steps exactly that he's going in so he can look, see, feel and hear the MEST universe. If you make him do this quite a bit he will - his speed will come up.

Now, he gets into contact with the habit pattern of the society he's operating in, he's in bad shape once more perhaps on his lag, but his lag isn't as bad as it was.

Now, look at this - the idea here of agreement. The body is running at a certain speed and when the thetan agrees with the body - and he's got to agree with it to run it at all, he thinks. Actually, all he has to do is make up a mock-up just like the body, shove it in the body, and then make the mock-up run the body. That's really what he's doing. That's the way he operates the body.

So let's take a look and we see that a person's communication speed could suddenly shoot up when he exteriorizes, get very rapid on his exteriorization, and then he comes back close to the body again and things slow down on him. This is quite - I've had this happen very often in processing. You see, things slow down. Why?

He's into a habit pattern of agreement. He's still running the body automatically. As long as he runs it completely automatically, he's going to run it at the same speed he ran it before. That's because he's not running it. He's punching buttons that are running it. As long as he punches buttons that are running it, this is bad. So after you did this process, if you were going to go in for this, you would just keep running it on the body and on mock-ups of the body until he knew what he was doing with the body, because he's mocking it up too and unmocking it every second.

Now, what has happened to one who has no mock-ups left at all? He is so far below speed that he knows he's losing out. You could actually process him this way - he's kind of - his body, a lot of his sensation is that he's not there. You could make him walk across a room. Mark one part of the room A and the other part of the room B (This again, theoretical process I've worked it.) And have him at A, not be there, and then have him be at A prime; there are a bunch of gradient steps you see: A prime, A prime prime, A prime prime prime. Every foot between A and B you have a little mark. Well, he steps ahead to A prime as nothing, you see, and then give him - get him to get the idea of creating himself there at A prime; and then have him be nothing and uncreate himself (give him ten minutes of nothing, you might say), at A prime - you just give him a moment of nothing, you see - and you have him, as nothing, then, move to A prime prime; and then mock himself all up at A prime prime until he's all there. And then have him unmock himself at A prime prime and go to the next step, still unmocked and then mock himself up at A prime prime prime; and mock himself up there and unmock himself there just as a body. I'm not talking about a mock up I'm just - what he's contacting at those places - just as weird as that I mean you have him - just get him contacting nothing at this place and so forth.

This is getting awful low on the looking scale, if I must say so. But lie will discover he's in an unmocked instant. Something hit him one time between mock-ups; it's about what happened to him. He never mocked himself up again. He never mocked up his visio; he hasn't mocked up any of these things.

Every once in a while a person has relied on some piece of machinery to do this for him. Oh, it was elaborate - had gears and wheels and cogs and shot out beams of light and used up - it had attention-conservation spark plugs and it had attention-conservation this and that; and it had a conservation antenna and conservation light panels; saved energy in all directions and did it all, did it all, did it all. It even probably picked up attention which he was supposed to be putting on something else, and it really - a saving device, it was.

And he forgot it was there and it was doing the mock-up for him. And he's forgotten it's there. And not only that, he's - besides forgetting it's there, it, in the meantime, has had its antenna and panel and right rear wheel broken. And there's no repair crew.

This guy is walking around dazedly saying, "I wonder why I don't get a mock-up." That's great; he's getting the significance of why he doesn't get a mock-up. That's what he wants. There isn't any significance about it at all except he's to a point of reliance where he knows something else has to give him the mock-up. And his reliance is that it will or he won't have a mock-up and it's broken.

So he's got a dim recollection of this and he knows something has got to be repaired. So he asks you as the auditor to run some sort of a process which will repair this. Well, you're not going to repair this because it's a piece of machinery; he put it together when he was in good shape and now he won't even look at it.

So you can run mock and unmock processes on him, or just run straight mock-ups. Now, if you just run enough Self Analysis you take over again the process of mocking up as a nonautomatic function, as a self-determined function. See, that's why Self Analysis works the way it does. And their mock-ups get a little bit better, tiny little bit better and tiny little bit better.

Well, in view of the fact that they're doing solid mock-ups as long as they're alive, every 1/c of time, this tiny gradient of time, see - pam-pam-pam-pam-pam! You can't - there's nothing goes as fast except the speed of light; that is, unmocking and mocking at that speed! Fabulous. Brand-new space, brand-new space, brand-new space - much faster than anybody could ever mention it. Think how fast a thetan really is if he can do that automatically. Maybe he doesn't dare know how good he is.

Maybe, like Superman, he has to be stupid in order to have any randomity at all.

Male voice: Rube Goldberg.

Rube Goldberg - very strictly.

I was looking at Superman the other night. It's a very curious society; they obviously have had this god until recent times and so forth and they're still retailing his legend over TV screens and so forth.

I mean, that country was overridden by crime at the time of this god, and so forth, and the people used to worship him. And there were the other people who worshiped criminals. And nobody would look at this god, and it's a legend of his declining days, is what they're running because nobody would know about him or look about him, but everybody would know and look about the crime. So it's actually a very interesting cycle of a religious cult which must have existed until recent times, because I noticed the pictures. They had automobiles and various things in the pictures - no modern gadgets, just automobiles and so forth. Very curious.

And Superman had to be enormously automatic and stupid in order to get any randomity toward the end at all, which I suppose is why he ceased to be a god. I notice he's not worshiped anyplace today except on TV. Got a temple at someplace called Rice Krispy. I think it's the sole remaining temple.

Well, we have Change of Space as a remedy because Change of Space just drops out, grandly, mock-ups. Mock-ups? To hell with them! We're going to be in A and be in B, and be in A and be in B, and be in A and be in B; that's all! We're going to be there; that's all we're doing with Change of Space. No matter how poorly or indifferently or stupidly or anything else, we're going to be there.

Oh, also Superman took to motion. He stopped being in these places simultaneously so he'd already entered into automaticities; because I noticed he carried his body while he was flying across some of the larger towns in the civilization. It was very curious seeing a god carrying his body along like that - very odd. They don't do it in some of the more advanced societies. Anyway... We...

Male voice: With a cape.

We've got a beautiful panorama of any case when we say "too little, too slow, because he's got to have too much" - "too little, too slow, because he's got to have too much." That describes the way he works in processing and so on. The remedy: Change of Space. I don't care whether he's in his body or not. Hell, he's not in a body, anyhow. He's mocking up a body and unmocking it right where he stands all the time; doing it with the greatest of ease. He doesn't even know he's doing it, either.

You ask somebody to do this - he's got it really automatic. You ask somebody to do this; it's got reasons for all the portions of the mock-up and then he goes to college and studies anatomy. I mean, this actually - this jest probably won't come through to you till you run this process a few times. It's just weird! He studies anatomy!

I mean, you ask any pre clear to be three feet back of his head and if he's got any good visio at all - if he's got any visio at all he can always see inside the body. He looks inside the body and he says, "Yes, there's this and there's that?“

And you say, Well, look at the gland that's down there toward the center of the body?' He does.

And you say, "Now look at the pancreas."

And he says, "Oh, those - these the pancreas?" and so forth. Well, he just goes through the whole routine.

And say, "Adjust any energy that needs to be adjusted anyplace in that glandular area," and he does.

Strange part of it is, it never seems to strike him as peculiar that all the other exercises he does, nothing is as instantaneous as suddenly shifting a small piece of energy on the pancreas; never ever strikes him as peculiar. He goes into the pineal area, the pituitary; he adjusts this, he adjusts that; he fixes up this little spot and that little spot and he shifts around and straightens out this pinched nerve. It's a very silly process. It's a highly workable process.

You're asking him to alter objectively what he's mocking up all the time. You're asking him to alter it.

Now what is objectivity? Objectivity is simply willingness to look and mock up something else besides you. And if you're willing to mock up something else besides you, then you can see something else. And as you go out - more and more complete, more and more complete. The more a person is willing to duplicate, the more he can look at, and that's what objectivity is.

Okay. Now we want to talk for a moment about Step III commands and Change Processing.

[Please note: At this point there was a break in the original master recording. This tape now resumes, as did the original master recording.]

Now, just continuing very briefly the October 30th lecture, this list is to be run by Change Processing, it says, and this is a list which was compiled out of the What to Audit so that you would have a ready reference of things to run.

Now, the object of this list is to run Change Processing on people who are exteriorized and you're shifting them back and forth and you're shifting them back and forth between these geographical areas in the MEST universe. Because each one of these, he's creating a great deal of significance. He's creating significance around each one of these continually as part of a pattern which he re-creates.

So you just shift him back and forth into these geographical areas: One, the first geographical location of the thetan in the MEST universe as soon as he came from the home universe. Well, this is for the ME5T universe; you can experiment for the home universe, too, if you want to.

But you just shift him - you'd say, "Be in the area where you entered the universe; be here. Area where you first entered the universe; be here." Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth - not what does he see there or anything of the sort. He'll have a sensation of being someplace and there's something happening. And then it gets gluier and worse. And then some chunks fall away and then pieces of track drop out and he has a bad time of it for a short time. And then all of a sudden he begins to see that there's not quite that much significance in the area anymore, and then it falls away and he, theoretically, is in just an area of space - somewhere, we don't care. See?

Then we go to the next one and we're clearing each one in turn this way. Actually, he normally just finds himself in an area of space. Sometimes he finds himself on a planet. And we just take these, and these are places to which he has attached a great deal of significance.

These aren't all the places to which he had, but this is enough to chop up his track as with an ax. All this does is get him over the automaticity of duplicating what has happened to him so he can now have it for experience.

Male voice: Oh!

That's all. What's the matter?

Male voice: I just had a horrible thought.

What?

Male voice: If we'te keeping on mocking up these bodies and all, all the time, we must be doing the same things - all of the facsimiles we've got out below these many light-years.

Very probably. It's quite a trick.

Male voice: Now he tells me!

Now, in view of the fact that everyone is into perfect agreement with everybody else, one, theoretically, would fly out of agreement violently with the universe. He doesn't.

You see, the thetan is actually very able. You are very able. You are much more able than you'd ever dream you are. And you can do the damnedest things. You can even create aberrations; mock them up and mock them up and mock them up, and then not mock them up. See? Not mock them up because you are mocking them up because you aren't mocking them up because you're now mocking up something else that you aren't mocking up because some other fac machine has gone into operation.

I just swear there are people around in sanitariums who are mocking up for their immediate vicinity on an automaticity machine which they built way to hell and gone back someplace, and it's the only one they've got left running; it's at least mocking up something. That's better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing, to a thetan.

You just use this list and you just use it in that fashion. That should be run on every individual after he is pretty stable and he's exteriorized; be run on every one of them.

The other paper which you have here is the Step III auditing commands. And it just gives you the eight - pardon me, the first six have to do with what we call subjective and the last five have to do with objective and they're the corners of the room.

Yes. Seven to eleven is the five that make the bracket for the room itself and the first six are the subjective commands.

Male voice: Ron, didn't you mention for the first couple of times through, that five and six were to be left out?

Yes, you could, but it doesn't matter if you run all those - all of them.

Now, when you're putting them up for objects, you could put them up for all eleven. Put up objects for all eleven, like cell grates and so forth. You can actually hang on to the eight - from the center of the room hang on to the eight cell grates that are in the corners of the room.

But this is - a lot of variations on this, but that isn't really the way you do it; you just hang on to the corners of the room.

Of course, you're making him say how actual it is every time you ask him to hang on to the corners of the room, which is the tremendous effectiveness of treating the MEST universe very directly - just smash! He'll hang on to the corners of the room and hang on to the corners of the room and first thing he's doing is hanging on to facsimiles of, and the next thing you know, he's doing something else and he gradually bails the significance out of the corners of the room.

Well, as he's bailing them out of the corners of the room, he's bailing them out of all over the universe too, to some degree.

There's one thing I didn't mention in this lecture I should have mentioned, if you haven't gathered it. As we tie together all of this stuff of moving this microphone from A to B here, most people are in the trap of being the effect of their own cause. And that's the second law of magic, is don't ever be hoist by your own petard. Don't blow yourself up, in other words, with your own mind.

This process here is just - the fellow has set up an automatic machine so that he can be surprised by it. When it's the same thing - the same breed of cat. But now on consideration, we get his consideration shifting, and we find out that we have often talked mostly because it was good communication - about people agreeing with the MEST universe.

Now, let's look at that carefully and we see that they're agreeing with their own automaticity which, of course, doubles back automaticity on itself most cruelly and horribly. See, I mean, a guy can't set up something and then agree that he didn't set it up and then agree that it isn't there, and then be the effect of it and agree with it completely, because he's just agreed with the fact that he's a liar.

Now, you wonder why we follow the pattern of in our behavior, the MEST universe and use a language which is precisely derived from and describes the MEST universe utterly. It should be very obvious to you why we're doing this. But people consider that they are being victimized by the MEST universe. See? They're being victimized by the MEST universe.

Well, they're being victimized, then, by their own consideration - just short-circuit the whole automaticity problem - being short-circuited by their own stuff. And it's a remarkable thing. The reason they agree with it, and the reason they have languages with it, is because it is a common meeting ground. It isn't that every single consideration they have is derived solely from the MEST universe.

What we have learned from the MEST universe is the theme song of following out the automaticity which a fellow first self-determinedly set up and then has kept going for some time. He's become the effect, then, of his own cause. So you see consideration is not limited by, in any way, shape or form, the MEST universe. One is not copying the MEST universe! He is copying what he does that makes the MEST universe! Should be very plain to you. He's copying what he does to make the MEST universe and then saying somebody else did it and then wonders why he can't control it.

Now, let's see, then, that considerations are not derived from, and the only pattern in existence is, the MEST universe; so we say other universes. There are other tracks of agreement rather than this track of agreement and so we run into these other tracks of agreement.

Well, more or less the same thing has happened on entirely different principles. And of course that makes another universe. Very easy to see how this could be.

Now, people come along and they say dully, "Well, are these two universes coexistent? I mean, you can't have two universes, one universe inside the other. And look, all the space there is, is occupied by the MEST universe. I can see that obviously, so where could some other universe be? Oh, it'd be on the other side of Polaris!"

Here we have geographical location all mixed up. Don't go worry about that, The other universe could be right here where we're sitting and it would be the same universe, but it doesn't have to be at all.

Now, consideration is not limited by, and the ability of a thetan is not limited by, the chain of agreement which he is operating with at this time. His ability to make other chains of agreement is much greater than the ability he is already using to re-create continually this universe. His ability is fantastic.

So he is never taking a motorcycle, never, on the grounds that the motorcycle is taking him. That's just his consideration: the motorcycle is taking him. If he's alive at all and riding the motorcycle, there is still some fairly decent part of him that is saying, in so many ways, he's taking the motorcycle down the road.

But where we look at both sides of that cone I was talking about there, it becomes very upsetting to him when he starts to think about "Am I taking it down the road or, is it taking me down the road?"

Well, that's just the difference of viewpoint; and it's not a difference of viewpoint at all. Under no circumstances, at any time, is he ever doing anything otherwise than taking the motorcycle down the road. It's - you can say what you want about aberration, but the most spinny psycho they've got in the worst sanitarium on Earth today still has left residually more ability than any scientist is visibly using with mathematics.

Okay, that's all.

[End of tape.]

1st ACC (30 October 1953) HOW TO RUN CHANGE PROCESSING PAGE 21/ NUMPAGES 21

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1953]]